Rangel's just being his knee-jerk leftist self. Other conservative pundits have suggested pinning down liberals in debate about taxes. It's all about getting them to admit that to a lib the primary purpose of taxation is not to gather revenue for the functioning of government but to punish people who make a lot of money. Rangel is one of those safe-seat dems who have been doing the manure-throwing recently. Greenspan did not say what everyone does not already know but have been afraid to, or would rather die than, state openly. But the dems are still shooting themselves by attacking him.
I would still go with a flat-tax, however. It has a long, successful track record: from Hong Kong beginning in the fifties to all the former Eastern European and former Soviet vassal states (including Russia itself) over the past decade, we know it works. A consumption tax is too untried and too easy to simply add on to the existing system.
they have one goal: REDISTRIBUTION! When the estate tax is discussed it smokes them out. There is no other reason to tax money which has already been taxed once except for redistribution. GWB's "ownership Society scares the carp out of them because studies have shown that those with a greater stake in the free markets don't tend to follow DUmmies...
Huh? Most states and counties in the United States of America have a consumption tax. It is a very tried system.