> Secondly, I'm not a big fan of how you (and quite a few economists) conflate personal and corporate income taxes. It really muddies the water as even question

> Secondly, I'm not a big fan of how you (and quite a few economists) conflate personal and corporate income taxes. It really muddies the water as even questions like "what even is income" is different between the two. It was an example of how nominal tax rate is not the same as effective tax rate. For example, mortgage interest deductions are a regressive benefit which lowers the effective tax rate. Unfortunatenly, we cannot make good date on what the effective tax rate is because it is protected information. > On the personal end, you greatly increase the tax burden on those least able to bear it, with an increase in benefits being totally orthogonal (most flat tax proposals intend to be revenue neutral) That depends on what you cut. And thats why i say that you need to look at the revenue and the expenditures to know if taxes are regressive or not. For example, Federal income tax is nominally progressive, but california has plenty of regressive taxes: sales taxes and property taxes that favor older tenants. In general state and city taxes are regressive, because those are the easiest to levy.