[tialaramex]

This is also routine in Europe where tax is included in the advertised price. Here for example the price shown for your hilarious Xmas sweater is inclusive of tax, the price shown for your toddler's equally hilarious sweater is not, because it's tax exempt (clothing for kids isn't taxed) and so in both cases the displayed price is the price you'll pay.

We added a sugar tax, so the sticker price for beverages like original Coke went up, but similar zero sugar products (Coke Zero, Pepsi Max) did not. Of course some stores just raised the before-tax price to capture the difference as profit, and others just eliminated sugary drinks. So... a mixed result.

The EU's focus is that consumers always pay what the sticker price says. So, no "plus tax", no "shipping fees not included" on items that unavoidably have to be shipped to you, no "service fees" no "card fees" nothing like that. I think even if you don't actively like this, you can see the point of this approach.

Would it be easier to get consumers angry about taxes if the tax wasn't "baked in" ? Maybe. But it's not as though it has proved impossible to campaign against, for example, tax on tampons or even toilet paper.

[bluGill]

$2.99 at 6.5% tax is $3.18 (after rounding). Buy two and your total cost is $3.37. The government don't not want to be cheated out of that penny. (it adds up over all the people buying stuff)

[bloodorange]

I genuinely can't tell if you are being serious. If you are being serious, then how do you account for the behaviour of the customer possibly changing based on how the price is displayed (i.e including or excluding taxes etc.)

[bluGill]

Since in the US tax is traditionally never included in any state (exception: gasoline is always advertised with all tax), consumers are not changing behavior. I suspect there are a few who split purchases knowing the above, but for the most part few people do.

Also, you seem to be putting more thought into this than our government has.