"FairTax" doesn't work because sales tax is extremely regressive. Rich people don't spend nearly as much of their income as poor people, and they frequently don't even spend it inside the country. Sales tax just ends up hurting the working class the most.

The FAIRtax eliminates the most regressive tax for low earners--the Social Security/Medicare tax. The FAIRtax also provides an exemption up to the poverty level for all households with valid SS cards. It also eliminates the IRS and filing. If more money is needed for lower income then pay directly not through tax code.

Technically, it's a flat tax. You can argue that it's "effectively" regressive if you divide mean spending by income across the income distribution or something, but it doesn't really matter since as long as the prebate value is large enough, the poor still come out ahead.

Needless to say, I'm not claiming that FirTax would work. I'm just pointing out the similarities between it and UBI. If this experiment shows evidence that UBI doesn't work, then that gives me less confidence in FairTax as well.

> Technically, it's a flat tax.

It's a flat tax on consumption, which is a regressive tax on income; when unspecified, progressive/flat/regressive in regard to taxation conventionally refers to relation to income.

> but it doesn't really matter since as long as the prebate value is large enough, the poor still come out ahead.

The size of the prebate (and the 23% rate) is part of the FairTax proposal (though a slighlty incoherent part, since it is defined in terms of income, not spending)—it is defined at the level that a taxpayer would pay 0 net FairTax with poverty level income (presumably, this assumes 100% spending at poverty level.)

Quote from page:

>Internet purchases would be taxed, as would retail international purchases (such as a boat or car) that are imported to the United States (collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection).[53]