"Properly" is the operative word. The article (and others I have read recently) did not inspire confidence in me that the framers of this particular idea had a proper and practical plan ready to implement.
I agree wholeheartedly that a breathtaking amount could be saved on the compliance and collection side, both by the government and by corporate America. Also, this would encourage savings and investment up and down the socio-economic ladder.
However, I am suspicious of a value-added tax as its snowball effects on cost can never be anticipated accurately. In theory, I favor a point-of-consumption tax (i.e., a sales tax) alone with no value-added tax. This is the way businesses are already set up to operate. They already are able to purchase goods on the wholesale market with no tax added if they can show that they use the wholesale goods as raw materials in their point-of-sale product.
Practically speaking, someone will have to do a whole lot of educating the public to show how even though their cost of goods will now go up by 15-20% at least, they will save on a paycheck-by-paycheck basis. Remember, most people earning less than 40,000 per year (a whole heck of a lot of people BTW) do not pay 15-20% of income tax after factoring in mortgage and dependant deductions. So their tax burden will automatically increase. Dramatically, in many cases. While this might be a good thing to encourage savings and spur job creation in theory, practically speaking it is a real tough sale. This will be one argument where the demonRATs will be right that it will be a huge tax cut for the upper brackets being paid for by the lower brackets. While I agree that just charging the same percent for everyone is truly "fair", it is not a practical idea to sell given our current system.
I am certainly open to hearing more explanation. But any explanation that does not carry a very simple sales pitch to Joe "six-pack" Taypayer that explains how this will make him better off is moot.