"if you look at the amounts that this hypothetical couple actually sends to the FedGov for the total period you describe is:
present system: ($3k * 10) + (6.5k * 22) = $173,000
FairTax system: ($21k * 10) + ($24k * 22) = $738,000"
Interesting, isn't it ? This couple spends about $200K less over the 42 years, but the government revenue is $565K higher.
I'll have to think about how that works.
"if you look at the amounts that this hypothetical couple actually sends to the FedGov for the total period you describe is:Kellis91789:present system: ($3k * 10) + (6.5k * 22) = $173,000
FairTax system: ($21k * 10) + ($24k * 22) = $738,000"
Interesting, isn't it ? This couple spends about $200K less over the 42 years, but the government revenue is $565K higher.For starters one is a tax on "spending" the other is on "taxable" income. Not all income is taxable but all spending would be. You also include the "rebate" as income...It's a rebate. It's only a welfare check if it's your only income and then it's still only worth 77% of it's face amount (the first year of enactment).I'll have to think about how that works.
As posted by Robfromga, Linder has openly said and Kotlikoff the economist's report to the Fairtax proves, the Fairtax is a tax on accumulated wealth. IOW, the people who accumulated wealth, survived the tyrannical tax system you all despise would once again be the wipping dog. Only this time it would be the tyranny of the fairtax.
In your quest to prove how much better off a retiree would be, you did just the opposite. You can't even prove it by using made up figures.