A tax on capital sales is a bad idea. The market would be extremly sensitive to this, so you would screw with the market price of capital goods and have a huge impact on sales. To put it more simply, if you sell a capital good (not sure exactly what goods you would include - land, cars), then buy it back again, you would be far worse off, even though you haven't done much.

Income tax is a reasonable source, but should not bear the full burden because it encourages people to earn money on the black market. Consumption taxes (eg GST) are a good idea because they cut back on this problem.

"I agree,rehctub.Would a healthy threshhold before the tax came into play rid the problem?Maybe a threshhold just above the minimum wage but only for those on or below that,others to pay on all of gross income and capital sales.

That would also be a really bad idea. It would mean that as your salary goes up, your income takes a dive. It would create a massive disincentive for those on minimum wage to try to improve their lot. It would create a two class society. That's why we have marginal rates.

"The more complex,the more loopholes until it becomes incomprehensible to the vast majority

Wrong. Almost all of the complexity is designed to close loopholes.

"As a suggestion tax withdrawals from bank accounts and credit cards the idea being that it might encourage savings and, of course, save considerable costs in administering the tax laws.

Another really bad idea. For similar reasons why a tax on capital sales is a bad idea.

Why have taxes at all? Why shouldn't governments derive income from assets, as retirees are increasingly expected to do in order to avoid "burdening the taxpayer"? See http://zero-tax.blogspot.com/2008/05/but-why-have-taxes-at-all-dear-henry.html .

Another silly idea. Such a system would inevitably lead to monopolies, or at the very least greatly reduced competition. That would be very bad for the economy. Also, it would be impossible to sell the exemptions for their real value.

Hello Oldy,
Yes, how do you tax,under this proposal,a borrowing i.e. money coming into an account that you already pay interest on let alone another tax on that money?I have my ideas on how this might work.This whole concept could be inflationary by giving people more money to spend,or save,while an increase over and above the interest rate charged on borrowings by the amount of the tax on any deposit to an account could reduce the inflationary pressure(remembering ther are no other taxes to be paid).The inflationary pressure could then be a market force determined by the people's wishes to save or spend rather than an instrument of a central power that apparently determines what is good or bad for us as far as interest rates are concerned.
As far as saving costs of administering tax,yes it would,but what about the time saved in less compliance?We are only on this Earth for a short time and I have better things to do with my time and small income than to spend it on ever increasing tax compliance.

Personal income tax is about social control, not revenue. As I recall, the Govt pays out to individual taxpayers (and other citizens some $5 billion annually more than is collected in personal income tax receipts. That's without even figuring in the cost of administration and, as g.w. said, compliance.

No Govt is going to forego the control offered by personal taxes simply in the interest of simplification.