The point isn't about revenue, the point is about making a society that people would actually enjoy being a part of.
Speaking personally, I'd much rather have my money taken by government based on my habits of
spending rather than my habits of
working. In other words, pay into the system for what I take out of it.
Do you remember when we had that discussion about loopholes? These are the ones I'm talking about. Trying to close one just opens another. Stop fighting and just trust people...that's the whole point.
Such a proposal isn't an attempt to close loopholes, it's an attempt to re-design how the bulk of taxes are collected. Let's not forget that, historically, income taxes were enacted as temporary measures, largely because consumption taxes were much less feasible 80+ years ago. It was easier for the state to collect money as people earned it than as they spent it.
Now, we've come to the reverse. Taxation in most democracies is in a state that permits the wealthy to avoid them due to wrangling with financial instruments, reimburses or reduces the burden on the poor because proportionately a dollar means more to them, allows large corporations to avoid them due to financial manipulation (all perfectly legal), and forces the taxation burden squarely onto the increasingly-beaten middle class and small business owners. Income taxes are overwhelmingly unfair, and trusting people to accurately file them is laughable. Meanwhile, corporations largely don't have to abuse the tax system because the exemptions are written in.
Consumption taxes hit everyone equally - and like I said, to deal with the overburden potentially placed on the poor, you address it through rebates. Incidentally, carbon taxation falls under consumption taxes, along with sales tax, service tax, etc. The only people that actually lose from such a system is entities that currently pay no taxes at all, because they would lose the holes and benefits that permit them to dodge taxation of their income.
