I'm not looking to get ahead of anyone either, but I want the FairTax people to be honest about their proposal. If it is going to cause people that are now making $60,000 per year and taking home $48,000 to get a pay cut to $48,000 and they will still be able to buy the same amount of stuff-- maybe that's fine.
But to tell them their pay will magically go from $48,000 to $60,000 and the prices will all be the same, that is dishonest and I wonder what else they are covering up.
In either case we need to discuss the proposed system honestly to determine if it is better, or just different.
It's also clear that you don't understand cascading tax and tax costs, either. Or, more probably, can't admit it for the same reasons as all the other SQLers - it destroys their claims.
What you are asking for is impossible to provide, since each product is going to go through a different gauntlet before it makes it to retail. Some will realize a greater reduction in costs, some very little, I would assume. Therefore your demand for 'honesty' rings a little manipulative.
So what about the larger point I made about the concept of taxing income? IMO, if it's different from the income tax, it's better- the finer points of the FairTax notwithstanding. Like I said, even if it's a purely break-even result, I'll take it.
Do you have any defense of taxing income and the associated atmosphere of control and intimidation? I'd like to hear it.