"Then you haven't looked."
And presumable have and offer 3 "refutations"??? Let's look at them in reverse order since that's how I happened to look at them.
"three" - A presentation to Ways & Means Committee of William Gale of Brookings Institute. Perhaps you haven't noticed (but others have) that Mr. Gale's handiwork shows up repeatedly throughout the heated opposition by status quo forces to tax reform such as the FairTax. He is a staunch status quo defender and if he's not personally on these threads, his views and disciples certainly are and his effect upon the Tax Panel report has been noted before.
In this notorious presentation at one point he opines that the FairTax (NRST) rate would HAVE TO be 94% tax exclusive. This is more than just a bit silly and it's surprising to see it in what should be a well-reasoned and scholarly effort ... which it is not. Also we note that Joel Slemrod (one of the authors of your link "one" is a Gale/Brookings colleague by reading one of the footnotes:
"Slemrod, Joel. 1996. Which is the Simplest Tax System of Them All? In Economic Effects Fundamental Tax Reform, edited by Henry J. Aaron and William G. Gale. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 335-391."
Indeed it seems that the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree - or in this case a left-leaning liberal think tank. We also note that within this paper (refuted some time ago by material on the AFFT website) that Mr. Gale plays his famous "reduce the base by casting out and ignoring part of it" as with respect to Payne's work he says something to the effect that Payne's numbers come up with $514 billion of which $236 billion cannot be included since it covers costs which "aren't typically included" in compliance costs. So Mr. Gale summarily casts out about half of the figure to end up with $277 billion - a trick which he (and the Tax Panel) have repeatedly done in attempting to attack the FairTax. A nice trick if you can get away with it. There are other flaws in his supposed "rebuttal" (or whatever you'd like to call it).
"two" - A link to Amazon to allow one to buy yet another book which Mr. Gale is involved with. It's a paperback but still awfully expensive and it's clear to me that "The FairTax Book" is a much better buy and offers more in the way of real information IAE.
"one" - Oh, my! A paper by Joel Slemrod from Michigan U. Hmmm! - Slemrod - Slemrod - where have we seen that name recently ... I know; in "three" of this post. The Slemrod paper, however, seems to be about tax compliance in medium to large businesses. Are we to assume that this applies to small businesses and individuals, too? IOW the "refutation" seems to be about something different from the Payne presentation.
So we find that none of the three links you give are at all workmanlike or make a convincing case. I think it best just to stick with Payne's information and observations - all of it and not just the half of it slashed off by Mr. Gale.
"three" - A presentation to Ways & Means Committee of William Gale of Brookings Institute. Perhaps you haven't noticed (but others have) that Mr. Gale's handiwork shows up repeatedly throughout the heated opposition by status quo forces to tax reform such as the FairTax. He is a staunch status quo defender and if he's not personally on these threads, his views and disciples certainly are and his effect upon the Tax Panel report has been noted before.So you can't address what he actually said? Frankly, in the economic world, Gale is respected - Payne isn't even in the economic world.
Also we note that Joel Slemrod (one of the authors of your link "one" is a Gale/Brookings colleague by reading one of the footnotAre you going for the record for logical fallacies in one post? Joel Slemrod is an extremely respected economist. Why don't you address what he said instead of trying the "guilt by association" crap (oh, right, because that's all you got).