Also note the tax is "23% of the gross payment" and YES service income is subject to the 30% tax.
A $100.00 item would have a $30.00 tax making the total ("gross payment") $130.00 ...
"23% of the $130 gross payment" is $30.00...And that's only the beginning.
Isn't it also true that the original $100 item value would now be closer to $70 as the taxes built into production costs are eliminated? Hence, the cost of the item would be close to the same and a whole slew of production taxes would be eliminated.
My main point is that I'm reading in the bill itself, and comparing it to the FairTax rhetoric, the FairTax rhetoric implies that all workers receive 100% of their pay, or their gross pay, but the HR25 bill appears to define wage and salaries as "services" under which appear to be taxed 23% just as any good or service.
Furthermore, under the existing FICA (Social Security) regulations, wages are withheld at a defined rate on the basis that each employee is legally a federal employee (i.e. anyone with a social security number is accepting a government benefit and is subject to an excise on pay). The HR25 bill maintains social security, and says nothing about repealing it, but it does mention handing over regulatory power of observation and audit to the SSA in place of IRS.
How can the Fairtax theories work if workers only maintain their net pay instead of receiving gross pay to offset the burden of a 23% tax on all goods purchased? The prebate will help, of course, but I don't see it being honest marketing if workers don't receive a true 100% gross pay?