There are big winners in Paul Ryan's 'Roadmap,' and you can guess who they are. He would cut taxes for the wealthy, completely eliminate the corporate income tax, and create a value added tax.
Most European countries fund their low corporate taxes with some form of a value-added tax, on consumption rather than income.
I believe that the GST is for the good of the people.
The whole legislation of Great Britain, on this subject, has been directed to the one great object of preventing the people of her colonies, and those of independent nations, from obtaining the machinery necessary to enable them to combine their exertions for the purpose of obtaining cloth or iron, and thus compelling them to bring to her their raw materials, that she might convert them into the forms that fitted them for consumption, and then return to the producers a portion of them, burdened with great cost for transportation, and heavy charges for the work of conversion.
America’s first political economist
The way to attack the entitlements problem is to bring the jobs home. This could be done by taxing corporations according to the location, domestic or foreign, at which they add value to their product.
A universal basic income funded by a value-added tax, which is a tax placed on a product whenever value is added at each stage of the supply chain, from production to the point of sale, would spread the benefits of automation to a much wider group of people.
I am for a transactional tax at the point of purchase for both online and physical retail.
When liberals advocate a value-added tax, conservatives should respond: Taxing consumption has merits, so we will consider it - after the 16th Amendment is repealed.
I think everybody wants GST.