What no smart alec and smug response to Post #92?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1887973/posts?page=92#92
Figures given your schtick and arrogance that you wouldn’t respond.
Kotlikoff’s estimate was 23.82%! A difference of 0.82%!
Under Revenue ‘Neutrality’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Yeah, an estimate with a difference of less than one percent is something you omit from your posting because you know it is insignificant, just as your postings on the FairTax are insignificant. And that estimate was for year 2007. Any chance government budgeted revenues were increased from 2005 to 2007? You didn’t bother to mention that did you?
Why can’t you be straight with facts? Why the constant obfuscation? You hate the FairTax so much you will pull out all stops to confuse people about it.
This is not the first time you have omitted factual details to create an illusion of negatism about the FairTax.
(every time I look at that name I see "Killitoff")
(39)Private consumers would receive lower (gross) wages under the FairTax because producer prices fall.....
And that estimate was for year 2007. Any chance government budgeted revenues were increased from 2005 to 2007? You didn’t bother to mention that did you?Well since YOU brought it up. The rate being revenue neutral and revenue INCREASED would mean an even HIGHER Fairtax rate...But I can see how you're confused by such simple logic.
Kotlikoff’s estimate was 23.82%! A difference of 0.82%!That's the inclusive rate. One of the problems with inclusive sale tax rates is that differences in the percentage don't reflect the true difference in revenue generated by the rate. Going from 23% to 23.82% is only an increase of 3.5% in the rate but increases the revenue generated by 4.9%. That's a very significant number, especially when discussing something as large as the U.S. Budget.