OK. How about your own reposting of his responses to RobFromGA?:
"A more reasonable interpretation of my 1996 testimony is that workers would keep that after-tax pay; producers' prices would fall, but retail prices would be increased by the national retail sales tax. Any gains by workers and investors would be the result of increase economic efficiency."One would think the by now, with all the in-depth searching I'm sure you've done, you'd have turned up SOMETHING ... that is, unless there isn't anything there to find. Don't you get it? He didn't model your favorite part of the debate. You'll have to find another source.
Of course, you could, like RobFromGA, simply ask Dr. Jorgenson directly.
I'm happy to admit that the FairTax has the potential to improve economic efficiency; I've never said it wouldn't. More to the point, I have explicitly, and repeatedly agreed that there are costs to be saved and passed on in some form (growth, wages, prices, etc.) In fact, my investigation of the topic several year ago allowed for a net savings of about 10% (including the highest number for "compliance costs" that I could get any of you to throw out there.) Unfortunately, all that does is gin up the ire of those who insist that not only do they get a 20% reduction in prices, but the also get a 20% increase in take home pay AND the non-tax savings to business will yield untold (literally) riches to the common man! all because Dr. Jorgenson said so!
But, as you have found, if there is any rigorous analysis of such savings they aren't in the oft-cited works of Dr. Jorgenson.
How about this: I'll stop saying that non-tax cost data is not in there if you'll stop claiming it is. After all, you're assuming it's in there somewhere DESPITE not finding any hint of it; I'm assuming it's NOT in there BECAUSE there his no hint of it.
OK. How about your own reposting of his responses to RobFromGA?:
"A more reasonable interpretation of my 1996 testimony is that workers would keep that after-tax pay; producers' prices would fall, but retail prices would be increased by the national retail sales tax. Any gains by workers and investors would be the result of increase economic efficiency."
Going to a consumption tax reduces the tax wedge on upstream businesesses, as producer price falls quantity of goods sold as exports increase resulting in reduction of deadweight losses.
Those deadweight loss reductions are a factor of change in supply demand equilibrium, not tax related overhead. The economic efficiency gains in production arise from the fact that upstream businesses no longer pay income/payroll taxes per-se. Tax related overhead is a separate issue from these deadweight factors.
OK. How about your own reposting of his responses to RobFromGA?:
"A more reasonable interpretation of my 1996 testimony is that workers would keep that after-tax pay; producers' prices would fall, but retail prices would be increased by the national retail sales tax. Any gains by workers and investors would be the result of increase economic efficiency."
The production gains Jorgenson mentioned in reply to RobFromGa, arise from reduction of deadweight losses (a result of shift in supply-demand equilibrium) by removing tax from manufacturing and other upstream businesses from retail, and through increased capital investment resulting in increased producivity that is encouraged by being taxfree in a consumption taxed economy both effects of which are clearly implemented in the model.
In fact, my investigation of the topic several year ago allowed for a net savings of about 10% (including the highest number for "compliance costs" that I could get any of you to throw out there.)
I would tend to agree, except "compliance costs" are only the accounting cost factors and but a portion of the total tax related overhead costs associated with the current system. "Compliance cost" does not address the costs associated with planning, implementation of tax avoidence/minimization activities, audit/litigation costs arising from controversies with the IRS nor fees,penalties, or interests associated with such when business loses the argument. There is much not accounted for in what is termed "compliance costs" alone.
How about this: I'll stop saying that non-tax cost data is not in there if you'll stop claiming it is.
Since I'm saying that tax related overhead cost data is not implemented in the Jorgenson IGEM simulation, I don't see that you are making any bargain there. And what is "non-tax data" that you refer to?
After all, you're assuming it's in there somewhere DESPITE not finding any hint of it;
Haven't I stated that Jorgenson did NOT include any effect for reduction in tax related overhead costs? I find it is not there, I can find no business cost submodule introduced whatsoever anywhere in the IGEM implementation. I don't assum it's in there, for it is not in there!
I'm assuming it's NOT in there BECAUSE there his no hint of it.
Agreed the model doesn't implement businesss tax related overhead costs at all as far as I can see.
As there are obviously many simplifying assumptions in the model, the treatment of wages being one deviation from real world, where obviously contracts prevent the fall of wages as the model implementation allows, there is nothing that can be assumed out a simplification of the model.
The real world has obvious tax related cost burdening business. An IGEM not implementing such for simplification reasons does not make the real world go away. Evaluating a simulation output one takes real world factors into account adjusting for the simplifications, or at the least recognizing how real world behaviours and factors not included in a model implementation would modify the results.