Not for you, but for others who are serious about learning about this proposal. . .
If retailer "A" maintains his price at the same level despite his costs being dramatically reduced, and retailer "B" lowers his, who do you think that the customer will buy from? Will not "A" have to drop his price to compete and stay in business?
If all the Chevy dealers decide to break the law and collude on price, Ford, Chrysler, and Toyota will sell more cars while Chevy entertains the illusion that they are making more money.
Please make your next false objection a little tougher. This is just too simple.
If retailer "A" maintains his price at the same level despite his costs being dramatically reduced, and retailer "B" lowers his, who do you think that the customer will buy from? Will not "A" have to drop his price to compete and stay in business?Of course, no one's been able to demonstrate how a business's costs would be "dramatically reduced" by eliminated the income/payroll tax. For 2004, the FairTax base plus exports equaled $9,074 billion. Corporate income tax, the employer portion of payroll and unemployment equaled $573 billion. That's only 6.3% of the base and that's if the tax incidence of all those taxes are in prices, which is extremely unlikely. And an extremely generous $200 billion for tax compliance and you still only have 8.5%.