Actually those are your assumptions, not his. When you quote people saying that all consumer goods are embedded with 30% of taxes in them, you are assuming all the taxes are in the price of the goods.
Actually, point out that shelf price (i.e. price before tax) is expected to fall 20-30% by Jorgenson.
Nowhere do I assume that fall in prices is due to just taxes embedded in price as you well know. That claim by you is just another of your frequent strawmen.
The producer price fall on replacement of federal income & payroll tax system (actually replacement of income tax system alone is sufficient to drive that drop in prices according to the Jorgenson Baker study) is a consequence of change in many tax system related factors, and producer/consumer/investment behaviours that are implicit in Jorgenson's macroeconomic IGEM that go with removal of federal income tax system burden from businesses.
Ummm, a tax system imposing a 30% sales tax has never been tried,
It is apparent you have no understanding of statistical methods and extrapolative results based on empirical studies of system parameters.
so there is no empirical data for these so-called models, just assumptions by modelers who were paid for to make the fair tax look good.
ROTFL, your hyperbole is down to it usual standard.
Sorry, the initial version of the particular study, Jorgenson & Wilcoxen for Baker (1997 revised 1999), I generally refer to was in the works prior to the drafting of the Fair Tax and was not commissioned by NRST people at all. In fact the recommendations and conclusions of that study and ones prior to it for Ways & Means committee presentations and to JCT by Jorgenson demonstrating the characteristics of his IGEM were incorporated into and inspired particular provisions of the Fair Tax Act, rather than the converse.
But then when did you ever let facts get in the way of your claims of dishonesty and unethical behaviour on the part of professionals doing studies.
You throw numbers out you don't understand where they come from. Yes those are the numbers that Jorgenson assumes are from taxes embedded in goods. Here's a quote from a FAQ from a web site promoting the fair tax:
Did you know that hidden income taxes currently make up 20% to 30% of all retail prices? It's true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, from 20% to 30% higher than they would otherwise be for everything you buy.
You guys mix and match numbers so much, you have no clue what assumptions are in each set of numbers. That's why so many of your conclusions are ridiculous.
You are a piece of work. I understand it quite well. You are the one who does not see the lunacy is extrapolating the effects of a 5-10% sales tax to a 30% sales tax. There are just assumptions going from a reason tax rate to a 30% tax rate that just don't hold. A 30% tax will have a psychologically detrimental impact to the consumer. Many at seeing that tax will either not buy or will cheat the system. For me, I am much more likely to buy a $40,000 Lexus with hidden taxes, then I am buying a $30,000 Lexus with $10,000 taxes. It is like when George Bush added the luxery tax to boats and cars over $30K, it killed their sales. You apply all the statistically mathmatics and extrapolations you wish, but the assumptions of any study is what makes or breaks it. And if you assume people react to a 5% tax the same way they do to a 30% tax, you don't know what you are talking about. No one can extrapolate those numbers in a meaningful way. This has nothing to do with understanding mathematics and statistics (which I do quite well by the way) but human behavior. The few studies which have been done (mostly in Europe) show a dramatic impact on consumer behavior once a sales tax of over 10% is added.