Business profits are taxed.
People who derive their income from investment activity or assets (retirees, for example)
Investment income is taxed.
People who derive their income from Government Transfer payments (SSI, for instance) Note that for a single retiree, as long as 1/2 their SSI plus their modified AGI is under $25K, their SSI is untaxed ($32K for married.)... low income wage earners receiving EITC (essentially a refund of payroll tax.
These folks have incomes so low, their effective NRST rate is well under 10%.
My point, which YOU asked me to quantify, is that there are a substantial number of taxpayers who will derive NO additional spendable income if the FairTax were to be implemented. This additional spendable income concept appears central to your assertion that rising prices are immaterial because people will pay the higher prices with higher income.
As I have just shown you, using real data, a substantial portion of the population will derive NO additional income to pay for inflated FairTax prices if the PAYROLL tax is repealed AND a substantial portion of the population will derive NO additional income to pay for inflated FairTax prices from the repeal of the INCOME tax.
No matter how you spin it, these folks will NOT enjoy the benefit of higher take-home pay to offset higher FairTax prices ... contrary to your central thesis.
I find it curious, but not surprising, that your reply is neither responsive nor quantitative. Especially since you make it clear you were interested in numbers rather than assertions.
These folks have incomes so low, their effective NRST rate is well under 10%.
Immaterial, and frankly, a mere assertion. You continue to avoid the fact that "these folks" also have a combined tax burden under the Income Tax regime of well under 10%.
My point remains unrefuted: a substantial number of individuals will NOT enjoy higher take home income to offset their FairTax burden (prebate included). Now again, whether or not we agree that the situation is good, or "fair," your denial that it exists and is significant flies in the face of the facts. Your unwillingness to engage in an in-kind debate on the topic (responsive, quantitative, and on-anecdotal) suggests I have probably hit the proverbial nail squarely on its head.