Again, tax base refers to taxable activities, not people. I suppose FairTaxers get all gleeful when they think of taxing an unproductive child 30% when he buys something with his allowance - but where does his allowance come from?
I've hired commercial consulting firms of this sort and explained to them the objectives they needed to reach and guess what ... they reached them (and were then paid).
Good, then you know exactly what's wrong with the FairTax studies.
BTW, if you admit to controlling the outcome of studies to conform to your own particular agenda, how does that impact your credibility on these threads?
A university professor does not have his opinions for sale in that way and if you think so you're sadly mistaken.
When the AFFT claims all kinds of benefits for retail sales and economic growth, why in the world would they commission a study to prove the opposite?
The FairTax is nothing like a VAT in that it taxes only certain retail sales for end consumption and does not tax b2b sales as does the VAT which (despite the theoretical refunding of the b2b taxes) cause embedded tax costs to cascade down to other business levels. And the theoretical refunding of these taxes doesn't work at all well, either, since it always adds many layers of bureaucracy and expenses in verifying and attempting to control fraud in the elephantine bureaucracy. Every VAT counttry I know of has serious difficulty with this issue and most realize that the best way to inflate the bureaucratic levels is to have a VAT.
I'm willing to bet the theoretical refunding works just fine until it meets up with reality just like the theoretical FairTax works just fine on paper and in commissioned studies.
Also, most of the countries you're trying to use as wonderful examples of the VAT tax form have actually added other taxes after the VAT was instituted. And my point still stands. Both of your sources refer to the two countries as a VAT (not a sales tax plus a VAT - which seems to be something you made up out of whole cloth). In fact it is more truly a VAT plus an income tax - and here's the current income tax table...
The example I cited also uses a much lower consumption tax rate. The point I was making (which seems to have flow right over your head) is that the imposition of a 10% tax on consumption precipitated a 37% decline in construction which resulted in a recession even with a concomitant reduction in remaining tax rates and the elimination of some taxes. Whether the effective tax rate is lower and/or if people have increased purchasing power is irrelevant when all them peeps start controlling when, where, and if they pay the FairTax. For an economy like ours, based on consumption it will be an economic disaster.
And both countries with their VATs (and the income tax as well) have all sorts of exclusions and exceptions which is VERY different from the FairTax which has neither of those things.
So what are those lists of economic activities that will be tax free you like to post, about then?
Well, no, since it was the Retail group that hired the hitmen to do its bidding in shooting down any sales tax while the Fairtax organization charged the academicians with determining what the effects of a specific and detailed tax plan might be on the economy - and to back up their studies with facts - something the consulting group did not do since after all what it "reviewed" was not the FairTax at all.
If I were you I'd not be throwing around things like charges of someone else not being credible. In fact, I've been quite honest with no hidden agenda which is more than can be said for a number of your efforts on this exact thread. And you forget that the "claims" that you claim came as a result of the economic studies after they were done, not before. I support the FairTax and it is still completely unclear as to what tax system you support - so do you have one?
And, let's see, you think if, say, the FairTax organization would like to know the effects of the FairTax from a dynamic analysis standpoint they shouldn't be allowed to have economists determine what that might be? Are we to suppose they must be bound by your ridiculous strictures???
The theoretical FairTax will be very much like the one in reality and will do just fine, thanks. 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.
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.