I'd say your whole post is confused.
You always omit the fact that today's prices are paid with AFTER income tax AFTER payroll tax dollars. You omit the fact that one must earn more that the price. That is, you omit the effect of income and payroll taxes on earnings.
An example is.... an item with a $100 price tag costs more than that. It costs ME $133 (I have a 25% effective federal tax rate). So to buy the item, I'd have to earn $133. Clear enough?
Second, you always omit the reduction in prices when the income tax is gone. You say it'll be 9%. So the $100 price tag will change to $91. Clear enough?
Third, you always use the marginal rate of the nrst. But nobody pays marginal rates under the nrst any more than they pay marginal rates today. The effective rate (tax paid/earnings) is an acceptable measure of tax paid. Similarly, the nrst has effective rates that vary depending on family size and money spent. Clear enough?
I think it's you who's confused.
In your comparisons, why do you omit the effect of the income tax on earnings but remember to include the effect of the nrst on prices? Trying to mislead?
In your comparisons, why do you omit the price reductions that you yourself have stipulated? Trying to mislead?
In your comparisons, why do you use the marginal rate of the nrst even though you know it is the effective rate that is indicative of one's tax burden? Trying to mislead?
Do you not have enough to persuade people without this tactic?