3 ms·

The reason 17% is so often raised as the right flat tax is that it has been the effective tax rate since the 1950s. https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/asset

• larrywright 8y ago
  Thanks for that link - I didn’t realize that was the case. I remember 15% as the number that Malcom Forbes proposed when he ran for president in the ‘90s.
  • spullara 8y ago
    That was one of the references for 17% I was talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes#Campaigns_for_president_and_major_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes#Campaigns_for_pre...
• harryh 8y ago
  A flat tax of 17% on incomes would not net the government 17% of GDP. The flat tax would have to be much higher (close to 2x) to achieve that same income.
  • spullara 8y ago
    Why? Looking at a sample year, like 2011, you find that total personal income was $13T, the GDP was $15.5T and total tax revenue collected was $2.3T. Probably need some more data to tease out corporate vs personal tax revenue but I don't think it will be too far from a ~20% effective tax rate to reach the required revenue.
    • harryh 8y ago
      Most flat tax proposals include a fairly generous deduction so the tax only starts above a certain level of income. That pushes up the % a lot. I agree that if you start the flat tax on the first dollar of income, then it doesn't have to be so high.
      • spullara 8y ago
        97% of federal income taxes paid are by people in the top 50% of income today (above 36K, as of 2012), you would probably have to at least match that. Given that, I think I agree. It would have to be 34% for the bottom 50% to pay nothing.