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.
No Dimp - what I am saying is that you intentionally biased the example given in the FirTax site and that, moreover you were incorrect in doing so (and I explained the errors you made whether you wish to acknowledge them or not).
I know of no provision is S/S that allows full benefits to the survivor after a spouse dies, do you??? Reagardless of that even your 5% price reduction at the full benefit level (income for two going to a single indiidual) still favored the FairTax by 5.3% as I showed in the example. If your uncle is still receiving full benefits for 2, perhaps he should let S/S know that he's now single. After all, you and I are picking up the tab for him.
You may like that ... I don't.
The point of all this, since it obviously has escaped YOU in that the FairTax benefits even the highly biased example you presented making you clearly wrong. Why don't you just admit it and move on? The FairTax offers far more benefits for most people that any of you Squirrels would ever admit.