It is not inaccurate for those who were taking the deduction. If you are saying that this elimination of a deduction is offset elsewhere, considering the whole package, then you should take that into consideration with the NRST also.
If a reduction of deductions is a tax increase, then the elimination of deductions must be a larger tax increase.
That may sound logical but it isn't. It is not difficult to follow what you are saying. It is difficult making sense of it.
Let me try to explain this in the simplist possible way. When I did this on the issue of returning withholdings to employees or lowering prices I discovered I was wrong. Maybe that will happen here.
Let's assume there is an organization which charges all who attend its meetings a twenty-five dollar cover. They later decided that they like red because it is festive and they want to increase the amount of red the attendees wear. They think that will encourage behavior that is good for everyone. To accomplish that they say if you wear red you get in free. So those who wear red get a twenty-five dollar break over those who don't.
The leadership later decides that this has become too complicated because some people wear red caps, others red shirts, still others wear red socks and some wear things that have just a tiny bit of red but insist that it qualifies to get them in free. So, because of the complications, they eliminate the red deduction. For those who wore red that amounts to an admissions increase of twenty-five dollars.
However, because of the past deductions for red the rest of the attendees got unhappy and want to change the whole system. After much thought, they decide to eliminate the cover altogether and let everyone in free.
Because of the loss of revenue they can no longer afford the previous free food and drinks so they decide to charge for it. For those who truly can't afford it they give coupons for one plate of food and one drink.
Now everyone is happy. They all get in free and come out about the same as they did before even though they now have to buy food and drink.
Is that an apt analogy? The elimination of the the deduction for some was an increase in admission for them, but eliminating the cover altogether was a decrease for everyone, not an increase.
I see no problem with that, do you?
This is precisely what I'm saying. Boortz did not consider a potential decrease in the tax rates. Reagan eliminated many deductions, but did not raise taxes. For Boortz to claim that reducing deductions necessarily results in a tax increase is simply inaccurate.
then you should take that into consideration with the NRST also.
*I* would take that into consideration. But since Boortz (inaccurately) claimed a decrease in deductions was the same as a tax increase without considering other changes to the tax code, Boortz must also argue (inaccurately) that the total elimination of deductions under the NRST is a larger tax increase than what the commission suggested. Boortz does not make this arguement, and, in fact, suggests that the NRST would result in a tax cut.
Again, I state my position. Boortz's arguments are inaccurate because he did not consider the recommendations as a whole. Even if we disregard that Boortz's claims were inaccurate, the remainder of his logic is incoherent because the commission merely wanted to reduce the deductions while the NRST would eliminate them altoghether.