Interesting theory.
I'd bet for a lot of people it would reduce their overall tax burden.
But, for others, I'm sure it would increase their overall tax burden.
I'm thinking it would be a pretty clear breakdown between rural and city areas.
My property taxes on a rather humble 1977 crapshack townhouse are nearly $5,000 a year. I sincerely doubt that I'd come close to buying that much stuff to make up for that, so I'd likely be all for it.
But, if I lived in a rural area with low property values, what I spend in sales tax under such a plan would likely increase my tax bill.
"Go for this, and you'll get half of what you ask for - your sales tax will double, but your property tax will remain. (Or if it IS eliminated, it will come back sooner rather than later in response to the inevitable shrieks of busybody socialists blubbering about "fairness.")"
About 15 years ago Northern Virginia was under some such kick to increase the local sales tax with that money going toward our road infrastructure. Sounded like a good idea, right? I knew a lot of people who were all for it.
Until I pointed out that there was absolutely NO guarantee that legislators in the rest of the state wouldn't look at that as a winfall... for them.
So, Northern Virginia has voted to increase their taxes and have raised $1 million dollars! I propose we cut Northern Virginia's general fund allocation by $1 million!
When I and others pointed that out to people (including at a community meeting), you could see the light come on in more than a few eyes.
One person, an idiot, I'm pretty sure, said "They wouldn't do that..."
Someone else chimed in with "They're politicians, they're not human, you're GD right they'll do that."
The measure eventually failed, and not long after a politician from another part of the state decried the fact that we hadn't raised taxes on ourselves, because "the rest of the state could have used the money that we would have freed up (from the general fund allocation)..."