Replies

A disgraceful episode on your part Dimp - complete mendacity fer shur!! There are several things wrong with your "example". You're merely altering the example intentionally to bias it by cutting off one person and reducing the increase in prices under the income tax to 5% - greatly less than it will probably be. In addition you assume the one person family will have the same income as the two-person family in the example - not true.

Let's do a better analysis but let's be realistic and keep the standard of living the same (e.g., the same amount of spendable income since including the prebate would be increasing the purchasing power) so that we can see the real effect.

Income tax                    FairTax 
Spendable $24,644             $25,944

... this yields a 5.3% INCREASE for the FairTax single person recipient (which as noted is a biased interpretation due to your 5% price increase figure). This same increase holds true if you take a single-person S/S income of 1/2 the two-person income.

The same example but with the 10% price increase due to income tax as put forth by merrillbender:

Income Tax                     FairTax
Spendable $23,350              $25,944

... this yields an 11.3% benefit for the FairTax single person and about the same if you use the single person income as above. The upshot of this is that even with your (attempted) heavily biased analysis, the FairTax works out better for the taxpayeer. In fact it is even much better that that since under the FairTax also proivides the prebate and the portion spent for M/C from the S/S payment is not taxable increasing the FairTax benefit even further. Tha point is, if anything, the example on the FairTax website understates the benefit. Your example is meaningless.

... You're merely altering the example intentionally to bias it by cutting off one person and reducing the increase in prices under the income tax to 5% - greatly less than it will probably be.

Are you saying there are no single retirees? (better tell my Uncle!) And, yes, I've lowered the price reduction potential ... and backed up the number with prior posts to this thread; I even gave the result using the full 10% claimed by merrilbender and the retiree STILL loses.

In addition you assume the one person family will have the same income as the two-person family in the example - not true ...

Let's see, did my Uncle's income decline when his wife died? No. It stayed the same. In what universe does family size determine income?

The point of all this, since it obviously has escaped you, it that the examples used by FairTax proponents ingore those segments of the population that will be net losers under the FairTax. We should consider more situations than those offered by the FairTax advocates to fully grasp its impacts.

Wow, I didn't think even YOU could blow an example that badly:

Your Spendable Income Tax income of $24,644 it AFTER taxes. Your Spendable FairTax income of $25,944 is BEFORE taxes.

After you pay FairTax from your $25,944 you're left with $19,976 of after-tax purchasing power.

That yields a net DECREASE in real purchasing power of nearly 19% !!! Even the 10% decrease is more than a net 14% loss.

You should proofread before you post.