This is as grotesquely wrong as many of your assertions. Just like this one in which you base your faulty argument on the underlying "fact" that 100-22=88.
The gross payment is the cost of the product plus the tax - hence the tax-inclusive rate you're always complaining about. The term "gross payment" is not what Lewislynn thinks it means - it's the cost of the good including federal taxes - hence the tax inclusive rate.
It's just as foolish for you to continually say this as it was for you to say that a 22% decrease first and subsequently a 29% increase would lead to a price increase...when anyone can see that the price would be the same.
This is as grotesquely wrong as many of your assertions.
Only if the meaning of "gross and payment" has been changed.