But, it HAS to be true. Just the simple fact that it's such a "miniscule" tax implies it HAS to be a largely-hidden tax. The things we see on store shelves will have some large, HIDDEN amount of tax already built-in to their retail prices.
It sure looks to be little more than a twist on Europe's hidden Value Added Tax (VAT).
As someone else already said, I would much prefer a consumption tax, with the number plainly visible on the store receipt, rather than buried in a few thousand "tiny" painless transactions before it finally gets to the consumer.
Paying taxes should be painful. When they're hidden and painless, it's too easy for Congress to raise them without hearing any backlash.
I see. You assume that all costs of production are factored into the prices of products and, since any taxes on production are costs, then all taxes on production are eventually passed on to consumers through increased prices. So we might as well just tax the consumer instead. Right?
Likewise, I can assume that all costs on wages are factored into consumer spending and, since any taxes on wages are costs, then all taxes on wages are eventually passed on to production through reduced consumer spending. So we might as well just tax the chain of production.
The point is that we are both right. Taxes are a cost against both production and consumption, no matter where you apply it, so both producers and consumers should bare a fair share of the tax. That's what the APT tax does.
Let's say we have a national federal sales tax. If Congress raised the tax rate and caused us all a lot of pain, what recorse would we have? Would we just not buy anything and let the whole economy collaps or should we get pissed and just go shoplifting? Voting wouldn't matter at that point.