[stanleydrew]

The idea is nice, and I'm sure I'm not introducing anything you haven't already considered, but a flat consumption tax is in fact regressive.

The simplest way to think about it I guess is that regardless of wealth, everybody needs a certain number of calories to live. If you are poor and can only afford subsistence, you are paying a much larger portion of your overall wealth just to stay alive.

That may be ok with you, but for a lot of people it's not.

Something like a wealth- or income-based tax credit would possibly correct this, although poor people are also less likely to know how to take advantage of such tax breaks.

[mpreda]

A flat consumption tax would be regressive if the two extremes (rich vs. poor) would buy the same goods; but they don't. The very poor buy cheap food, the very rich buy diamonds and services ("dog walking", "garden design", "personal trainer"). Not to mention the two buying different kinds of habitation, in different locations, at very different price-points.

[stanleydrew]

This is all true but doesn't invalidate the point unless the rich and poor are spending the same proportion of wealth/income on these various categories.

The fact that the rich can afford to save more of their income proves that isn't true.

A more pedestrian proof would be that even if I make 10 times as much money as someone else, the most expensive gallon of milk I can buy is still only double or triple what a poor person would pay.

[nightski]

Fairtax has a prebate to cover all tax for essentials (everyone, poor or wealthy, gets a "check" at the beginning of the month). You theoretically only pay tax on non-essential items.