so both producers and consumers should bare a fair share of the tax. That's what the APT tax does.
Hmmm, why should a producer, who contributes to the nation through his investment in wealth and energy towards the benefit of the nation be taxed?
Seems to me it makes more sense to portion taxes on the basis of benefit derived from the economy as measured by consumption rather taxing on the basis of one's investments into the nation's economy as measured by labor or investment and savings dollars.
Remember, that which is taxed tends to be inhibited. Taxing cashflow as the transaction tax would, inhibits the most fundamental basis of modern economies. That makes no sense economically nor, for that matter, morally.
I agree with your implication that taxation is NOT a contribution but a liability. But, I do not agree with the idea that the tax liability should be focused entirely on either the producer or the consumer because, in general, there is no reasonable distinction.
It would be pointless discrimination. Everyone contributes to and benefits from the economy. How they contribute or benefit is a valid basis for portioning the burden of taxes.
Morally, taxation should be strictly voluntary. But, since we have no choice in the matter, the burden should be thinly distributed throughout the economy so as to have the least impact on the economy as a whole. It makes no sense to focus the tax burden on either the producer or the consumer since that would have the worst impact on the economy as a whole.
Quick correction on post 84:
Everyone contributes to and benefits from the economy. How they contribute or benefit is an invalid basis for portioning the burden of taxes.