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.
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.