[lewislynn]

I saw a multitude of posts to you with legions of links and testimony.

How does one give "testimony" on the workings of something that's never existed?...Just wondering.

BTW, the "testimony" for the 20% price reduction uses this line:

"Since producers would no longer pay taxes on profits or other forms of capital income under the NRST and workers would no longer pay taxes on wages, prices received by producers, shown in the sixth chart,would fall by an average of twenty percent.

So, how does "workers would no longer pay taxes on wages" become a reduction in "prices received by producers" AND 100% paychecks?...

So which "testimony" is the lie? The price reduction? Or the 100% paychecks....HMMMM?

[Principled]

How does one give "testimony" on the workings of something that's never existed?.

So now you admit that no nrst exists. Good. Next 5 times you say it's in Europe I'll recall this post.

[ovrtaxt]

So which "testimony" is the lie? The price reduction? Or the 100% paychecks....HMMMM?

You know as well as I do that the cost of employment is greater than the employee's hourly rate, because of matching SS expenses. (7.5%, IIRC-calculated as an exclusive rate, or inclusive, I don't know.) If that goes away, the employee gets the full hourly rate, the employer pockets the gain, and the cost of production drops. So both are true. Competition takes care of the rest.

If that doesn't convince you, maybe we could get Harry Reid to contribute some of that retirement money for more research!

[Always Right]

"Since producers would no longer pay taxes on profits or other forms of capital income under the NRST and workers would no longer pay taxes on wages, prices received by producers, shown in the sixth chart,would fall by an average of twenty percent.

That's part of there double accounting of benefits that I have been harping on for years. Of course they are only double-counting about $1 Trillion worth of benefits, no wonder they show a 10.5% growth. That error alone takes them down to 0% growth.