[Your Nightmare]

Nice try but no go. The tax modeled were indeed the Fair Tax Act provisions, simulated to estimate the revenue neutral rate for the Fair Tax Act, against the taxlaw in place during the Clinton Administration.

It's not the same rate and it has no demogrant. It's not the FairTax.

LOL well then we'll just take a look at the long term limits as they compare to those short term ones:

It's also flawed in the longer term. It's also interesting to see how later version of this paper have changed in their results. The one paid for by the AFT seems to have much greater result than more recent versions. Interesting...

Nahh, that's just Jorgenson being lazy and using Gale as an alternative claim to what Jorgensons Fair Tax Act simulation shows.

How do you tell when Jorgenson's being lazy or not? It is that when he says something that doesn't support your position he's being lazy?

You just as well get over it YN, rates for the NRST and current tax law are going down and you will just have to cry alot I guess

Right. What ever happened to that big Congressional Research Service study of the rate? Didn't go well? This isn't what you were talking about, is it? Because it doesn't have much good to say about a NRST. And it really looks down on trying to predict the outcome of tax changes with intertemporal models like Jorgenson's. Guess what? It turns out they aren't very realistic. Surprise.

[ancient_geezer]

one paid for by the AFT seems to have much greater result than more recent versions. Interesting...

Not suprising as the later ones arbitrarily halved the effective taxbase from that specified in the Fair Tax Act and make other changes that pretty much invalidates any results that could otherwise be useful. Most cases try to make an arbitrary NRST mimic the base of an H/R flat tax or a VAT to do comparisons between the systems. However the flat tax and VATs do not encompass as broad a tax base as HR25 and the flat tax variants have much higher rebate/exemption schemes.

How do you tell when Jorgenson's being lazy or not? It is that when he says something that doesn't support your position he's being lazy?

Actually its when he calls on an outside reference as a contrast against Fair Tax Act claims. Especially in refering to extreme distortions of the Fair Tax Act presented by Gale's Brookings paper as credible work.

What ever happened to that big Congressional Research Service study of the rate?

Doing just fine, release is expected with the first tax reform hearings of the next session of Congess.

This isn't what you were talking about, is it?

Nah, that just a very general overview.

"This report does not track current legislation and will not be updated."

as indicated in the CRS report summary.

the particular study for the Fair Tax Act is for Linder and addresses it specifically as a full economic study not just an overview as your piece is.

The report you found mainly discusses VATs and Flat Taxes in general only touching on the NRST in passing and in the most general of terms. In fact your CRS paper is an overview of various types of consumption taxes rather than a detailed study of anything specific as the Summary page quite clearly indicates with very little more coming out in the rest of the 23 pages addressed to discussion.

Found that one to be pretty much a waste of effort to read, though would be alright for its purpose as an general overview of VATs and other emulated consumption taxes like the flat tax in very broad brush strokes.