...what you figure the revenue-neutral number to be.
Why ask me? -- I don't have the slightest idea, or care.
I do, and others do. But I will accept you don't care how the FairTax rate would hit your pocket book.
For informational purposes, do you hold the same opinion about current income and payroll tax rates?
However, if you tell me its 23.0% and not 23.1%, as Schweinhund tried to do by quarreling with 30 vs 29.9, then you are wrong.
I say nothing other than I figure the "revenue neutral" rate ought to be much lower, and the rate stated in the bill is what HR25 states for a tax rate.
What I see you and pigdog wrangling over different things, he is arguing the bills legislated rate is 23 percent, you are arguing the an estimate revenue-neutral rate is probably different from the bill's 23 percent.
Since HR25 itself states explicitly "the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments", that issue is decided. The FairTax rate provided is "23 percent" nothing more nothing less, nothing behind the decimal point.
You have cross argument lacking communication.
pigdog is stating one thing, a fact, the bill states 23 percent as the NRST tax rate and that is absolutely true.
You are stating another, a fact, the actual revenue neutral rate, whatever that may be, cannot be 23 percent exactly for we don't have the official number from CRS, CBO or Congress Critters deciding with Ouji boards.
As I see it what we should be interested in, if we are to discuss rates at all is, what a revenue-neutral rate for the bill should be be under the Presidents criteria for a revenue neutral policy given current tax cuts, economic conditions, and what political expediency will allow for to assure enactment.
For that purpose the 23% of the bill can be considered nothing more than a place holder and starting point for political negotiation and is useful only for discussions in relation to other tax reform proposals competing in the legislative pipeline.
It certainly cannot be accepted as the definitive last word nor should anyone be satisfied to leave it that high given current revenues generated by the tax laws to be replaced by HR25.
However that still leaves the second question I put to you unanswered, which really is more fundamental and import to any discussion of relative rates between tax reform proposals:
1) What common measure should be used to specify tax rates so they can be fairly and accurately compared between the different proposals out there, whether they be NRST, Flat Tax, VAT, or some lesser modification of the graduated income tax?
I look for you answer here as well.
(BTW, your posts are too long for my small brain to deal with in one swing. You might consider giving me one question at a time.)
What common measure should be used to specify tax rates so they can be fairly and accurately compared?
That's a very tough question. If the professionals haven't come up with one, there may not be one that's realizable. It may require a set of measures.
One of the constants in the system is total Fed tax revenues. Another set should be the various economc activities; although these could go up or down in fact, they should be constants for this exercise. Then the % of Fed revenues which come from different segments (from business, rich, moderate, and poor individuals, etc.) might be the set of measures.