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.
In addition you haven't responded to the fact that you have intentionally biased the example both by using a full S/S 2-person benefit for one person and by using a 5% price increase when the true increase is undoubtedly more than that. There has never been a rational analysis that I'm aware of showing anything as low as 5% of taxes embedded in prices. Nor are your claims to the contrary sufficient to sway anyone. If you'd agree to, say, a more reasonable 15% in embedded taxes then I'll play your silly little biased geme with you. Even then, that may be low but claiming only 5% is beyond the pale.
Moreover the biased example you've chosen is for someone about 275% of the poverty level - so he's relatively comfortable and hardly representative. Any lowering of the embedded tax rate he pays benefits him greatly while cutting the recipient quantity to 1 rather than 2 also helps him dramatically when compared to the FairTax example given on their website. Perhaps you should have taken an example of a single guy on S/S and nontaxable pension at an income rate of $50,000 or $100,000. That might be too obvious a loaded example for you to pass off in your mind though and is probably why you chose as you did.
In addition since your example is relatively well-to-do he is probably not going to be consuming all the money but saving a good bit of it. After all, your example claims almost no taxes anyway at 5% so why not savea goodly amount?