They have different meanings.
And you miss the point that with the FairTax the effective tax rate on purchases will be less than the effective income tax rate is presently.
The effective rate will be lower, and revenue to government remains the same (revenue neutral) - that makes sense to you?
With that being the case people are even MORE likely to consume (as well as invest) hence the increased economic activity that the economic studies predict.
What you're saying is that the maxim "you get less of what you tax" is false.
Your statement is counter intuitive, which means that human beings are likely to behave differently than what you and the economic studies, predict.
It is likely that the financial services sector of the economy will grow, but it is also likely that other, taxed economic activity will contract. One economic study conducted for a retailers association predicted an overall economic slow down and concomitant unemployment.
Australia's experience with a 10% sales tax was a 37% drop in construction and recession. That result was totally unforeseen, BTW.
They have different meanings.
Really?? And you think that being patronizing is a way of educating stupid little me??? Get real. I assume they can mean different things since they have separate definitions in most dictionaries. Whether they have "different meanings" or not the poster was using them to mean basically the same thing and perhaps your comment should be directed to him.
Yes, perfect sense - since the tax base is broader than under the income tax. If you think otherwise, let's see your reasoning and the numerical examples to back it up.
Since under the FairTax the effective tax rate is lower than it is under the income tax, more consumption under the FairTax indeed follows the "old saw" you're trying to misuse. You are the one who is attempting to turn it on its head and subvert human nature, not I.
The retailers "economic study" you refer to has been outdated for some time and was never an economic study (or anything like it) of the FairTax. It was commissioned from a consulting firm, not an economist, but did not review the FairTax (which wasn't even on the congressional calendar at the time).
I believe your citation of Australian "sales tax" is quite far afield as in fact it was actually a VAT (and is normally described that way - check Wikipedia for example)and not a retail sales tax on consumption items. It was much like the Canadian GST (Goods and Services Tax) which is also more in the nature of a VAT rather than an actual retail sales tax on consumption.
In both of these countries the VATs are rife with exemptions and exceptions which merely makes them readily malleable to political mischief mush like our good old US of A income tax - "special strokes for special folks" as it were. The FairTax avoids that silliness for good reason. And those VATs also suffer from the rampant paperwork fraud that seems to always be a tagalong with any VAT since paper is easy to falsely generate to "apply" for a fraudulent refund.