[kevkrom]

Do you have any reference where Dr. Jorgenson provides any founding or reference that AFT's rate is just right? I really would love to see it.

No, I don't, actually.

So, basically, we've got unfounded assertions either way. I guess we should just do the math ourselves. In the article I referred to a while ago, we have:

• A tax base of 84% of GDP
• A revenue-neutral requirement for tax revenue to be 17.6% of GDP

The math is 17.6% / .84 = 20.95%, call it 21%. That leaves the difference of 2% (a roughly 10% overage) to cover evasion, et. al.

[ancient_geezer]

The math is 17.6% / .84 = 20.95%, call it 21%. That leaves the difference of 2% (a roughly 10% overage) to cover evasion, et. al.

Not to mention that current evasion and the underground cash economy is not accounted for in GDP, that makes for a 10% buffer over current tax revenues with current levels of evasion.

[Your Nightmare]

The math is 17.6% / .84 = 20.95%, call it 21%. That leaves the difference of 2% (a roughly 10% overage) to cover evasion, et. al.

You forgot the FCA.

And they don't address Gale main point, that if you tax government purchases and wages, you need more revenue to pay for these extra costs. Basically, the AFT has the government giving itself money and calling it revenue but not a debt.