If you claim to be sure that the revenue-neutral number is 23.0% and not 23.1%, then you are either BS'ing me or delusional.
I'm still waiting for your answer.
The reply to you in 903, was a question about what you figure the revenue-neutral number to be.
It was not about the tax rate stated in the legislation, which is indeed "23 percent" of gross payment as defined for 2007 implementation of HR25.
Perhaps you would like to answer the questions instead of digressing, or wandering off on some debate over a hypothetical rate of 23.0 or 23.1%. Rates which I don't view as even close to the actual much lower "revenue-neutral" value that would be established with a full economic study based on current economy, government revenue under current tax cuts that have been implemented since the 1999 introduction of the FairTax legislation.
1) What common measure should be used to specify tax rates so they can be compared between the different proposals out there, whether they be NRST, Flat Tax, VAT, or some lesser modification of the graduated income tax?
2) What is your estimate of that realizable revenue neutral rate for this discussion, framing the debate around the actual criteria the president has laid down recognizing the legislation replaces all federal income, payroll and gift/estate taxes?
Me first. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what is :
"the BS that is sprayedd around by the acolytes of the Fair Tax proposal."
#857
Why ask me? -- I don't have the slightest idea, or care. If you and Schweinhund say it's around 23%, I'll not argue with you. However, if you tell me its 23.0% and not 23.1%, as Schweinhund tried to do by quarreling with 30 vs 29.9, then you are wrong.