Abstract:We study the price rounding regulation in Israel, which outlawed non-0-ending prices, forcing retailers to round 9 ending prices, which in many stores, comprised more than 60 percent of all prices. The goal of the regulation was to eliminate the rounding tax, the extra amount consumers paid because of price rounding, which was necessitated by the abolition of low denomination coins, and the inattention tax, the extra amount consumers paid the retailers because of their inattention to the prices rightmost digits. Using 4 different datasets, we assess the success of the government in achieving these goals, focusing on fast moving consumer goods, a category of products strongly affected by the price rounding regulation. We focus on the response of the retailers to the price rounding regulation and find that although the government succeeded in eliminating the rounding tax, the bottom line is that shoppers end up paying more, not less, because of the regulation, underscoring, once again, the warning of Milton Friedman that policies should be judged by their results, not by their intentions.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to evaluate whether the "Price Rounding Law" implemented in Israel in 2014 has successfully achieved its two main objectives. These two objectives are: 1. **Elimination of Rounding Tax**: Due to the abolition of low - denomination coins, consumers will pay additional fees due to rounding in cash transactions. The government hopes to eliminate this additional cost by prohibiting prices that do not end in zero. 2. **Elimination of Inattention Penalty**: Retailers mislead consumers by using prices ending in 9 (for example, 4.99), making them think that the price is lower than it actually is. The government hopes to reduce consumers' misjudgment by prohibiting prices that do not end in zero. To evaluate whether these objectives have been achieved, the author uses four different data sets, focusing on fast - moving consumer goods (FMCG), especially retail channels such as supermarkets, pharmacies, small grocery stores and convenience stores. The research findings are: - **Elimination of Rounding Tax**: The government has indeed successfully eliminated the Rounding Tax because prices no longer need to be rounded. - **Impact of Inattention Penalty**: Although prices ending in 9 are prohibited, retailers have instead used a large number of prices ending in 90. This has led to the problem of consumers ignoring the right - hand digits of prices still existing and even being exacerbated. As a result, the amount finally paid by consumers has actually increased. Therefore, although the government's original intention was to reduce the burden on consumers, in fact, this policy has increased consumers' expenditures instead. This result once again verifies Friedman's view: "Policies should be judged by their results rather than their intentions." ### Key Formulas - **Rounding Tax Calculation**: \[ \text{Rounding Tax}=\sum_{i = 1}^{N}(\text{Rounded Price}_i-\text{Original Price}_i)\times\text{Probability of Cash Transaction} \] where \(\text{Rounded Price}_i\) is the rounded price, \(\text{Original Price}_i\) is the original price, and \(\text{Probability of Cash Transaction}\) is the probability of a cash transaction. - **Total Rounding Tax**: \[ \text{Total Rounding Tax}=\sum_{\text{store type}}(\text{Average Rounding Tax per Transaction}\times\text{Number of Transactions}\times\text{Share of Cash Transactions}) \] Through these analyses, the author concludes that although the government has successfully eliminated the Rounding Tax, due to retailers' adjustment of pricing strategies, the amount finally paid by consumers has actually increased.

Price Setting Rules, Rounding Tax, and Inattention Penalty