First let me say I like the NRST but, the first problem with it is with the fact that it is an inclusive tax. Simply meaning that the NRST on $100 would work out to $129 since $29 is 23% of $129. Not as you and I think in terms of a regular state sales tax which is exculsive in that the tax on $100 would be $23 and thus a total cost of $123.
they say 23% tax because it sounds better than 29% especially when you start adding another 10% for the state taxes.
Although they arent "LIEING" they are being deceiptive which ruins thier credibility this is the first(among many) things they need to fix with thier presentation if they don't want people to turn them off when they figure out the difference between inclusive and exclusive taxation rates
(it's early I might have gotten the terms reversed the numbers are still true)
See my post #17. I don't know how you came up with the $129 number, but your initial number is flawed and throws the rest of your numbers off.
However, let's assume that you are right, that 23% of $100 is $129 (my 4-function calculator disagress with that number, but we'll play along). Even is that is really the amount, considering the grand total that we pay in all of the assorted taxes (state, federal and local) approaches 45 - 50%, by eliminating the tax on income, we still end up with more money at the end of the day.
If I take robertpaulsen's 30% sales tax number and apply it to sales on $100 for a total amount to the consumer, that 30% number sounds high. However, when you subtract the current federal tax component that averages around 33 - 35% (including income taxes and all other federal taxes), a sales tax of 30% that includes the federal, state and local component is a pretty good deal, IMO. It beats the heck out of paying 7% to the governor and mayor, and paying an additional 30-something% in witholding and other federal taxes.
"they say 23% tax because it sounds better than..."
No, they say 23% because it is the direct comparison to the income tax we have today, being inclusive.