The working poor do in fact have social security and Medicare payroll taxes deducted from the very first dollar of their earnings currently and that IS very regressive.
The founders did in fact favor taxes on articles of consumption as their favored method of taxation. There are MANY proofs of this fact and I will offer two here.
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them."
From Federalist #21
"A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace Book.
The income tax did in fact come to us straight out of the Manifesto of the Communist Party second section, toward the end, item #2.
I'm not sure how taxing the first dollar of the poor is any more regressive than taxing the first (and each subsequent) dollar of the rich or middling.
I fail to see how a sales tax will stop the rich from getting around U.S. taxes other than by changing how they go about it. In the case of a consumption tax, they'll avoid it by not consuming in America, but rather consuming elsewhere. Foreign buyers would do the same. And if the sales tax would have an accompanying tariff(which would be necessary to make it effective), those willing and able to avoid both taxes by leaving the country would do so.
I'm still not seeing the origin of the income tax in the Manifesto. I believe (tho I'd have to research it) that income taxes existed before Marx was born. Otherwise, what were the Founders preferring a consumption tax TO?
Marx recommends a graduated, "progressive", income tax to redistribute wealth to and through the government. It's a type of income tax that the Manifesto suggests; not ANY income tax.
For that matter, even progressive income taxes likely pre-date Marx. And, not all progressive income taxes would achieve his ends. For instance, a king could impose a progressive income tax and simply keep all the money without redistributing it to the less wealthy.
Lastly, though I didn't address it, some Founders having preferred a consumption tax doesn't make it the best idea (or even a good one). I'm not saying that it isn't the best idea; it might well be. But Jefferson's and (especially) Madison's "say so" isn't as magical to me as it would have been prior to my reading The Anti-Federalist Papers.
I'm dubious of the national sales tax for four reasons:
1) I don't know enough about taxation;
2) It would do less to solve problems than to stop some problems and create new, unfamiliar ones;
3) No person that I've heard advocate in favor of a sales tax has adequately explained how such a tax would not be regressive, and;
4) It has been called the "Fair" tax. In my experience, such names are given only to proposals which are the opposite of what they claim to be. This may not be the case with the "Fair" tax; but, it's pretty standard for politicians naming legislation or regulation, and is typically a tool of statism ... it makes me suspicious.