In other words, Cruz's plan is even more regressive and oppressive than a European style VAT.
The headline is self-contradictory. If it’s flat, there’s no way it can be stuctured as a VAT. Of course, if you want to redefine terms to support your assertion, go ahead. Then who’s the fraud and scammer?
Forbes is wrong. Forbes States that charging a 16% business flat tax will result in the cost of goods being raised 16%. This is an untrue assumption. Forbes is not counting the financial savings to the company of the other tax which was replaced by the flat rate. Because of that, it is NOT logical to assume that the 16% must be passed on through the cost of the goods sold