2000? That doesn't take into account the Bush tax cuts. Why not use 2003 numbers? I provide them for you.
To remain consistent with the original conditions the original rate was established under.
The NRST of HR25 was based on pre Bush tax law and economic conditions when calculations showed that the sales tax would have to be in the area of 23% and repeal of the tax law then in place would have and effect on the economy of a magnitude commensurate with that tax law.
A complete economic study by the congressional research staff of the Library of Congress is now under way updating for current tax law & economic conditions which indicates the NRST rate will come out in the 18-20% range. After that study is completed the bill will be updated and it will make sense to then work with the latest information consistent with Bush's tax cuts in light of the updated value of the NRST rate.
Just think you get to start all over again with a chance to snipe at a whole branny new set of numbers at that time.
Ain't life grand ;O)
So you use numbers after the Bush tax cuts when they benefit you
I only use the Bush tax cuts to point out that the NRST rate is head down before long. I don't use them with the current bill as they are not consistant with the economic and legal conditions existing at the time of the reviews for HR25 were done.
To remain consistent with the original conditions the original rate was established under.We are discussing the NRST rate. We're discussing how much of the prices we pay today are "embedded" taxes. Why are you bringing up the NRST rate?
The NRST of HR25 was based on pre Bush tax law and economic conditions when calculations showed that the sales tax would have to be in the area of 23% and repeal of the tax law then in place would have and effect on the economy of a magnitude commensurate with that tax law.
That's probably the one that used to be 15% without SS included, not your 23%.
There's nothing like a good honest big government study with predetermined conclusions.