1) Prices would come down.
If all companies saw a savings of 23% (whatever the number), then at least ONE of those companies would lower their prices to attract more consumers. That price would be undercut by someone else, and so on. Until they were at a competitive price again.
That is how competition works. That's why most products don't have a large profit margin on them. To believe this massive savings across the board would be treated any different defies market theory. It assumes that all actors will act in as a cartel to protect profits - it simply doesn't happen.
If existing companies thought they could just add 23% to their profit margins and sit on it, new companies would start up and sell their product for 23% less. Forcing the cartel to drop their prices. The argument that companies would refuse to lower their prices pretends that there is zero competition in the marketplace, which isn't true for many products. It also assumes that demand is inelastic and the company would have no incentive to encourage additional sales by dropping the price, which is also not true.
The only scenario in which your argument is sustained is a product for which there is no competition, no elasticity in demand, and extremely high barriers to entry into the market. Even the most successful cartel, OPEC, doesn't have that kind of power and deals with a unique commodity. Certainly you can see how it wouldn't apply to nearly any product on earth.
2) End user consumer spending is a taxable component of GDP.
The gross tax base for the FairTax would be about 81% of base GDP. Which as I mentioned before Fairtax Base * .23 = revenue requirement. Believe it or not, the equation balances:
For detailed mathematical models, examples, statistical data, and the like see:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TaxingSalesUnderFairTax.pdfPages 666-668 are most relevant to your concerns.
I am happy to address arguments. But it is pointless for me to just repost the detailed math and economic studies that have been done. The Fairtax group has had these numbers audited by several other nonpartisan groups without flaw.
Honestly, if you have a problem with the math look it over. Tell me where they went wrong. I thought the 23% was ridiculous also, until I look over the figures.
Your fears about excess taxation on the poor are well intentioned. But the intent is misguided. Please look over and try to understand the math involved before you claim it is too good to be true.
- - -
TROGDOR:
You are absolutely correct. I have not repeated the work of the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve in calculating the GDP or expenditures. Nor do I see value in that. I am happy to rely on other peoples work.
Nor did I draft a 700 page document going over in detail all the change in tax code would entail. Nor did I pay auditors to go over the numbers in that document to ensure they are correct. I am happy to rely on other peoples work.
I have also never viewed human cells. Never seen a virus. I have not been to the moon. I have never seen a U.S. soldier die in Iraq. I rely on other people and to show me those things are real. I am happy to rely on other peoples work o prove that after reviewing it with skeptical eye.
The GDP numbers for the nation are pretty sound. We know how much money is spent by consumers, by governments, and in general what that money was spent on. We know how much each portion of the economy makes and spends. We know what revenue the Federal Government makes.
So while I agree that there would have to be a transition period to fine tune it and allow the economy to adapt, the number is more than likely very close. Unless you believe that the Reserve GDP, the BLS, treasure and every other statistic is off base. In which case the current projects for revenue and collections are also worthless so we would be no worse off.
BETTER YET:
The best part would be, if we had a $1,000,000,000,000 deficit one year, we could EASILY up the revenue the next year by going to 24%. You want a war in Iraq? Fine, but it will cost an additional .5% per year. You want a stimulus package in 2009? Ok, but from 2015 to 2020 we wil have to add .75% to the revenue stream to make up for it.
Dear god. We would be able to have a tax system that is transparent, simple, efficient, and readily adjustable. Allowing our government to plan for the future?
- - - - - - -
As always, I welcome your questions. I really think people that are against the system just don't understand it. It seems too good to be true. If something is pointed out that shows me that, I'd turn on it in a second. So while I see things that are not 100% with it, I see nothing that indicates the current system is better.
(ancillary replay after I started posted:
Joe Blow will does see an increase in net worth when corporations see an increase. Just like they lose money when corporations lose money. They do not have the control or the stake that the super rich have - they do not gain as much or lose as much. But with 401Ks, IRAs, pensions, health savings accounts, and real estate markets all tied to company success or failure - I would argue the notion that we all benefit is overly simplistic (in that the rich gain/loss more) but not patently false.)