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portion of the population will derive NO additional income to pay for inflated FairTax prices if the PAYROLL tax is repealed AND a substantial portion of the population will derive NO additional income to pay for inflated FairTax prices from the repeal of the INCOME tax.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.
Read what you're saying. You shift the discussion from total in-pocket dollars to payroll tax. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Payroll taxes are but one source of taxes paid under the current system that go away under the NRST, and which affect spendable income.
The entrepreneur paying himself out of corporate profits is paying himself out of money that has been taxed by the federal government at somewhere between 15% and 35% (USC 26.A.1.A.II.11.b.1). Under the FairTax, he would have at least 17.65% more money in his pocket than he would have under the income tax.
The investor pays between 15% and 25% taxes on capital gains (I think, that is... USC 26.A.1.A.I.1.h is pretty convoluted on the capital gains definition). For retirement savings, the vast majority of income drawn from that investment is capital gains, not principal. Again, we're talking about someone who will see 15% or more money in hand after the NRST enactment due to the elimination of federal income taxes.
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%.
No mere assertion. A couple with an income of $25k gets an FCA of $4,508 (23% of $19,600). If they spent their entire $25k income on taxable goods and services, their effective tax rate would be 4.97% (total taxes of $5,750, minus FCA of $4,508 for a net tax total of $1,242, divided by $25K spent equals .0497).
If they spent their FCA as well, bringing their spending total to $29,508, the effective tax rate becomes 9.12%.
The lower the income, the lower the effective NRST rate would be, again, assuming the entire income is spent on taxable goods and services.