I think your wording (which percentages are problematic. BTW) and repositioning of the $3,101 does nothing to improve upon the table as shown in the FairTax presentation.
If anything, your repositioning of the hidden tax figure of $3,101 implies that somehow the taxpayer could spend the $14,097 and somehow never pay the hidden tax, In fact, that is not the case as the hidden tax is embedded in prices and reduces his spendable income by the $3,101 so that his true spendable income is $10,996 which is the true purchasing power as stated in the last line of the table.
The FairTax table is just fine as it is and I see no rational reason for it be changed as you suggest.
"If anything, your repositioning of the hidden tax figure of $3,101 implies that somehow the taxpayer could spend the $14,097"
yes, but does the right hand not do the same thing with the 14,413? it makes the same implication by excluding the federal sales tax.
i really do think i equalled them out. in both cases you have $14k "to spend" and in both cases there are taxes involved, in one they are hidden, in the other they are in the form of a sales tax.
thus the total "purchasing powers" is reduced on both sides, yet the amount of "spending money" you have is accurately displayed.
the next argument may be "well, they don't have to spend all the money" -- but (a) that is true for both columns, and (b) the chart on fairtax's website states that spending 100% is assumed.
feel free to correct my percentages for me. i did it based on 3101/14097 for the 14.9 and 3101/10996 for the 28.2.
you're right the 14.9 is a typo (2101/14xxx)
it should be 22%