[robertpaulsen]

If the NRST were in place:

If you paid $100 for an item, you paid $23. in tax. That means the item sold for $77. plus $23. tax.

Now, to me and everybody else on the planet (except those pushing for the NRST) that looks like a 30% (29.86%) sales tax. That is: $77. plus 30% sales tax (77 X .3 = 23) equals $100. purchase.

The NRST people look at the National Retail Sales Tax and treat it like a National Retail Income Tax. That is: The retailer had an "income" of $100 and paid a tax to the government of $23. The retailer paid a $23% income tax. Get it?

23% looks smaller than 30%, so they use that percentage.

Now, here's my opinion on this whole NRST debate. If the supporters have to result to this kind of subterfuge, what else aren't they telling me?

Lastly, we're told that retail prices will drop 20-30%, our paychecks will be about 25-30% larger (no withholding), AND we'll get a monthly check from the government of around $500. Uh huh.

[Your Nightmare]

Lastly, we're told that retail prices will drop 20-30%, our paychecks will be about 25-30% larger (no withholding), AND we'll get a monthly check from the government of around $500. Uh huh.

And, don't forget, it will make your teeth a brighter white, give your hair that special bounce, and "if a relaxing moment turns into the right moment, you'll be ready"!

[kevkrom]

23% looks smaller than 30%, so they use that percentage.

No, the tax-inclusive rate is used so that it can be compared to current income and payroll tax rates, which are also tax-inclusive. There is no attempt at deception here.

[jonestown]

I agree. He is misinformed. It's [the tax] more like 50%.
32 robertpaulsen

The Fair Tax proposal is written in english.. We should be able to agree on the actual tax rate proposed on a $100 purchase.
Is it 23% ? Or -- 29.86% ?
Hopefully, we can disregard the 40/50% imaginings of the fringe.
What say you?
804 jones

The NRST people look at the National Retail Sales Tax and treat it like a National Retail Income Tax. That is: The retailer had an "income" of $100 and paid a tax to the government of $23. The retailer paid a $23% income tax. Get it? 23% looks smaller than 30%, so they use that percentage.

I get it. - At least you've discarded your BS about "50%".

Now, here's my opinion on this whole NRST debate. If the supporters have to result to this kind of subterfuge, what else aren't they telling me?

The Act is all written out.. Do you have problems reading?

Lastly, we're told that retail prices will drop 20-30%, our paychecks will be about 25-30% larger (no withholding), AND we'll get a monthly check from the government of around $500. Uh huh.

You're back to playing the exaggeration game again. -- To bad you can't argue the issue on its merits.