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!
Of course the rate is not the thing set in stone with the FairTax bill, the revenue is. The rate will be set to generate the proper amount of revenue, and this will include the massive prebate entitlement, and the phony FairTaxes being paid by the govt to itself and counted as revenue but not an expense. And if the required amount of taxable consumption doesn't appear, the rate will be raised causing further erosion of the base.
And in the end, we'll have our emergency income tax on the rich on top of the consumption tax. No thanks.
I've explained exactly why they are wrong numerous times. They don't take into account the government paying the tax to themselves. And they don't take into account any evasion, or even base erosion due to price reductions that you say will happen. Take those into account and you are at the 45-50% exclusive Fair Tax rate.
Why not tell the forum the real reason(s) you oppose.
Because it will not work as promised, and has the potential to wreck our economy, is a good enough reason for me.