On the contrary, the tax is routinely referred to as a 23% tax, with a FAQ explaining why that's a legitimate way to describe a 30% sales tax. If they were truly "both the same", then the FairTaxers would describe their proposed tax in terms compatible with existing sales taxes, which is more readily understood. Since I assume they're not stupid, I conclude that they made this choice consciously.
Both amounts are indeed the same.
ANd why do you posit that if the taxes were the same (and they are), that the rate would be described compatible with sales tax? Why do you suppose that it wouldn't be compatible (your word -I prefer comparable) to income/payroll tax rates? You know - the taxes that the nrst will replace? Or do you prefer to compare today's income/payroll tax rates to an exclusive nrst rate? Why? Because you want the nrst to seem much higher - and it is not. You are marketing your position dishonestly.
It is not the case that it is "more readily understood" as you state and presume. Why don't today's income/payroll tax rates get expressed exclusively????
Nor do I say that I use the inclusive rate exclusively. I use both.