[labard1]

OK, you've convinced me you have a respectable first answer. I'm very skeptical that the factors you mention equal anything like the full Federal Sales Tax, but it's a start. And you don't need to establish total fairness, that's never the test.

Unfortunately, your next burden is how to sell your basic point to a public that lacks economic sophistication. They really believe half the social security taxes are borne by the employer. That's why Bush gave his dividend tax break (15% rate) to shareholders, rather than giving a deduction to corporations, which would be a more sensible regime under the current tax code. I know you're right, but how can you possibly explain it to economic illiterates, who, alas, constitute a majority of voters in our fair land?

[phil_will1]

"I know you're right, but how can you possibly explain it to economic illiterates, who, alas, constitute a majority of voters in our fair land?"

I had the exact same concern when I found out about this a couple of years ago. What I have discovered, however, is very encouraging. We don't have to convince a majority of voters to get political momentum. Since most elections in our system are relatively close, an issue that affects the voting pattern of a relatively small proportion of the electorate (such as 3 - 5%)gets the attention of candidates. We are seeing evidence of that here in Georgia. We now have 5 of 8 House members (all Republicans) and both US senators signed onto the bill. The reason for that is that Georgia voters understand the proposal more than most Americans and it is seen by politicians as one that moves votes - even if the numbers of votes are not huge.

[kevkrom]

I know you're right, but how can you possibly explain it to economic illiterates, who, alas, constitute a majority of voters in our fair land?

One person at a time, if we have to. Just on this thread, we appear to have a few new supporters. If each of those would go out and convince a few others, and so on, we can get enough public support.