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.
No, you've expressed an opinion void of any data. Like I said, simply stating doesn't make it true. Reading Gale isn't helpful ... especially if you don't understand it.
They don't take into account the government paying the tax to themselves.
Yes they do. (See how easy it is to refute opinion?!). Gov't already pays tax. The nrst won't change that.
And they don't take into account any evasion,...
Yes they do. Read it closer. They take the SAME degree of evasion as now into account. You're wrong.
BTW, it is YOU who decided pre-tax prices would fall 9%. Not me. And remember when Jorgenson opined 22-24% of prices were tax costs? Why do you think he organized the tax costs into one place?
Because it will not work as promised,..
Sorry Rob, we're well beyond listening to you with no back up. You have nothing but opinion behind this statement. Just up the thread you gave several reasons NOT to take opinion into account. Don't you read your own posts?
You haven't shown anything wrong about the studies giving a 23% rev neutral rate. Simply stating it isn't sufficient.What about the one the AFT paid for that says it would have to be 27%? This one just came out last December.
Many of us have observed that for over a year now.