pigdog's response is hilarious. The more he writes, the more he proves his TOTAL lack of understanding of all aspects of this discussion.
I've never pretended that the cascading embedded tax example I've given many times represented anything other than the mechanism of how such taxes become hidden. You (and your sidekick Nightie) are the ones trying to "prove" something about the (as you define it) "real world" where not only do a high percentage of the businesses either break even or lose money, but the "net profit margin" you've selected is artificially cut in half to boot from information you yourselves have posted.
If your "real world" example were indeed descriptive of the real world and used your 6.24% you would have shown that there is ample room in prices due to the income tax (well above 15% of prices) to lower prices when the income tax is eliminated. In fact, you showed that with your artificially skewed and unrealistic example (the one you claim as "realistic" - which it is not) that the 15% decrease is within reason even with your intentionally biasing the example with unrealistic markups and with the assumption that these large companies are representative of margins in smaller companies (which I find unlikely in the extreme).
In any event your "example" that shows about a 15% price reduction range for the FairTax uses an average net profit of only about 1/2 that you represent as "real". In addition, using 1/3 of the businesses as marginal in the chain is three times the rate of those in the very set of companies you hold out as "real" with the 6.24% rate since for those companies the failing rate (zero or a loss) is less that 1/3 of the number you presented in your "real" example, thereby biasing it downward as well.
So a more-likely "real" example using your spreadsheet (which graded as F- for these and other reasons as I said earlier), you'd easily exceed a 20% embedded tax rate which could be eliminated with the advent of the FairTax. So you see, despite cheerleading by both you and Nightie, your example is not realistic at all despite the pretense of both of you.
My example clearly indicates the cascading embedded tax mechanism while yours merely (intentionally) obscures ... but still proves that a 15 - 20% or more embedded tax can be removed from prices when the income tax dies. You guys have done nothing but shoot yourself in both feet.
Thanks for confirming what I have been illustrating all along about a probable substantial price reduction with the advent of the FairTax even though I made no "real" claims as you yo-yos have done. Your example is hardly real as we've seen, but merely an illustration of the old saying about "figures don't lie, but liars figure".