WaPo wrote:With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.
Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.
At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.
Hmm... A VAT tax in general, coupled with an income tax for high earners?...
I'm all in favor of abolishing the income tax in favor of a VAT -- in addition to property taxes, capital gains taxes, excise and tarriffs. That seems to spread things around nicely. Just have to adjust the rates so that total taxation levels are optimal.
Prop 13 severely reduced California state tax revenues from real estate and other property holdings. This has meant that the state is more dependent upon income taxes -- plenty of revenue during boom years, but virtual bankruptcy during any sort of recession. You have to couple property and capital gains taxes with a VAT because a VAT stimulates savings which find their way into property and investments.
But it's not a good idea to have both a VAT and an Income Tax.