[kevkrom]

That's compelte circular logic. You're saying that it says whay you say, because you say it says that, despite the fact the bill itself says that it is not to be interpreted to do what you say it does. Then you ask me to show a concrete example of something that doesn't exist yet, and so has no concrete examples. You're even loonier than usual today.

[kevkrom]

As for a theorhetical example... we'll use the canonical $77 purchase, and include a 5% state sales tax.

The NRST due on that item would be $23, which is 29.87% of $77 (as well as 23% of $77 + $23). The state sales tax on that item would be $3.85 (5% of $77, or 4.76% of $77 + $3.85). The final item price would be $103.85, of which combined federal and state taxes would be $26.85.

As for why tax-exclusive forms definately make the implementation easier, note that $26.85 is 34.87% of $77, and that the 29.87% NRST and 5% state sales tax add up to 34.87%. On the other hand, adding the inclusive rates (23% + 4.76% = 27.76%) doesn't work, because the actual tax-inclusive rate is 25.85% ($26.95/$103.85 = .2585).

[lewislynn]

Then you ask me to show a concrete example of something that doesn't exist yet,

State sales taxes exist. I asked/challenged you to show me an example of the total (gross) cost of a product in a state with a sales tax, that excludes state sales taxes...

Nothing was said about your non-existant sales tax in my challenge, though it's interesting how on the one hand you act as if your sales tax is concrete, then when confronted with logic you declare it's non-existant and can't be proven.

HELLO, ANYBODY HOME???!!!