[ancient_geezer]

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.

[Always Right]

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.

That model was used to model business response to taxed induced price changes. It did not explain how Jorgenson determined embedded taxes or the compliance costs of the current tax system. That is what I wanted to know. The link did not work either, so I don't even know what that was.

[Always Right]

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.

I just cut and pasted from an article written by a fair tax supporter. If they misrepresented Jorgenson, maybe they did. But what you posted did not refute it. The model you reference has nothing to do with the embedded taxes or even compliance costs. How Jorgenson came up with those numbers is what I am interested in. His modelling of what happens after if a sales tax is enacted is a completely different issue.

[Your Nightmare]

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.

What's "emirically measured changes"?

BTW, Jorgenson had to make a ton of assumption on how to treat that data. You seem to have this fantasy that because Jorgenson and Wilcoxen use an econometric method that their results are more valid than any others. That's just silly. Here's the data, everything else in their model is an assumption.