Actually let's use the official documents to make this calculation.
2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines
| Persons in Family or Household |
48 Contiguous States and D.C. |
Alaska | Hawaii |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | $10,210 | $12,770 | $11,750 |
| 2 | 13,690 | 17,120 | 15,750 |
| 3 | 17,170 | 21,470 | 19,750 |
| 4 | 20,650 | 25,820 | 23,750 |
| 5 | 24,130 | 30,170 | 27,750 |
| 6 | 27,610 | 34,520 | 31,750 |
| 7 | 31,090 | 38,870 | 35,750 |
| 8 | 34,570 | 43,220 | 39,750 |
| For each additional person, add |
3,480 | 4,350 | 4,000 |
SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 15, January 24, 2007, pp. 3147–3148
Also, the Prebate is a portion annually, Therefore if 2007 has a prebate it would be:
Source: Frequently Asked Questions - Answers - How does the prebate work?
Please use these table, official tables from HHS and The FairTax. org to apply tour calculation. As I see the tables, if 2007 were an actual year under the FairTax:
per HHS - 2 person household Poverty Level $13, 690. Based on number of persons in a household ... husband & wife, parent & child - two people.
per FairTax consumption allowance for 2 adult household is $20,420. A 2 adult household would be a husband & wife or a couple. However there is a 1 adult household and 1 child that is not a couple.
I believe you have used incorrect calculation to show a marriage penalty that does not exist in fact. There is no exemptions in a consumption tax as there is for an income tax. If you want to compare the exemption that was under an income tax you would have to compare it to the consumption allowance under a consumption tax. As you see you see there is no such penalty as the prebate for a 2 adult household is exactly twice that of a 1 adult household. Therefore 'No Penalty'.
You can not compare apples to oranges ... you are mixing tax types (income and consumption). There is no penalty when you are not paying tax based on that figure, an income tax. If you want to compare a marriage penalty then you'll need to compare it to the Flat Income Tax Proposal also before Congress. You need to re-think tax when moving between kinds of tax, the terminology of one does not fit the terminology of the other.
Let's get one thing straight here, as I said (just in the paragraph above) when talking about an Income Tax or a Consumption Tax we should not mix terminology ... and you are doing just that. Some givens, some fact(s):
- Income Tax (and VAT) rates are inclusive ... meaning they are removed from the amount, in this case income.
- Consumption (or Sales) Tax rates are exclusive ... meaning they are added to the amount, in this case sales price.
- Income Taxes (and VAT) can and usually do have multiple rates ... Consumption (Sales) Taxes are a flat rate.
By their very being thay are different. Lets talk apples to apples. Get off the inclusive and exclusive. Don't mix termonology. Do you do it on your yob? Does your a mechanic, talk like a nuclear physist.? Does a structural engineer talk like a oil well roustabout? How many mix differnt industries jargon on a regular basis. Why here? Do you go around every day and purchase an item pay its cost and the added sales tax at the store and talk/compare of it it some way to the income tax you pay every April?
Approximate all you want inclusive to exclusive but remember it does one thing for people ... confuses them. Thirty years a a tax collector and tax auditor have proven this to me ... you must be honest when talking with people regarding their tax and how it effects them. You can make the comparison but at the end of the day a sales tax is a sales tax and can never be an income tax.
Thoughts: Are we better off with all the exemptions in an income tax, various stratafacations of rates, government receiving its 'share' before you receive yours, large bureacracy, massive convoluted tax code ... or ... no exemptions, everyone taxed at same rate, government not getting its 'share' until you decide to consume goods or services, smaller bureacracy, simpler tax code.