"Should I vote against my interests to prove I'm not envious? "
You just did by posting in favor of what the Tax Panl put out as a report. It - as I old you but you apparently failed to realize - does not review the FairTax bill as written at all but only a "specially modified version of a consumption tax that they refer to as a "retail sales tax".
And also don't post trash like this claiming it's your work or that you've done soimething. It is complete nonsense as I said and as I've demonstrated. I asked for YOUR work - not the Panel's (since I'd already shown their flawed work). Let's take what you claim to be your definitive numeric rebuttal and see what it looks like under the actual FairTax (and also what the Tax Panel's report comes out looking like).
Right off the bat the Panels numbers are suspect since a M0K family would have an income tax rate of 9.6% and pay a tax of $3,773 (rather than the 14.3%/$5625 the Panel claims). We are using the latest available CBO numbers of actual effective tax rates and amounts on corresponding income. Perhaps the Panel is including the effect of hidden tax as the additional amount paid but IAE they are well wide of the mark. Under the FairTax side of things, this same income with the allowance for non taxed things such as state.local taxes, church/charity contributions, savings/invenstment, mortgage and other debt payments, etc. would make his effective FairTax rate 8.66% with a FairTax paid of $2,723.
This is only the first glimpse into how off base the Panel report is. Let's keep this in perspective with the Panel's (our) numbers - they said Income Tax rate 14.3% ($5,635) and FairTax rate (not specified) with a tax of $7,997. This is almost twice the FairTax amount if the entire specified income rate had been spent on taxable things - which is not possible. In addition the Panel has the wrong amount for the prebate - there is no prebate amount of $6,694 as they specify ... totally incorrect. In fact the claimed 42 percent increase of $2,372 is in reality a decrease of from $5,625 to $2,723 - a 51.6% decrease under the FairTax rather than the claimed 42% increase. The real difference though, is less since the Panel is quite wrong on the income tax amount. It should have been $3,773 for the income tax and $2,723 for the FairTax - only off by 27.8% (with the FairTax also lower here). In either case they are terribly in error. But let's go on even though it looks bad for the Panel.
In fact since their meaning is garbled on the next two examples, lets skip to the 4th example which is clearly specified, the S1K example. The taxpayer would have an effective income tax rate of 10.16% ($2,347 in tax) and under the Fairtax the effective tax rate would be 7.54% (a tax of $1,480). This clearly shows the magnitude of the error (bias?) they have since instead of having a FairTax increase of $5,866 over the income tax (for a total tax of $9,385 - clearly beyond any reason) there is actually a decrease of 37% paid under the FairTax (ignoring the clearly wrong Panel data and using the actual income tax figure).
So you see the Panel - as I said has it's head up its (err) archway and are either grossly incompetent or grossly biased. Either way if you hang your hat on those figures - YOU LOSE. THEY'RE QUITE WRONG as I said in an earlier example I suggested you read (which obviously you didn't) since it had about the same degree of "accuracy". Here's the other erroneous Panel work . And don't waste my time with these other two erroneous examples either - they are no more accurate even if one could tell what was intended as a meaning.
Anyone with a functioning BS detector would know that your claim that the average American was going to cut his overall Federal tax bill by more than 50% is ridiculous, and that any "study" that shows this is using bad assumptions or is being grossly misrepresented. That can be said without even looking at the calculation. The result is economically impossible.
I guess you missed the credit to the Tax Panel and that the quote was placed in italics indicating that it was a quote.
No you didn't ask for my work, you asked for "recognized sources". The Tax Panel used data prepared for them by the Treasury Department.
There you go with the link to links again. I don't mind following a link, but which one are you referring to (there are three at the top of the page), and why don't you just link to the material you want me to read.