What about all that "apples to apples" stuff?
Common bases remember?
ancient_geeser #114: "To be able to add or substract or compare between the two measures you have to first convert them to the same base."
Because this discussion wasn't about how much prices would drop. It was about whether or not using the inclusive sales tax rate was nessesary to make a comparision to the income tax.
Fine, I accept your calculation as being valid for the conditions you want to specify
NRSTrate = (($77,500 * 80%) * 29.87%) - $4,646 / $104,626 = 13.26% saving the rest for a idillic and pastoral retirement
Compared with the income/payroll tax system lowest rate results:
ITrate = ITnet/GrossIncome = $35,270/$100,000 = 35.27% and government get to decide who gets that idillic and pastoral retirement on your nickel.
And let folks decide which they prefer on your calculations.
But you didn't show me the equation with the tax inclusive rate.
Sure I did, you just didn't want to accept the result I gave without your followup editorializing
Save max:
NRSTrate = 100*((0.23*$77,500)-$4,646) / $104,626 = 12.59%
With implicit price reduction=NRST tax inclusive rate,(i.e. 23%), a good midrange value greater than 20% but less than the maximum of 25% closely refecting the expected price declines consistant Dr. Dale Jorgenson studies.
Dale. Jorgenson, Replacing the Federal Income Tax, The Economic Impact of Taxing Consumption: Hearings Before the House Committee on Ways and Means (Vol. II), 104th Cong., 2d Sess., (statement of Dale Jorgenson, Ph.D., Chairman Harvard University, Department of Economics on March 27, 1996, at p. 105) (reprinted in Joint Economic Committee, Roundtable Discussion on Tax Reform and Economic Growth, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 1996 at. p. 79).
There still is no reason to use the tax inclusive sales tax rate except to confuse people.
So you would have all believe, though the essential reason is obvious:
Under the NRST with FCA, one pays less than 23% of personal consumption in tax vs the average of greater than 23% of gross income of the income/payroll tax.
The NRST will be no worse than the current system in tax burden laid upon the individual family.
Which is a true and modest comparison between the two systems without hyping one way or the other.
But since I accept your calculation as being valid for the conditions you want to specify
NRSTrate = (($77,500 * 80%) * 29.87%) - $4,646 / $104,626 = 13.26% saving the rest for a idillic and pastoral retirement
Compared with the income/payroll tax system lowest rate results:
ITrate = ITnet/GrossIncome = $35,270/$100,000 = 35.27% and government get to decide who gets that idillic and pastoral retirement on your nickel.
I'll let folks decide which they prefer on the basis of your calculations.
Anyway, back on topic, it seems you weren't able to show me a comparison
This sure looks like "a comparison" to me, generated by me based on a midrange value between (20-25%) in price decline to be expected on a fixed basket of goods an services.
Save max:
NRSTrate = 100*((0.23*$77,500)-$4,646) / $104,626 = 12.59%
Or spend max and no saving
NRSTrate = NRSTnet/GrossIncome = $18,794.68/$104,646 = 17.96%
Or anything inbetween max invest and minmum possible spending to max spending and no saving and investment as the individual citizen may choose.
Or limit individual liberty to make such choices, because government has already limited your options for you:
ITrate = ITnet/GrossIncome = $35,270/$100,000 = 35.27%
between my income tax rate and the tax inclusive sales tax rate after all.
Or use yours as well, will I will forever enshrine, after cleaning up the format abit, thank you:
NRSTrate = (($77,500 * 80%) * 29.87%) - $4,646 / $104,626 = 13.26% saving the rest for a idillic and pastoral retirement
Compared with the income/payroll tax system lowest rate results:
ITrate = ITnet/GrossIncome = $35,270/$100,000 = 35.27% and government get to decide who gets that idillic and pastoral retirement on your nickel.
And let folks decide which they prefer on the basis of your calculations.
Where the real kicker is
All three calculated NRST tax inclusive effective rates are less than even just your
Your Nightmare: My effective tax rate (income tax + FICA) on my income is 19.77%
which does not account for hidden or embedded taxation in your purchases at all,
Nevertheless is greater than any of the three computation addressed:
Spend same $77,500 Save max $27,146:
NRSTrate = 100*((0.23*$77,500)-$4,646) / $104,626 = 12.59%
Your calculation, with intermediate spending $80.5K and saving $24.1K:
NRSTrate = (($77,500 * 80%) * 29.87%) - $4,646 / $104,626 = 13.26% saving the rest for a idillic and pastoral retirement
Or spend max $101,9K and no saving $0
NRSTrate = NRSTnet/GrossIncome = $18,794.68/$104,646 = 17.96%
Which, confirms the NRST proponents stand perfectly:
Under the NRST with FCA, one pays less than 23% of personal consumption in taxes vs the average of greater than 23% of gross income of the income/payroll tax.
The NRST will be no worse than the current system in tax burden laid upon the individual family.
All stated simply, truthfully, without hype and without recourse to the mathmatics, but does retain the sense of what the NRST is about, replacing the income/payroll tax system with the NRST.