Badray your analysis of the fair tax vs. the current income tax is right on the money and I understand it. my complaint about the way the NRST is being presented is that it is a retail sales tax, people think that when you say a 23% sales tax that it would be exclusive, so if they spend $100 they expect to pay $123. But that's not so we are talking about a inclusive tax of 23% so that $100 purchase is going to have a total cost of $129! which would equate to a 29% exclusive rate many many people find that deceiptive and that ruins the credibility of the NRST. Economist, economic planners and congress men understand the inclusive/exclusive part but the regular guy in the street doesn't, they think in terms of a straight forward sales tax when they hear the term sales tax they think 23% on $100 buck is $23 not $29 the whole idea of inclusive sales taxes is alien to them .
everyone supposes because that is how the incometax is figured that everyone understands. Not true the vast majority of people just fill out the forms and look at the govt. charts and tables and fill in the appropriate numbers the only calculations they do is at the end for the final number (do I pay or get back).
However I must say this if you look at Anceint_geezers new numbers we could lower the inclusive rate to 19% for a 23.5% exclusive rate this is important news and the new numbers should be fed into the NRST.
However I must say this if you look at Anceint_geezers new numbers we could lower the inclusive rate to 19% for a 23.5% exclusive rate this is important news and the new numbers should be fed into the NRST.You need to understand that the FairTax was never revenue neutral, even at 23% inclusive. The rate that has been proposed is just too low.
Thanks for your reply. I misunderstood your point and I agree that it can be construed as being deceptive when it isn't meant to be. You are also right about the new lower numbers so in the end, the 23% rate may be an accurate representation.