"Notice how the real inclusive rates have to change when you modify the city rate? When you change that rate you change the "gross payment" and your 23% inclusive federal rate is now collecting 23% of a different amount than the other city. Also notice how easy it is to add the tax exclusive sales tax rates. It's the natural way to express the additive sales tax.
Again, using the tax inclusive rate for sales taxes is not a matter of preference, it's flat out wrong. Just as it would be wrong to use exclusive rates with an income tax (similar things would happen).
Y'all can be reasonable, realize the error, and make a change; or continue to hang on and go down with the "tax inclusive" ship. I really don't know why y'all are so insistent on the tax inclusive rate anyway."
-- Like I told you, the $100 number is hypothetical. The retailer simply raises prices t owhatever amount he feels he needs to cover his prices. It's taxing HIS sales, so the $72.50 number is irrelevant. This is if you look at it as a "single-layer VAT."
If you want to dig deeper, you'll see that what happened here is that state and local taxes taxed FEDTAX.
If the State and local authorities did not want to "tax taxes", then they would simply deduct "other taxes paid" before applying theirs, it can all be done on the retaier side. Again, all the buyer would see is the final price, and they would be told how much of it actually went to taxes.
By the way I see your tactic every time the FairTax comes up: Turn the dabate away from one on fundamentals to one based on abstract mathematics. I fall it for myself.
From now on I won't respond to your stupid inclusive-exclusive arguments. Ancient_geezer won't either. When you try and propagandize a new FReeper, we'll email them, clear it up, prevent the dabate from being poisoned.
Like I told you, the $100 number is hypothetical. The retailer simply raises prices t owhatever amount he feels he needs to cover his prices. It's taxing HIS sales, so the $72.50 number is irrelevant. This is if you look at it as a "single-layer VAT."And the retail store in Austin will have to list his prices as higher than a store across the street in Pflugerville. And if they want to advertise a price they will have to list prices for every tax district the ad goes to (definitely no national advertising). I'm sure they would really appreciate you simplifying things for them.
If the State and local authorities did not want to "tax taxes", then they would simply deduct "other taxes paid" before applying theirs, it can all be done on the retaier side.Interesting. So they would figure the price exclusive of taxes and then figure a ... what shall we call it? ... a "tax exclusive" sales tax rate. They can then apply this "tax exclusive" sales tax rate to the "tax exclusive" price of the item. This does make sense. This "tax exclusive" sales tax rate is a very good idea. You should tell the AFT people about this idea. I think it's a winner.
By the way I see your tactic every time the FairTax comes up: Turn the dabate away from one on fundamentals to one based on abstract mathematics. I fall it for myself.First, I didn't bring it up. Second, it's a critical flaw in your plan. Until you change it, it is one of the fundamentals of the debate.
From now on I won't respond to your stupid inclusive-exclusive arguments. Ancient_geezer won't either. When you try and propagandize a new FReeper, we'll email them, clear it up, prevent the dabate from being poisoned.Nice tactic. When you are shown clearly how your plan is seriously flawed, don't refute, just end the discussion.