What you WERE saying was that a percent saving at each stage will result in an equivalent percent saving at retail - that is false.
I won't argue about nominal prices changing - they may. But that is immaterial. Purchasing power will remain stable.
Instead of paying 3.50 for a gallon of milk with 10.00 you may pay 3.85 for it but have 11.00.
Why the hoopla about nominal prices?
I stand behind what I said in my posts, I'm not going to go back through them and try to educate you as to where you started to misunderstand.
Your chart with the multiple stages was total crap, and since there was not labor or profits introduced at any of the stages after the first, there would have been zero tax consequences in any of those subsequent stages.
If you would use a real case with value added at each step and profits, then we would have something to discuss, and these new inputs would also reduce the percentage impact from the earlier stage inputs, and everything would work out as I said it would.
Only by going to fantasy land do you end up with gobbledygook like you posted. There is NO tax due on buying something and selling it for the same price without adding any labor, transportation etc. So your analysis falls apart.
You're changing what you're saying. I have said real prices will remain stable.
Why the hoopla about nominal prices?
It's a tactic used when a person's argument has been refuted, they obfuscate. Such people are their own worst enemy. So to speak.