[Your Nightmare]

As for the 23% number, this is confirmed by multiple respected economists with independent studies. From the same paper I linked to you:

For example, Dale Jorgenson (Harvard) has found that the FairTax plan is revenue neutral at 22.9 percent.

Dr. Jorgenson has since realized the 23% rate is a fairy tale.

Efficient Taxation Of Income by Dale W. Jorgensen and Kun-Young Yun, November 15, 2002

Since taxes distort resource allocation, a critical requirement for a fair comparison among alternative tax reform proposals is that all proposals must raise the same amount of revenue. It is well known that the ST and AFT [Americans for Fair Taxation] sales tax proposals fail to achieve revenue neutrality and tax rates must be increased substantially above the levels proposed by the authors of the plans.

[kevkrom]

r. Jorgenson has since realized the 23% rate is a fairy tale.

Even if this is correct (whcih I highly doubt, given your tendencies to mis-represent and quote out of context), my score still runs 5 independent economists/think-tanks at 23% (+/- 1%) and two that disagree.

[kevkrom]

It is well known that the ST and AFT [Americans for Fair Taxation] sales tax proposals fail to achieve revenue neutrality and tax rates must be increased substantially above the levels proposed by the authors of the plans.

After reading the paper, I have to say I'm unimpressed. The statement above is thrown out there with no reference or support. The descriptions of an NRST, when used, in the paper (which is primarily analysing a flat tax or hybrid flat tax/sales tax) do not conform to the FairTax plan. Even with all of that, however, this startling comment shows up in a previous paragraph:

However, the NRST is clearly superior to the Flat Tax as an approach to tax reform when both retain an element of progressivity.