So most people thought that "no taxes on tips" was a Trump position that differentiated him from Harris.

Blue Rose’s (the leading dem pollster) comprehensive retrospective of the 2024 election was telling: https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2... (“Our best estimate is that immigrant voters swung from a Biden+27 voting bloc in 2020 to a Trump+1 group in 2024.”).

There are lots of ways to design a progressive consumption tax, but yes, one way is to tax luxury goods at a higher rate than essentials. This is already done in many states, for example, where groceries (or at least "basic" groceries like bread, milk and produce but not prepared foods) are exempt from sales tax.

Another way is a sales tax rebate, e.g. where everyone can file for a rebate of sales tax of, say, the first $10000 of goods in a year. So poorer people with lower expenditures end up having a much lower effective tax rate.

Economists don’t love income taxes, and they really don’t love investment/capital gains taxes (see the NPR article I linked).[1]

The bigger problem is what you mean by “higher-bracket income tax.” 60% of all income is earned by the top 40% outside the top 1%: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr.... To have the kind of welfare state the U.S. has, you need to raise taxes on those people a lot. But that’s politically impossible. In 40 years, we never managed to undo the bulk of Reagan’s tax cuts.

If you’re not willing to raise the rates on more than half your potential tax base, then you’ll need to do very steep hikes on the top 1%. Or you need to explore things like wealth taxes and taxing unrealized capital gains, which economists really hate.

The European countries realized that in a globalized economy, you have to be competitive on business and investment taxes. That’s why they heavily tax the middle class, including with consumption taxes.

[1] They don’t love tariffs either. But tariffs implicate concerns about foreign relations that are basically outside the scope of economics. The economic models simply don’t factor in the political risk of outsourcing all your steel production to a potential enemy. That’s why nearly every developed country ignores the economic consensus when it comes to things like agricultural subsidies. The political risk of not being food sufficient simply outweighs the economic downside.

Additionally there are a lot of goods that are GST exempt.

Things like basic groceries, prescription drugs, feminine hygiene products, hearing aids etc...

I mean, at the extreme, yes (some countries do have sin taxes on those sorts of things). But for a more basic example, take EU VAT. EU countries usually have three or four VAT rates; basic essential goods are often VAT-exempt.

(This occasionally leads to fun disputes; for instance see the famous Jaffa Cake court case, or the more recent determination by the Irish Supreme Court that Subway's bread was not bread.)

Heck - do you think there is a bulk of supporters that agree with you now, when stated so bluntly and with the context that you consider yourself a democrat?

Can you at least understand that from an outsider watching this arc, it feels like Trump supporters are being led around by the nose - even if the changed policy positions are being championed by completely different individuals than the previously vocal supporters who were concerned with price inflation?

As for the specific policy argument - import taxes aren't the usual framing of consumption tax that applies to consumers, but rather they apply to industry as well. Taxing intermediate steps creates a drag on the economy, similar to if we taxed business revenue. And obviously doubling the price of equipment required to set up a new factory is completely contrary to the purported goal of bringing back domestic manufacturing.

(Never mind how several decades of following economist prescriptions about spherical cows in a vacuum has created an absolute mess)