[Shalom Israel]

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.

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. There's only one way that sales tax is calculated. Deviation from that method was done for a reason.

[kevkrom]

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. There's only one way that sales tax is calculated. Deviation from that method was done for a reason.

I see. Absolutely no discussion of the merits of my presentation, just a reassertion that your flawed premise is correct.

The problem lies in that you are getting stuck on the term "sales tax". The NRST is intended as a replacement for federal taxes, so instead of trying to express it like something it isn't (a state sales tax), you need to express it like something it is (a federal tax). You're trying to compare it to the wrong thing.

[phil_will1]

"There's only one way that sales tax is calculated. Deviation from that method was done for a reason."

That is correct. That reason is so that an NRST can be compared in a meaningful way to the taxes that it replaces.

[pigdog]

Sorry but your position is based upon your own assumption as to why the diffeerent rates are used. Your assumption is incorrect as has been explained several times to you on this thread - yet you continue to pursue the incorrect assumption and the conclusion you draw from it - which, of course, is also incorrect.

There is no "single way" to calculate taxes. You merely describe what you believe is the common practice and insist that it is the only way. It isn't as has been described to you. the poster kevkrom described the situation very clearly to you.

[Principled]

Sorry, but that doesn't wash.

Strong logic!