[r9etb]

For example, Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University conducted a research analysis (1997), which showed that a national sales tax would produce a 10.5% increase in Gross Domestic Product, a 76% increase in real investments, and a 26% increase in exports in the first year of a national sales tax enactment.

My, my. What precision. Not 75%, but 76%! Not 10, but 10.5%! Can't have a round number -- better make it 26%!

Whatever the merits of this particular tax proposal, I make it a practice never to trust an economist who claims to be able to compute numbers like this.

[n-tres-ted]

Economists build economic models in computer software, then insert the controlled changes and see what numbers are produced. I'm sure the economist would estimate a range of accuracy or error, but of course the study and the estimated accuracy are only as good as the assumptions made. Where I disagree with Dr. Jorgensen is in his tax reform proposals to retain the income tax, but redesign it in a manner that reallocates tax impact on various sectors of the economy. That, IMO, is just more central planning and would result in never-ending tinkering by the politicians and those who like to plan for them. Better to eliminate the income tax entirely, repeal the 16th Amendment so it cannot come back, and replace it (and all payroll taxes) with the Fair Tax. That would be much simpler and cheaper to enforce, and most Americans would not even have to deal with the IRS.