I don't have any data to argue with this post, nor do I have any motivation to argue with it. What I read (hear) you saying is that the after tax price is constant and real wages are constant (spending power). That leads me to believe that you're saying the net effect to the individual is that there is no change as a result of the method of revenue collection.
Assuming that is correct, I still would support the NRST over the current income tax system. Why wouldn't we want to bring the cost of government into the plain view of the citizens being governed? In my opinion, that would be the single biggest step towards spending reductions that could be taken.
Not to mention the fact that there would no longer be and agency of the federal government with the power to destroy any citizen it chooses, any time it chooses, with nothing more than an allegation!
Assuming that is correct, I still would support the NRST over the current income tax system. Why wouldn't we want to bring the cost of government into the plain view of the citizens being governed? In my opinion, that would be the single biggest step towards spending reductions that could be taken.The problem with this line of reasoning is that ~40% of the taxes paid under the FairTax wouldn't be paid by citizens at the register, they would be paid by governments. By taxing governments purchases and the wages of their employees, the FairTax is effectively "hiding" ~25% of the federal tax burden in our state and local taxes.