The net result will be lower taxes and therefore lower prices with a NRST. Effectively an income increase, although of course market forces will still apply including supply, demand, productivity, etc.
If you look at the situation as static - which of course it is not, but people like to compare it that way - then you would have a net zero effect, that would be its intent, to get the same amount of tax in a different way.
However, putting aside my own situation, the larger picture with a consumption tax is more tax income (that is now being missed w/black market, off the books transactions) and a HUGE savings in legal and accounting expenses resulting in a sizable increase in productivity - and another increase in investment and wealth creation resulting from removing the disincentive of progressive taxation - and all the economic benefits citizens see from this.
As for "honesty" to citizens in order for them to make an informed choice, good luck. The first step to approaching this would be to eliminate the witholding charade that makes taxes look like bonuses. The second step would be to gag all the lying tax-addicts in congress and wealth redistributionists in media and academia.
Unless federal spending is reduced, and/or federal borrowing increased, there will NOT be lower taxes.
But playing along, I'll say that if retail prices are decreased, then that means the receipts that go into the federal treasury will be reduced.
What do you suppose the federal response to that will be? Do you think it might be a rate increase? You betcha. Now, what is the possibility that a rate increase will result in reduced purchasing? Hmmmmmmmm . . . .
If the NRST proponents make no allowance for these possibilities, they are being dishonest.