CBO says that federal government revenue is 16.3% of total GDP in 2004. This is down from 20.9% in 2000. See table 4 at http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
How on earth can "Line 29 Tax inclusive rate (no rebate)" be as low as 15.9% with all of the exclusions listed in your table?
How on earth can "Line 29 Tax inclusive rate (no rebate)" be as low as 15.9% with all of the exclusions listed in your table?
The NRST does not replace 100% of federal revenue sources. It only replaces income, payroll and gift/estate taxes.
Current misc excises, tariffs and import duties, fees and other sources of revenue to government are not replaced by the NRST.
Secondly the exclusions from GDP as well as the additions to GDP in the table are corrections that are necessary to GDP to adjust to the actual and practical taxbase the legislaton covers, not GDP as the theoretical number that BEA produces.
In otherwords, the taxbase covered by the FairTax includes taxation of imports at retail level (which GDP does not) while removing imputed rents (which is in GDP but not a part of anyone's taxbase) for example. There are many additions to Gross "Domestic" Product that are taxed under the FairTax yet are not included in "Domestic" production.
Another question about your table:
Buy the way, that is not "my table".
It is a standard calculation used by economists to determine the tax rate in a static study of tax rate for a given tax base. In this particular case it is the one of the calculations done for AFFT representing the taxbase implemented by the FairTax legislation.
I am merely an individual proponent for an NRST of any kind and for the FairTax legislation as it the only such legislation on the table today.
What I am not is an employee or economist belonging to AFFT having anything to do with their studies or what they select for their websites.