Replies

I never assumed 23% was quoted for marketing reasons: instead I concluded it.

Your logic is then faulty, because you have reached an invalid conclusion. In fact, it is the opposite conclusion that is correct: those who insist on using the tax-exclusive rate are doing so to make the tax look larger.

The NRST rate is quoted in tax-inclusive terms specifically so that it can be correspondingly compared to income and payroll taxes on an equal footing. For example, I earn $100, of that I pay $20 in taxes and $80 for goods and services. What is my tax rate? Is it 20% of $100 or 25% of $80? Both are correct, but which one is useful in context?

Let's try to compare the NRST (at the 23% tax-incluive and 29.87% tax-exclusive rates) to a 17% flat income tax. Of course, that flat income tax doesn't include 7.65% payroll taxes, so let's add that in for a total of 24.65%.

So, which one NRST rate is the best one to use for comparison? If I use the tax-inclusive rate (23%), I can easily see that I can buy $77 worth of goods for each $100 that I spend. As a direct comparison, I can buy $75.35 worth of goods under the flat tax with that some $100 pre-tax money. I was able to figure out those numbers using the same calculation for each: pretax money times ( 100% minus the tax-inclusive rate ).

If I use the tax-exclusive rate (29.87%), however, when I ask the question of how much goods and services I can buy with my pre-tax $100, I have to use an entirely different equation: pretax money divided by ( 100% plus the tax inclusive rate ).

In the first case, the rates can be compared on the same footing -- an apples-to-apples comparison. In the second, since I have to use different means of calculating the same answer, I have an apples-to-oranges comparison.

But, you may say, isn't it just a case of how I chose to frame the question? Of course it is -- but the question as I framed it is what the average person wants to know: I've got $X, how much stuff can I get for that after taxes are taken out?

The honest fact is, it is the NRST opponents who insist on using the tax-exclsuive rate in order to scare people into thinking the rate is higher than it is. Take our example again -- using an honest head-to-head comparison, the NRST rate (23%) is actually lower that the flat tax plus payroll taxes (24.65%), and the example shows that after-tax money follows these numbers. However, those more interested in the flat tax use the tax-exclusive number (29.87%) to make the NRST look larger than the flat tax plus payroll taxes.