[Your Nightmare]

None of that is deceptive. It's the way we all figure our taxes today.

It's not the way we figure sales taxes today. Sales taxes are always expressed the tax exclusive method. You want to see deceptive, consider this. I just made a purchase at lunch. The sales receipt is a follows:

Item description	$ 29.25
8.25% sales tax	2.44
TOTAL	$32.09

With a NRST, this receipt becomes:

Item description	$ 29.25
8.25% state & local sales tax	2.44
23% national sales tax	8.85
TOTAL	$40.94

That's not deceptive?

[kevkrom]

As I pointed out earlier, if you want to use tax-exclusive rates, that's not a problem. But since we're comparing the NRST to the taxes it replaces (payroll and income taxes), then we'll have to use tax-exclusive versions of those rates so that we can compare equitably.

But I don't think we want to go there, because income and payroll taxes are much more difficult to deal with in those terms. For eaxmple, the "employee's share" of FICA (7.65% tax-inclusive) is 8.28% tax-exclusive, but for self-employment, which is double the amount of tax collected (15.3% tax-inclusive), the corresponsing tax-exclusive rate 18.1%. But because of how this percentage is calculated, the latter number (18.1%) is more than double the former (8.28%) even though the actual tax collected is exactly double.

Now that is confusing.

[Principled]

Your receipt is wrong because the nrst is figured exclusive of any state or local taxes.

Other than that, your html looks good.

It is surely different to have a tax inclusive tax on a traditionally tax-exclusive receipt. It would be stupid to not recognize this. But different doesn't mean deceptive except to people who want to make the nrst less desireable to learn about. Some people think that calling something a name will prevent others from forming their own opinions.

The good thing about FR is that folks here are not stupid. They know a name caller, agenda holder at first post.