I often ask in tax threads what the revenue amount would be, but I've never got an answer.
17 dollars and a pair of choppers.
It isn't as a simple answer. It depends on your revenue goal as well as economic activity.
since income tax revenue accounts for about 50% (more recently it is closer to 40, but that is because of all the job losses that occurred) of revenue, the federal gov't might lose some or gain some based on what they set the rate at.
the Brookings institute estimated that you could raise with a 5% VAT tax and subsidies to try to keep it progressive would equal about 1% of GDP. So proportionally you could kind of do the math out to a reasonable % of GDP goal. Considering people having more money directly in their pocket might spur consumption, you may have a higher revenue total from a relatively low number. And people wouldn't be able to minimize their tax responsibilities as easily as they do now
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
Not personal income or property. No death taxes either, no double taxes on investments.
I'd love to see us move to a consumption tax.
I think there would have to be a credit given for the low end of the income scale, but I'd take a consumption tax in a heartbeat.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i would go for a flat tax of say 10% combined with a consumption tax
I would be curious to see how this system worked in practice.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
This would be my concern. It just doesn't sound like it would be a sustainable model. But maybe I'm wrong.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
17 dollars and a pair of choppers.
It isn't as a simple answer. It depends on your revenue goal as well as economic activity.
since income tax revenue accounts for about 50% (more recently it is closer to 40, but that is because of all the job losses that occurred) of revenue, the federal gov't might lose some or gain some based on what they set the rate at.
the Brookings institute estimated that you could raise with a 5% VAT tax and subsidies to try to keep it progressive would equal about 1% of GDP. So proportionally you could kind of do the math out to a reasonable % of GDP goal. Considering people having more money directly in their pocket might spur consumption, you may have a higher revenue total from a relatively low number. And people wouldn't be able to minimize their tax responsibilities as easily as they do now
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan