Again, that's a far cry from even the $250 Billion that most don't quibble about; it's light-years away from $662 Billion!
What is missing in the analysis, is that $250 billion is the costs attributed to everyone's filing returns. It is the basic number that is claimed by Flat Tax proponents that will be saved in going post card sized tax returns for individuals. Unfortunately it misses on several scores not to mention that business costs tied up in do not change substantially with the change to the Flat Tax.
The reason that most don't quibble with it is that most are advocates of one or the other type of tax reform and that number is used by all sides of the debate without any understanding as to what it really means. They agree as it makes good sound bytes for tax reform generally and avoids public debates just like we are having here.
The total unique tax related overhead incurred by all businesses due to the current tax system in comparison to the total unique tax related overhead incurrent by retail businesses only under an NRST is the base issue. I agree costs on business is poorly related to "compliance cost".. They are minimal in a business setting in relation to sales volume, it is the other hits that are significant overall.
The major opponents to NRST hit compliance costs for that very reason, that such can't be justified for much more than 1-3% of sales prices even though in comparison to the taxes paid by small businesses overall, $7 in such costs are put out for every dollar of taxes actually paid by them.
A business that can claim zilch taxable income still pays the accounting costs associated with that tax compliance number and there are many, many claiming zilch taxable income for a variety of reasons including tax avoidence schemes and out right evasion where the real costs get imposed in regard to how business must be done to achive low tax liabilities or hide evasion as the case may be.
The most difficult part of having this discussion with you is that you never actually answer direct questions with direct answers:
I ask you for a term we can all that has a common meaning; you send me a treatise on multiple terms. I use one of your offered terms exactly as your source uses it (since you offer no other definition), and you argue that my meaning is not your meaning. (Are you actually paying attention?)
I ask: "How man apples are we talking about?"
You reference a bunch of source material that researched the entire fruit population including how many apples there might be if we just didn't grow oranges.
I point out that your source is counting ungrown apples displaced by oranges and you say, "Well nobody properly counts apples anyway, and besides, it really doesn't matter how many apples there are, it's oranges that COULD be apples that really matters!"
And around we go again...
Since there appears to be no data you find credible on the matter of how much tax-related cost burden is directly available for price reduction under the FairTax (or any tax scheme for that matter) our discussion is moot. No matter what I say, you'll run away from your own sources if you feel cornered.
Since you can't even seem to agree to use your own terms consistently, the discussion is impossible. No matter which of your terms I use, you'll argue that the definition is now different than it was before.
This all makes our discussion unproductive, unconvincing and, frankly, rather pointless.