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The retailers "economic study" you refer to has been outdated for some time and was never an economic study (or anything like it) of the FairTax.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.
As I recall, my original comment WAS 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.
I don't need numbers. "Tax base" means taxable activities, not taxpayers.
The retailers "economic study" you refer to has been outdated for some time and was never an economic study (or anything like it) of the FairTax.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).
Umm - look up the consulting firm and see what they do.
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.
The GST is a tax on consumption and is also a VAT.
Fram Wikipedia: Sales taxes are normally only charged on final sales to consumers: because of reimbursement, VAT has the same overall economic effect on final prices.
Also from Wikipedia The preceding months before the GST became active saw a spike in consumption as consumers rushed to purchase goods that they perceived would be substantially more expensive with the GST. Once the tax came into effect however, there was plummeting consumer consumption and economic growth, that by the first fiscal quarter of 2001, the Australian economy plunged into negative growth for the first time in more than 10 years.
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.
Right, and the FairTax will be free of any diddling by politicians. It will be written in stone, like the Ten Commandments.