>>18
>>19
>>21
You are not looking at the whole picture. These problems are too complex for the human mind to calculate the perfect answer so we use statistics and empirical study to form solutions, this is all the think tank did, implement scientific method. You are fixating on just a few factors when there are much more important and obvious factors in view.
Firstly most people are rich because they use their money to make money thus earn more than their salaries.
Secondly, because tax would be added into the cost of certain products rather than the exchange of money, the businesses rich people own and invest in would see a decrease in profits whilst having to keep wages above the cost of the new products.
Consider a bar graph with these 3 bars.
1: Company revenue, capital. People who own this capital can withdraw it to spend it on luxuries or re-invest it. As profits go down a higher proportion is re-invested.
2: Average middle/low earner salaries. Salaries subtract from profits. Salaries need to be higher than production costs
3: Average middle/low earner production costs. Production costs subtract from profits.
Notes: I am using only middle and low earner's products and salaries to prevent confusion. Profits used to buy luxuries can be considerred the salaries of the rich.
In a fairtax economy all tax would be added to production costs meaning profits will be reduced. Because wages need to be higher than production costs they would need to increase further cutting into profits. As a result the tax burden would be subtracted entirely from salaries.
Before you suggest that a company could choose to reduce wages to make up for the shortfall instead of accepting lower profits consider the fact that the wages a workforce demands is correlated with their standard of living the cost of which is determinned by production costs and the marketability of their skills. If the company could give it's workers a lower standard of living it would have done so already, as a result it has no choice but to increase wages in relation to the new cost of the same standard living.
>>20
If you read the above it is obvious to see that the people in this think tank are of far superior critical thinking and analysis skills than socialist intellectuals. They are not deluded rich boys (in fact many are women who succeeded through merit and not feminism), no one cares about "this one time" when you spoke to a random retarded objectivist on the internet. Besides your entire ideology and beliefs are bullshit anyway, the workers of the world want to follow intelligent charismatic leaders into a thriving economy not to be ruled by a bunch of goateed coffee house types.
>>22
That's all well and good 900 years ago or in Iran (same thing?), but one of the requirements to becoming a member of the elite in America is to dangle your balls precariously above the bear trap of public opinion. Granted the public are infested with fickle whims and can't think properly but this arrangement is nowhere close to the level of corruption needed for every member of the elite to be in on this, it is unfeasible. Rather we have a situation where different groups push for specific laws that provide loopholes rather than an all consuming jewspiracy.