Replies

Frankly I don't see what such a gratuitous comment has to do with the FairTax. Perhaps you could explain???

Certainly.

They have "studies", you have "studies".
They have "experts", you have "experts".
They have an agenda, you have an agenda.
They are well-funded, you are well-funded.
They believe they can predict everything with perfect accuracy using biased models, ditto for the FairTaxers.
They are doom & gloomers, ya'll are doom & gloomers.
They think everyone who disagrees with their far-out claims is an idiot, so do ya'll.
They are wrong, you are wrong.
It's a perfect analogy.

Ooops. You haven't shown anything wrong about the studies giving a 23% rev neutral rate. Simply stating it isn't sufficient.

Further, I don't care what the rate is provided it's revenue neutral (or below that - invoking a reduction in spending).

You aren't even able to show the rate isn't revenue neutral. You alternate between the rate being to low and too high. Recently, you've been saying the rate is less than revenue neutral. That represents a spending reduction.

I recall you saying that we should work on spending cuts. Well, there it is!

So the rate being less than revenue neutral isn't your real reason for opposing the nrst, is it? On one hand you say we need to do spending cuts - on the other hand you say you oppose the nrst because it contains (cough...) spending cuts.

Why not tell the forum the real reason(s) you oppose. It sure would be easier for you to defend!