Is this the new paper where Kotlikoff admits that the FairTax rate would have to be higher than 23% inclusive?
Blowing smoke again I see.
You are aware the feds are running a deficit now are you not? But then a revenue neutral tax bill is not required to remove deficits.
"The 23 percent rate generates more revenue than the taxes it replaces, but the rebate’s cost necessitates scaling back non-Social Security expenditures to their 2000 share of GDP."
Of course to pay for the full budget, clearing deficits as well as meet the revenue neutral targets, requires scaling back to the same share of GDP as it was in 2000 when when the 23% was established.
"Revenue Neutral" does nothing to change deficit by definition.
Sorry, but Kotlikoff papers usually target paying deficits as well as meeting the minimal revenue neutral requirments that is all that is required for the legislation.
Nice try at obfuscation though.
By the way, if you don't want to pay the NBER download fee for the paper, I am told that Kotlikoff will be making the full text available to AFT so they can put it up on their website before the end of the year.
By the way, if you don't want to pay the NBER download fee for the paper, I am told that Kotlikoff will be making the full text available to AFT so they can put it up on their website before the end of the year.I've already read the full paper, thanks. The AFT probably doesn't want to post it, though. It exposes the "revenue neutral" lie.
You are aware the feds are running a deficit now are you not? But then a revenue neutral tax bill is not required to remove deficits.Kotlikoff isn't talking about paying for the deficit, he's talking about paying for the Family Consumption Allowance.
"Revenue Neutral" does nothing to change deficit by definition.He says in the abstract that the FairTax is NOT revenue neutral. In fact, it generates MORE revenue than the current system. It's just not enough to pay for the increase in expenditures the FairTax requires.