Subject: Re: o/t, debtors and creditors,
Oh, it would start small. And then grow like Social Security did. And like the Federal income tax did. Both of these started small, and then incrementally grew. How to boil a frog.
Google: UK VAT started at 10% and is now 20%.

It's easy to be cynical. It could rise. But FWIW, in Canada it started at 7% and is now 5%.
(this was a very cynical political ploy to cut it, but on the other hand, the fact that the country could afford to cut it was largely because the finances had already been put in order...by the very same tax)

But also, don't forget that increasing it might in fact be the right thing to do, not cynicism. Sales taxes have huge advantages as a method of collecting necessary funds relative to almost any other approach, and the biggest problem with switching towards them from an income system are the generational effects which would be best addressed by starting low and gradually raising them. Just because one specific tax is rising doesn't mean that aggregate spending is rising, or needs to rise. (indeed, given the US deficit, some rising taxes without increased spending is definitely in order soonish)

Mr Buffett made a nice point once. The US government should pick a level of spending (as share of GDP) that you like and is closest to the consensus, then just make sure you're collecting an amount of tax over the future that is within a moderate distance of that, say no more than 3% less. The reasoning isn't hard to grasp. This says nothing about what the appropriate level of government spending should be, and the way that you collect the tax doesn't change that target level of spending. Amount and method are different things. A sensible person would pick the taxation method that collects that amount most easily: least economic distortions, least damage to a particular group, least penalty on those who are broke, fewest opportunities for large scale avoidance, lowest aggregate collection and enforcement costs, and so forth. There is no perfect tax, but in rich countries the empirical evidence is that a national value added tax comes very close.

It is truly remarkable how well value added taxes work, when serious money needs to be collected. The fact that some countries jacked it to 25% (and 27% in Hungary) and didn't explode is to me very remarkable proof that it meets Colbert's maxim: (Jean-Baptiste, not Stephen)
“the act of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the largest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of squealing.”
It's not a proof that the rate WILL get raised that far.

Jim