I'm trying to understand the numbers. The media seems to be distorting them based on their bias.

Average salary in the US is around $55K (single filer). They would pay (IRS tax bands [0]) around 22% as well as payroll ~ 7.5% (self employed pay 15.3%) which is in total 29.5% (w2) or 37.3% (self employed) even before they get to the store.

So for the average person, they've already lost (federally) ~30% (or 37.3%).

Maybe I'm missing something here. Does the person on the street not realize how much they pay in federal taxes or is this just bad media reporting?

[0] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/federal-income-tax-...

Under a simple consumption tax, those at the lower end would pay more as a percentage of income. However, a system can be designed to alleviate this, much like earned income tax credits or UBI. Economists generally agree that a consumption tax is much better for society than income tax, when they can separate their decision from politics. It's simpler and fairer, while also reducing the lobbing and corporate donations that plague our government

This is a good discussion on the complexities IRL and in transition https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/the-pros-and-cons-of...

We do not have to pick out one issue with a plan, remove all context, and then declare it is unworkable...

The Fairtax prebate alleviates the burden on the working poor, but the regressiveness shifts up to the middle class.

The wealthy still don't consume most of their income. As the article you link to points out, "you wouldn’t be taxed on your interest, dividends and capital gains" -- the things that wealthy people do with their money. The burden of running the country would fall on the middle class, raising their taxes from what they are now, and decreasing it on the wealthiest.

Economists only prefer consumption taxes on things they're trying to diminish, like producing carbon. On everything else, they want consumption. It's what keeps the economy going; it's the essence of GDP. Consumption increases the velocity of money and keeps people employed. Sitting on your cash causes deflation, which most economists consider very dangerous.

Corporations would pay the most. "The burden of running the country" would not fall on the middle class to support the country. The class based arguments are very unimaginative.

Why can't a consumption tax have progressive components? For example, if you buy a single-family residential property over $500k, the rate is higher, $1M higher, etc.. Buying a yacht? higher rate. Buying food? lower rate. A consumption tax does not have to be a flat, blankly applied tax.

I am referring to the Fairtax mentioned in the article. We could design many other less bad systems, but they're not on offer at the moment.

you also referred to the link I sent and other ideas not in either while also making generalizations without supporting evidence

> "you wouldn’t be taxed on your interest, dividends and capital gains" -- the things that wealthy people do with their money

These are not things wealthy do with their money, rather the benefits of investing money into companies and properties. One would expect that purchasing a property would incur a consumption tax and the purchases made by the company with that money would also be taxed.

The "fairtax" version includes a "prebate" so that the working poor don't get hammered.

However, that just shifts the problem up. The really rich still don't end up spending most of their money. So to be revenue neutral, the burden must go somewhere, and it ends up on the middle class. It's still regressive; it's just not completely so.

That's not the only problem with it, but it's the one that singles out the political motivation behind this. It's popular with the kinds of people who believe in trickle-down economics, in the hopes that the wealthy will spend their money on them.

tl; dr: It would not work.