[robertpaulsen]

"and that's the price reduction used in our comparative purchasing power studies."

Well, price reduction, that's different. In your case, you're taking out 22% in embedded taxes, using 9% to reduce prices, and passing on the rest to the employee. Fine.

Others may choose to use all 22% to reduce prices. But that doesn't change the fact that there's 22% embedded in there to begin with, which was the only point I was making when I said that, today, the drug dealer is paying 22% on everything he buys.

[balrog666]

Well, price reduction, that's different. In your case, you're taking out 22% in embedded taxes, using 9% to reduce prices, and passing on the rest to the employee. Fine. Others may choose to use all 22% to reduce prices. But that doesn't change the fact that there's 22% embedded in there to begin with, which was the only point I was making when I said that, today, the drug dealer is paying 22% on everything he buys.

Yep, if the 22% figure is correct, 60% of that comes out of the employee's paycheck in the form of withholding and FICA taxes.

Funny how piggiepooch can't seem to figure out that simple idea after all these years.

[pigdog]

No, it really isn't different at all. The 9% is the figure used for embedded taxes on these threads for the proposes of paying or removing embedded taxes.

I showed you earlier (if you read it) how in either case, 9% or 23% the contribution of the illegal economy was negligible - something like $4 rather than $23 on a $100 purchase. Perhaps you should go back and read it.