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 $100 for a total amount to the consumer, that 30% number sounds high. However, when you subtract the current federal tax component that averages around 33 - 35% (including income taxes and all other federal taxes), a sales tax of 30% that includes the federal, state and local component is a pretty good deal, IMO. It beats the heck out of paying 7% to the governor and mayor, and paying an additional 30-something% in witholding and other federal taxes.
I'm sorry if I'm not communicating well this morning I'm not saying that 23% of 100 is 29. I guess I didin't make it clear later in my post that 23% of 100 is 23 but we are not talking about straight percentages here were talking about taxes. if you go to thier website they will use the same numbers I just did to explain that as currently propsed the NRST is a inclusive Tax they want to charge a 23% inclusive tax on a retail purchase which is where they get that 129 number. So if you make a purchase of 100$ they figure the tax INCLUSIVE so you would pay 129 for you goods because 23% of 129 is 29 and 129-29=100 not like the exclusive state sales tax I pay here in Texas where if the rate were 23% (thank God it's not) the straight forward tax on $100 would be $23 for a total of $123 go to thier website and see for yourself.