The reason an inclusive number is used for the fair tax is that it is replacing the income tax, which is an inclusive tax. So to compare apples to apples, both must be quoted at an inclusive rate.
My comment had nothing to do with inclusive vs. exclusive tax rates. I understand and agree that 23% FairTax rate is the apples-to-apples comparison to an income tax rate.
My comment had to do with the amount of retail prices that constitutes embedded tax costs. That figure only reaches 23% as Boortz claims, if you count the income taxes and payroll taxes withheld from the employee. That would leave people taking home the same net paycheck as today and buying stuff that cost the same as today after the FariTax was included. The problem is that Boortz is wrong if he thinks people only pay attention to their net paycheck and won’t mind their employers cutting their gross pay down to the current net. If that doesn’t happen, however, you won’t get a 23% price reduction. You’ll only get an ~10% price reduction from the business tax costs being removed.
The reason an inclusive number is used for the fair tax is that it is replacing the income tax, which is an inclusive tax. So to compare apples to apples, both must be quoted at an inclusive rate.Pure BS. The reason (besides AFFT deceit) is the law is written for the business subject to the tax, not the consumer...
Government to business: Total your "gross payments", send 23%.
Oh wait the reason it's stated as 23% rather than 30% sales tax rate is because the Fairtax wants the cost of government visible, and 23% is more visible than 30%.< /sarcasm >