He got? those goods from corporations,
Says who? What if he's a programmer? or a doctor? or an accountant who serves foreign national companies? All producing value but not buying any goods in any substantial amount.
So now you're ONLY focused on the goods producing sector, which would place such an incredible burden on them our country wouldn't have one pretty quick.
Not to mention you're violating one of the core principles of taxation, that you never tax a dollar twice. You're suggesting that the full price of the item be taxed when it goes to market and THEN taxed AGAIN when it's sold. So - if i buy an item to sell in my store that cost the seller 10 dolllars to make and sell, he's got to charge me more like 30 - 50 becuse of tax - and i have to charge the customer more like 60 - 100 just to break even. For a 10 dollar value. That doesn't work.
Well no, it isn't. Currently businesses pay about 15 percent of the total tax revenue federally. Persons pay about 50 percent. Now you're talking about reducing even the number of businesses paying - which means that unless businesses that were required to raised their prices by about 4 or 5 times the current level at least there would not be enough tax paid. So there's not 'plenty' of tax paid unless the rates are insanely high.
You'll have to show your calculations to suggest otherwise, At a glance the numbers make no sense. And considering that would have to apply to food as well the effect would be pretty catastrophic.
And this involves not taxing profits, but taxing revenues. That's the key. Corporations may choose to run at low or zero profit, but deliberately reducing revenue is corporate suicide.
So if i'm a larger corp. that builds houses for example, you're saying i can start up a company to make as much lumber as i want, hold on to it as long as i want, and pay no taxes - then i can collapse that company due to 'lack of sales' and buy the company and it's assets for next to nothing and own all that wood. Which i can use to build homes that i can sell at an unfair advantage to smaller groups and make buttloads of revenue on having paid much smaller taxes.
Or i guess i could just sell the wood at half price having paid no tax on it in the first place. The gov't still makes SOME tax but that's going to make it hard on the little guys.
Your idea is waaaaay too simplistic and easy to bypass. And it would lead to massive inconsistencies.
The money is all the same
The money might be but the customer isn't. A rich person making 150 k per year untaxed may not care that a loaf of bread is 10 dollars. But the single mom struggling by on 36 thousand a year is definitely going to care, even if she didn't pay tax.
Your look at history is irrelevant.
ahhh the battle cry of everyone destined to repeat it
Of course it's relevant.
As you say we've moved to a level of govt and services that are different, and your idea simply doesn't work in that environment. I'm afraid it's you who's going to have to get over it. You want the services? You need to stick with a model that works.
Yours is less functional, just as complicated and easy to bypass, and represses the economy. And for what? how would it make things better? Even if you COULD collect the same amount of taxes, now the poor would be paying more of it and the rich less. How is THAT a benefit?
Sorry the whole idea just doesn't work on any level.