I don't need numbers.
Perhaps not but let me explain it this way. Consumption is a broader base than income (with both being "taxable activities").
Consulting firms are known as "hired guns" and are used as such in many parts of business activities (including the Retail trade group involved). But that doesn't alter the fact that what the "studied" wasn't the FairTax.
Your attempt to justify your position about the Aussie GST by means of your "primary economist" would be funny if it weren't so incorrect. From your "primary source" about the Aussie GST:
The GST (Goods and Services Tax) is a value added tax of 10% on most goods and services sold in Australia.
Than says nothing about it being a sales tax AND a VAT. It is a VAT (period). And your attempt to characterize it as an equivalent to the FairTax is pathetic nonsense. Your source does not even mention that additional taxes were imposed as a supplement. The description of the Canadian GST also calls it out as a VAT (not your pretense that it is a sales tax and a VAT). They are both VATs (period).
It will be written in stone, like the Ten Commandments.
I doubt that - but it certainly won't be a VAT with supplemental income taxes (and all sorts of exclusions and exceptions in different states) to start life as the taxes you seem to admire.
And that proves?
Consulting firms are known as "hired guns" and are used as such in many parts of business activities (including the Retail trade group involved). But that doesn't alter the fact that what the "studied" wasn't the FairTax.
Do you understand that those studies conducted by economists that FairTaxers are always pointing to were commissioned by the FairTax organization? You do realize that they were "hired guns" for the AFFT.
Than says nothing about it being a sales tax AND a VAT. It is a VAT (period).
A VAT and a sales tax are both consumption taxes.
And your attempt to characterize it as an equivalent to the FairTax is pathetic nonsense. Your source does not even mention that additional taxes were imposed as a supplement. The description of the Canadian GST also calls it out as a VAT (not your pretense that it is a sales tax and a VAT). They are both VATs (period).
Additional taxes were not imposed as a supplement to the Australian GST, other taxes already existed; some were eliminated, and others were lowered - get it?
VAT, sales tax; a consumption tax by any other name is still a consumption tax.
I doubt that - but it certainly won't be a VAT with supplemental income taxes (and all sorts of exclusions and exceptions in different states) to start life as the taxes you seem to admire.
You haven't got a clue as to what I admire, so don't even try - it makes you look silly.