I agree that could work, especially get illegals and paid in cash folks to pay their taxes, but there is another problem. People could just go on to ebay to buy everything and not get taxed unless they live in the state the seller does business. Now that's an extreme example, but you get the point.
Excellent excellent commentary.... The real question here is how necessary is it to change the tax system and what difference would it make... The add on consumption tax could be either seen or unseen...Today the consumption tax is unseen... However the point made is so true...when the price difference is obvious at the point of sell...it affects the buying psychology... And one never knows the markup of most items that they buy such as cars etc....they just shop around... However a price at the point of sale even with a consumption tax could just have a price....and there would be no further description.... In a way this insults the intelligence of the public...however this is no different than the public willing to buy a no commission bond with a markup of $25...or actually buy the bond with no markup and a $1 commission....The public will buy the no commission bond.....every time... The point about what items are consumption items and what items are not consumption items is a good point.... And furthermore when any individual looks at a country´s tax system ...and were to look at the US and see a flat 10% ....and look at Europe and see a progressive 25 to 55%....where do you think they will want their business.....???? Most other governments have tax structures which are far less attractive than a flat 10%... What I am saying is that although the flat tax is smaller in appearance...it is far larger in actual revenues and will dwarf todays revenues...particularly on a 10 year time frame... From both an implementation ...psychological...and competitive standpoint the flat tax wins.....and the poor win because the revenues are higher not lower that could be allocated to the disadvantaged.... The US could become the tax haven stronghold of the world.... I think that Paulson should take the 10% flat tax trade.....
Come on Hans... wake up. You voice such strong opinions for someone who apparently understands little. When money is give to a charity, it's not like the giver "got away with something". The giver is out $1.00, but saves $.30 in taxes.... sheesh!
If one is inclined to give money to a charity in the first place. Then the loss of the governmental carrot of an income tax break will be more than offset by an increased take-home pay.
Wait a minute... money is said to be the root of all evil [terribly mistranslated and as usual, not understood but hey...], so the consumption tax will drive people to the barter system, and we won't need money!! Voila, evil wiped out in one swell foop!! One more great reason to have a consumption tax.
Show me a person who gives away a dollar exclusively for the tax benefit of saving $.30 (for example), and I'll show you a moron.