Current prices are expected to fall by approximately the level of the NRST (20-25%) on implementation. In terms of current consumption dollars, the NRST is inclusive. The calculation retains the constant dollar level of consumption.Well that's irrelevant, isn't it? You got the 14.91% from legislation thinking you could just subtract the FICA withholdings, but now you know you can't. The 14.91% does not retain the constant dollar level of consumption. That's just not true.
You are just full of aimless assertions aren't you.It's not aimless, you know the 14.91% is wrong. You can't show me that it is right. You got caught in the confusion of the tax inclusive sales tax mess and you can't admit it.
The 14.91% does not retain the constant dollar level of consumption. That's just not true.
Sure it does, because that is how I chose to treat it. The 14.91% rate for general revenues is set by the HR25 legislation and can only be changed by subsequent legislation expressly modifying that rate.
The 14.91% or even less is justifiable by simply recognizing the economy expands as well the consumption base with the removal of the drain of Social Security Act from federal programs.
In fact if we allow the base tax law of HR25 to be modified to remove the FCA demogrant as lewislynn suggests, which could probably be sold to the electorate at a 15% or less level, the rate would be significantly lower.
But then that is not the issue in anycase, as removal of excess spending allows us to target much lower level even below the 7% range that a return to strick limitations of government to article 8 boundries provide.
The point being that for spending to be reduced, the elecorate as a whole must perceive a proportionate participation in paying the burden. Once that begins to occur the conditions for reductions in spending leading to lower burdens is the rule rather than the exception.