... 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???
How much less would they be paying after the FairTax? If the above is a fact rather than speculation, you should be able to answer the question accurately. For instance, how much will a pound of tomatoes cost after the FairTax. A box of Cheerios? A gallon of milk? A pound of butter? How much will I pay for middle grade gasoline at the pump? What will my rent be?
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.
Tax rates can't be lower if revenue to the government remains the same. FairTaxers contradict themselves when they claim their tax restores freedom to the taxpayer because it gives them the power to decide when, where and how much tax they choose to pay while also asserting that their consumption behavior will, in fact remain the same, or increase.
Please provide a cite that shows Australians were paying more in taxes after the GST was enacted.
Again, both a VAT and a sales tax are taxes on consumption. The method of collection may differ some what, but both are paid by the consumer at the time of purchase, and both have the same economic effect.
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".
Well we know the FairTax is different, don't we?
In fact, you'd be well advised to read this rebuttal in response to the charge by your "anti": forces on the matter.
Okay, where's the rebuttal?
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???
I am simply unwilling to kiss my brains good-bye and accept on faith a system shot full of holes.