Your beloved Dale Jorgenson says so :
Dale Jorgenson, highly regarded economist of Harvard Univ., has found that 20 to 35 percent of U.S. goods and services are "embedded" taxes; that is, for that $10 item you are buying today, $2.50 is "rolled up" or embedded taxes. This happens because a business must recapture all its costs, plus a little profit, in order to stay in business. So businesses aren't the real "payer" of taxes, they're customers are.
Dale Jorgenson's assumption is what most the NRST analysis is based on. If you accept his assumption, you accept today that a drug dealer pays 20-35% tax on every purchase today. It is a wash.
Game, Set, Match
Nobody ever said otherwise.
What eveyone is saying is that under the income tax, the drug dealer only pays a portion of his taxes... the part embedded in prices... he currently does NOT pay his portion of income taxes... he currently does NOT pay his porton of FICA taxes.... so currently he's skipping out on paying some of his taxes.
Further, everyone is saying that under the nrst, the drug dealer pays 100% of his taxes.
Note that nobody is saying that the aggregate amount of tax collected changes.
What everyone gets (excep you so far), is that under the income tax, the drug dealer avoids some of his taxes, but under the nrst, he pays all his taxes.
Hense the assertion that the nrst captures more of the drug dealer's taxes.
But under the nrst, he drug dealer pays 100% of his taxes, so the rest of us no longer have to pay any of his taxes.
Nobody is saying the aggregate collected changes.
Dale Jorgenson's assumption is what most the NRST analysis is based on.
Dale Jorgenson's analysis(not assumption) is rooted the relationships of emirically measured changes in production and prices, in regard to changes in tax policy.
That includes the accumulative affects of repeal of the taxes per-se, change in overhead costs on business, business behaviour in response to repeal of income & payroll tax, consumer response to repeal of income/payroll tax witholding, consumer response to no taxes on savings & investment, consumer response to taxes on consumption, resultant growth in production due to increased efficiency of business activity, resultant growth in U.S. exports, resultant growth in GDP, resultant growth in personal income, ...
Strange how you seem to have missed that, as you had specifically requested information concerning his methodology, and were given such in reply #361 with a link to one of his papers describing his IGEM and methodology.
If you accept his assumption, you accept today that a drug dealer pays 20-35% tax on every purchase today.
Actually looking at your quote it appears more to be somebody's assumption's or guess about Dale Jorgenson's results, rather than Dale Jorgenson's actual analysis statements or conclusions.
The fact of the matter is, and you have been informed of this as well, the income/payroll tax per-se is but a portion of the factors the result in a decline of 20-25% in producer (i.e. prices excluding taxes) prices, the decline in prices is a result of a combination of increased production efficiencies, reductions in overhead costs, removal of taxes per-se, and changes in market demand in response to taxation of consumption expenditure vs not taxing savings/investments and production.
Sorry, your assumptions are flawed about Dale Jorgenson's studies and analysis. While he finds that production increases, and producer price average across the 35 producer sectors represented in his studies decrease, the amount price declines are not limited to merely the amount of tax revenue that government collects from businesses.
But you know that as well.
I can only assume you are trying to construct a strawman, that you think can stymie a response just because of an assumed position of a person about the Dale Jorgenson tax reform studies.
It's not a "wash" at all since you merely assume that all such illegal income goes to a taxpaying firm and that the taxpaying firm has a huge marginal rate.
At best, that is exceedingly unlikely and any such illegal income ends up in the tax revenue as only a vanishing small percentage and certainly nothing like the figure you attempt to pass off. It is the price of goods that is inflated by embedded taxes rather than the taxes paid to government and that does NOT mean the taxes themselves paid are that great - they aren't.
With the FairTax OTOH, the retail taxable purchases will contribute 23% of the selling price into the tax revenue - truly a huge difference.