Replies

So, in other words, you have no idea how much tax-related cost burden is directly available for price reduction AND neither do any of the sources you've cited.

The most difficult part of having this discussion with you is that you never actually answer direct questions with direct answers:

I ask you for a term we can all that has a common meaning; you send me a treatise on multiple terms. I use one of your offered terms exactly as your source uses it (since you offer no other definition), and you argue that my meaning is not your meaning. (Are you actually paying attention?)

I ask: "How man apples are we talking about?"

You reference a bunch of source material that researched the entire fruit population including how many apples there might be if we just didn't grow oranges.

I point out that your source is counting ungrown apples displaced by oranges and you say, "Well nobody properly counts apples anyway, and besides, it really doesn't matter how many apples there are, it's oranges that COULD be apples that really matters!"

And around we go again...

Since there appears to be no data you find credible on the matter of how much tax-related cost burden is directly available for price reduction under the FairTax (or any tax scheme for that matter) our discussion is moot. No matter what I say, you'll run away from your own sources if you feel cornered.

Since you can't even seem to agree to use your own terms consistently, the discussion is impossible. No matter which of your terms I use, you'll argue that the definition is now different than it was before.

This all makes our discussion unproductive, unconvincing and, frankly, rather pointless.

This all makes our discussion unproductive, unconvincing and, frankly, rather pointless.

Agreed as your admission to overall tax related costs involved are much less than mine.

Bottom line I use Payne's work and 65 cents cost in for every tax dollar of revenue extracted by government based on a comprehensive overview of tax related costs. A source recognized by Hall & Rabushka, the architects of the Flat Tax.

You choose to prefer some other number or source limiting the assay of the burden imposed to a lesser level that you perceive as useful to your purposes.

In the two positions I can see no agreement possible as neither of us are going to budge from what we hold as credible assay of the situation. For the very call of whether or not a source is credible relies on ones assessment of such or willingness to accept another's assessment of credibility of a source.

I accept Hall Rebushka's assessment that Payne's work is a credible source as it is based on a broad range of studies and relatingto the burdens that the current income/payroll tax system imposes.