> GDP seems to be less than half of that GDP is total INCOME not revenue. GDP is total value of FINAL product, so all steps in the shipping chain are not calcu

> GDP seems to be less than half of that GDP is total INCOME not revenue. GDP is total value of FINAL product, so all steps in the shipping chain are not calculated, just the last one. >Are small businesses selling in a chain hurt because there are multiple sales, therefore promoting huge single companies where there's only one sale? SMBs are actually the ones that will profit from this the most. Since the tax is on all revenues and there is no tax credit, the tax amount on final product between large shopping chain and small shop is rather small. Large chains undercut small shops now by using advanced accounting, something that small shops cannot afford to do. This way of taxation was used before in communism to some extent to help to ease tax burden. It was quite successful - and now would be even better with country-wide usage of banking to handle revenues rather than cash. The amount of sales does not matter - only thing that matters is the amount of middle man in the shipping chain. Small shops would be encouraged to get products from local producers and directly from warehouses that avoid middle man in order to save on taxes. This would encourage direct transactions between farmers and vegetable shop owners for example boosting local markets and distributing employment more evenly. Large companies would need to fight the market with higher quality products, better marketing and unique products - driving technology up. >Increases to basic staples would hit the poorest harder, for example. With overall products being cheaper and local markets being boosted, the distribution of wealth would be easier. Also government instead of reducing VAT on certain products which creates a lot of creative accounting by corporations, could for example provide "food stamps" for certain products to the poorest. Additional £25 a week in food stamps for groceries from government to poorest families would have way better affect than decreasing tax equivalent to £25.