You wouldn't get any argument from me on replacing the current tax mess with a single consumption or "sales" tax.

This site is just one pushing such an idea, and while the details need work, the basic concept is cool. Most such schemes have something worked out to shield lower income people. I think this particular one has some kind of "rebate."

Aside from sweeping in the people currently living in a "cash economy," you'd think privacy supporters would like the idea of not having to inscribe your frigging soul down on paper every April 15.

Unfortunately, this will never happen. The ability of politicians to gain power and money by using the tax code to punish enemies and reward friends is just too damn juicy for them to let go of. As with many other issues, when you break it down, it's about the power.

***

I don't like the idea of big box stores getting special tax treatments (I don't like this for sports stadiums either). However, the towns aren't stupid, and can see the greater tax revenues further down the road. My own town is flush with revenue from rich businesses (not just stores) located here. I don't know if any kind of deals were struck to attract them here, but I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Oh, and your argument about the benefits each of those companies pay? If we had in place universal health care and sound governmental retirement programs, the burden would not be on businesses.

Well, why not just eliminate the middle man entirely and have the government pay all the salaries, too?

No burden on businesses? Who do you think pays almost all of the taxes to support things like universal health care in the first place? Hint: It ain't Mom and Pop's store, or the little family living next door.

Move this country back to a 1940s economic model, and there won't be enough surplus wealth for universal medical care, or much else, either.