"Even more paid for results. I guess if the honest economists aren't giving the results you want, buy your own."
Now he is attacking the integrity of the economists who are publishing peer reviewed studies in reputable economic journals. I suppose the economists who reviewed the articles prior to publication are disreputable, also. The SQLs are getting desperate. There is a conspiracy everywhere they turn.
Now he is attacking the integrity of the economists who are publishing peer reviewed studies in reputable economic journals. I suppose the economists who reviewed the articles prior to publication are disreputable, also. The SQLs are getting desperate. There is a conspiracy everywhere they turn.I don't think this paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, let alone a reputable one. It's a working paper. This what the NBER has to say about working papers:
"NBER Working Papers have not undergone the review accorded official NBER publications; in particular, they have not been submitted for approval by the Board of directors. It is intended to make results of NBER research available to other economists in preliminary form to encourage discussion and suggestions for revision before final publication."
Now he is attacking the integrity of the economists who are publishing peer reviewed studies in reputable economic journals.I wasn't aware that economists lost integrity by accepting pay to do a study....Paying an economist to study your own plan however is questionable because...well, you're paying him to study your plan.
In all honesty, without coming out and saying it he proved the 23% rate is NOT revenue neutral because of the "cost" of the progressive rebate. Which is really funny because the tax "cost" of the progressive rebate is a result coming from the same phoney group who wrote the plan claiming to eliminate "tax costs".