This is false. "Revenue neutral" means bringing in the same amount of revenue to the government. "Economically equivalent" means they impact the economy in the same exact way.
Any tax system can be made economically equivalent to any other tax. It just needs to be designed to be revenue neutral.
I suppose any kind of tax can be "revenue neutral". A city can reduce property tax and raise sales tax so that there is no change in revenue. But there will be economic effects of reducing property tax and raising the sales tax. Property ownership becomes more desirable. Economic activity becomes less desirable. Our "revenue neutral" changes in property tax and sales tax are not "economically equivalent".
"Revenue neutral" means bringing in the same amount of revenue to the government.
It means bring in the same amount of money to government as the tax law it replaces would.
If government gets the same amount of money as it would under the tax law it replaced, the economy gets the same as it would as well. That is revenue neutral and economically equivalent.
The 23 percent rate generates more revenue than the taxes it replaces, but the rebate’s cost necessitates scaling back non-Social Security expenditures to their 2000 share of GDP.This is a very interesting sentence. Basically, the FairTax generates more revenue but increases expenditures (to pay for the "rebate") more than the increase in revenue.