Replies

You overlook the indirect disincentive costs which compise the bulk of the burdens on the economy recognized by all economists but not by your figures.

"Indirect disincentive costs" are not "embedded taxes" in the price of the products we are buying now.

According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation in 1997 Americans spent no less than $225 billion complying with the income tax.

Are you trying to tell me Americans paid $225 billion in real money complying with the income tax?

According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation in 1997 Americans spent no less than $225 billion complying with the income tax.

Once again, we are talking about business tax compliance. This information (whether right or wrong) is irrelevant to this discussion.

LOL, the economy is aggregated into retail prices.

I believe Jorgenson is talking about deadweight losses (I don't know because you haven't provided the source). And by definition deadweight losses are not in prices.

I'm not here to convince you, for your view and agenda has nothing to do with the discorvery of any truth. It is merely to demogogue and confuse issues with irrelavancy and outright distortions.

Nothing to do with the truth, confuses issues, irrelevancy, outright distortions? Sounds like someone I know.

It is sufficient to me to note that Jorgenson's results are underwritten by other economists as well.

Show me the papers.

"Indirect disincentive costs" are not "embedded taxes" in the price of the products we are buying now.

Embedded tax burden is the term that best describes the 20-25% reduction of product shelg prices with repeal of the income/payroll tax system. That 20-25% reduction is due to all tax related factors both direct an indirect.

Your pretense that only the tax alone as opposed to its full effects on productivity can affect the price of good and services in nothing other than misdirection and obfuscation of the real situtation.

Are you trying to tell me Americans paid $225 billion in real money complying with the income tax?

"According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation in 1997 Americans spent no less than $225 billion complying with the income tax"
American General Contractor's Association
http://www.agc.org/Legislative_Info/Members_Testify/testimony_04-10-00.asp

Furthermore the reality is that the impact of the income & payroll taxes upon the economy is much greater than merely those paperwork costs as pointed out by that same paper.

I believe Jorgenson is talking about deadweight losses (I don't know because you haven't provided the source).

Assumptions ehhh!

And by definition deadweight losses are not in prices.

LOL, only by your sights.

All business losses reflect in price, for misallocation of resources from productive capacity to non-productive activity. Prices as a consequence are higher than they would otherwise be without the factors giving rise to those losses, specifically tax related disencentives that misdirect productive use of capital into non-productive activities.

It is sufficient to me to note that Jorgenson's results are underwritten by other economists as well.

Show me the papers.

You are certainly welcome to go looking for them yourself, the evidence of the existence of such studies and author's named is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion, and my satisfaction:

As I stated it is not my purpose to convince you for your mind is closed to the NRST.

It is sufficient to provide the evidence that exists to others reading these threads for their perusal and for them to decide upon. Additional investigation that leads to on their part will amply reward them.

Committee on Ways and Means, Full Committee, 4-15-97 Testimony

By favoring certain economic activities over others, the tax code distorts financial decisions and reduces economic efficiency.
"According to a study by Jane Gravelle, an economist with the Congressional Research Service, and Larry Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University, the corporate income tax costs the economy more in lost production than it raises in revenue for the Treasury. "