Do you know the difference between facts and faith? A FairTax fact would be the bill as written, FairTax faith is how the bill's supporters claim human beings will behave if the new rules were put in place.
If I were you I'd not be throwing around things like charges of someone else not being credible.
You exposed yourself as not credible when you stated that you manipulated "purchased" studies to support the conclusions you wished to reach. No wonder you doubt the intentions of others, you project on them.
I support the FairTax and it is still completely unclear as to what tax system you support - so do you have one?
First, you want to change the method of tax collections, it is therefore incumbent on you to prove that it is better than, not equal to, what we currently have in place.
What I support is fiscal responsibility in government spending, something even FairTaxers claim their plan does not do. IMHO, ain't nothing gonna clean up the mess without directly addressing the mess rather than a feel good plan to sweep around the carpet edges.
The theoretical FairTax will be very much like the one in reality and will do just fine, thanks.
For the FairTax to work just as supporters claim it will, human beings must behave just as FairTaxers claim they will. That is the fly in the FairTax ointment.
And your claim that the Aussie GST of 10% had such a terrible effect that it almost destroyed the construction industry and precipitated a recession is weak and completely unsupported. The truth is no doubt something else (as we've learned from many of your overblown statements) and - if there really were such a severe effect it was just as likely brought about by adding the 10% VAT on top of the other taxes they had at the time or by adding additional taxes on top of the VAT plus whatever tax they had to start with. Since you have no economic backup to backstop your claim, it can merely be overlooked.
I didn't say the construction industry was almost destroyed (hyperbole), I said there was a 37% decline (fact).
What happened in Australia (facts) is that before the new tax went into effect, there was a flurry of buying, after, buying dropped off and a recession ensued. Overlook that if you wish, but overlook it at your own peril.
And such foolishness - you believe that having a lower effective tax rate as taxpayers will do with the FairTax than under the income tax will result is LESS consumption??? What nonsense; there will be much more of an incentive to consume, not less, since consumption under the income tax carries a higher effective tax rate - but of course you don't understand that. The areas of things not taxed have been presented several times on these threads and I suggest you go look them up if you truly don't know what they are.
What you don't get is that the day the FairTax went into effect, comparative effective tax rates become irrelevant to the consumer at the register.
... precipitated a 37% decline in construction which resulted in a recession ...
... and you believe that your statement isn't "hyperbole"??? Perhaps not - demagoguery would be a more accurate description. What you don't seem to grasp is that your statement and reasoning are almost exactly backwards since taxpayers stampeding to consume prior to the FairTax becoming effective are doing themselves a HUGE disservice. since they'd be paying more than after the tax became effective.
So, let's get this straight, you're saying that lowering the effective tax rate of taxpayers from it's present level is somehow going to behave "differently"??? I dare say it most likely will, but I'd think the "difference" would be to boost the amount of consumption, not reduce it under the effect of the FairTax (which - unfortunately for your theory and comparisons) is quite a different animal from the two VATs you cited. Neither are the same sort of tax in the effect upon taxpayers since they actually raised taxpayers effective rates.
As for directing a consulting form to a desired result, indeed that is not uncommon - and it's what consulting firms are known for. That's quite a different thing that using one to "evaluate" an economic proposal (my "directions" related typically to construction projects where my company wished a certain type of result and the consulting firm could have no idea of what the desired outcome might be). That's quite different than making an economic study so cease your pretense and attempts to attack someone who supports something you detest. You're not even close to "shooting the messenger".
In fact, you'd be well advised to read this rebuttal in response to the charge by your "anti": forces on the matter.
The many different economic studies of the FairTax clearly support the idea that it is better than the present system - you merely don't wish to accept that for whatever agenda you may have ... and it's clear you do not wish to put forth a tax plan of your own but merely to attack, attack, attack. Apparently you really have none and are bereft of a solution to the ills caused by the present system. The vague generalities you present are something that almost everyone would like to see happen no matter the system - but they don't address the problem and are so pallid as to be useless in trying to correct the tax system and it deficiencies ... but perhaps you don't recognize that there are any???