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.
And what is "non-tax data" that you refer to? From your post 477:
He doesn't mention business tax related cost factors, only tax per-se...
I attempted to simplify your terminology to "non-tax cost data." Said another way, it was my attempt to coin a term for all the costs related to tax but are not actual tax that you keep referring to.
And you're right, there's no bargin to be made, we aparently already agree. What puzzled me was your insistance on continuing to discuss Jorgenson's treatement of these costs as if to say "though I can't find them, they've got to be there somewhere! When I said they were not in the model, you challenged my assertion as though such a suggestion flies in the face of reality, even though you agree with me!
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.
OK. So, pick a term we can all use to mean the same thing: everthing you want to include that is currently left out. Everything: The cost of printer ink that prints tax forms, the envelopes used to contact the tax attorney, the disk drives that hold employee withholding data, everything.
How big is it? $250 Billion? $650 Billion? $3 Trillion? $10 Trillion??? just what percent of the GDP are you claiming is eaten up by {term to be inserted here} costs anyway?
How much of that goes away and how quickly does all that cost go away?
Fully unrolled, these costs are all either Labor costs or capital costs. What is the split?
Perhaps you be willing to start another thread to discuss this? This thread has lost a bit of steam.