This is a silly argument. So, I'll just agree with you; tax inclusive is silly but even flat tax supporters use them. Most flat tax proposals call for a 19% tax on the individual, a 19% tax on business profit and retention of payroll taxes at a total of 15.30%. Ignoring the business profit tax which IS a tax collected by business FROM someone else, the 19% individual income tax and 15.30% total payroll tax adds up to a total burden of $34.30 on every hundred dollars on an INCLUSIVE basis. In other words, for every $100 an employee takes home, his pre-tax earnings was subject to a 34.30 total tax burden.
Using your same chart, someone who takes home $100 after being subjected to a 34.30% inclusive flat income tax/payroll tax (both replaced by the FairTax) has to generate a value to the business of $152.20 in exchange for his labor to be able to purchase $100 in goods and services. In other words, the inclusive rate of the flat income tax could also be expressed throughout your chart as a 34.30% tax upon a tax until you get to the total of $152.20. Verifying that: $152.20 minus 34.30% in tax burden equals $100. So what's your point...that the flat taxers are deceptive?
Your chart shows that under the FairTax an individual could provide a value to the business of $129.86 in exchange for his labor and buy just as much in goods and services for his family. Whether the difference between $152.20 and $129.86 comes to the worker in the form of increased earnings, lower prices at the store, higher dividends on his investments or some combination he and the country are still ahead.
This advantage doesn't even include the fact that businesses will not pay the business input taxes under the FairTax (compared to 19% on profits) or the reduced compliance costs.
Sometimes it seems flat tax supporters on here argue that business taxes aren't passed on to others (consumers/laborers/investors). The only thing I've ever seen debated is where the incidence of corporate taxation falls. Corporations are things...artificial entities. Increased expenses in any area of the business, is money that has to be diverted from other areas.
In other words increased costs are absorbed, and not always passed on to the consumer.
Tax incidence -- that is, who actually bears the ultimate tax burden -- is an elusive question that has been the focus of many economic papers, because the answer is not clear. However, the general consensus among economists is that perhaps a portion of the corporate income tax may be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, but that the majority is ultimately paid by corporate owners in the form of lower after-tax profits and by employees in the form of lower compensation. Most economists concede that personal income taxes and payroll taxes are ultimately borne by labor and are not passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Ignoring the business profit tax which IS a tax collected by business FROM someone else,
The tax is not in addition to the profit it is a percentage OF the profit. The profit is collected FROM someone else therefore the tax has to be from someone else.
the 19% individual income tax and 15.30% total payroll tax adds up to a total burden of $34.30 on every hundred dollars on an INCLUSIVE basis. In other words, for every $100 an employee takes home, his pre-tax earnings was subject to a 34.30 total tax burden.
Except, if I'm not mistaken the income tax is applied to income of $34,000 and over. So it couldn't possibly be "for every $100 an employee takes home, his pre-tax earnings was subject to a 34.30 total tax burden".