Actually, that is consumption as defined by a economist. Sorry if you can't see it.Could be, unfortunately when we see what is actually proposed in Congress as a Flat Tax exceeds the consumption tax base as defined by definitions used by Jorgenson or any other economist.Individuals pay a flat rate on their wage and pension income, and business are taxed on their profits minus their wage and pension expenses - this ensures that income is only taxed one time. Capital gains, dividends, and interest are only taxed once, and they are taxed at the business level.The crucial point is that all three methods for implementing a consumption tax could be based on the same definition of the tax base. This greatly simplifies the tax economist’s task, since the economic impact would be the same for all three approaches.
Those aren't part of the consumption base.
As they are charged against the purchaser of tax services as done within the the legislation they certainly are. LOL.
Sec 103(b)(2) CERTAIN WAGES OR SALARY- In the case of wages or salary paid by a taxable employer which are taxable services, the employer shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.
Remember
Consumption = Income - Investment.
That which constitutes payment for taxable services in no case is classed as Investment. Even by Jorgenson.
Remember, wage are taxed under the Flat Tax and paid by the receiver of them.
Under the NRST, and the VATs wages paid for activity that constitute a taxable service are taxed to the purchaser of those services.
Are you now telling us that VATs do not constitute consumption taxes? Wages paid by businesses, are not deductible from a VAT.