It is an economic impossibility because everyone (well, enough people to make it matter) would just stop working and wait on their check.

As I said, the poor would benefit.

And corporations do not pay taxes! Consumers already pay corporate taxes. Transferring how it's paid is a side-effect of a consumption tax. I'd argue that it's a beneficial side-effect, as it would be completely transparent, and there would be no more incentives for corporations to hide/shift income.

Talk abut semantics. Everyone gets/receives/makes money in various ways. If you're using "make" as a term for earning money through wages, then most rich people "make" money. They may also make more money by investing money wisely, whether it be stocks, starting businesses, etc... If you think that rich people "get their hands on" money by just stealing it from the poor, you're delusional.

That list is in its correct order for value and income in a free market. Can a scientist/engineer/lawyer organize and run a huge company composed of lawyers, engineers, and scientists? There's a reason that top CEOs get paid what they do. Without them, there is no functioning company. Sure, some or even most get paid what we think of as more than they're actually worth, but those companies are in a position to pay them so much because of their CEO. If they're not good enough, they get fired - it happens all of the time. Sure, plenty get exorbitant severance, but usually because they've negotiated that into their employment agreement, which anyone in the U.S., rich or poor, CEO or engineer, is free to do.

So implement a consumption tax, repeal all others, and there will be no loopholes. Then it won't matter where corporations are based, where they sell, etc...

That will just encourage people to have no assets at all and go into debt.

Just tie any consumption tax legislation to the repeal of the 16th Amendment (in the U.S., of course).

The Fair Tax solves this by giving everyone a subsidy equal to the amount of taxes that would be paid at a certain income level (directly related to the poverty line, I believe). Everyone essentially pays no taxes on necessary food/housing/etc... So it's actually better for the poor than the middle and upper classes. I'm sure that most consumption tax proposals do something similar.

Hopefully (probably?) what he means is that the only taxes are on consumption.

Going back repeatedly is much more profitable.

None of the three endings to that game (I assume that you mean the original Deus Ex?) were particularly satisfying, and I think it's the greatest game ever produced. Endings are hard, as evidenced by The Sopranos, LOST, countless other video games, etc...

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

The Fair Tax (one sales tax proposal) fixes this by giving a stipend to everyone that's equivalent to taxes paid on necessities. So someone that makes at or below the poverty line will essentially pay no taxes (I don't remember what the exact number is, but I think the stipend was $5Kish, tied to inflation, of course), and someone who makes $200K will pay significantly more, but have the $5K they spent on necessities or so refunded.

Also, your percentage math is a bit off.

Let's fix corporate taxes first, so that there is no evasion.

Um, no: http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/9/807132/restaurant/Atlanta/Waffle-House-McDonough