The quote I posted shows, legally, a tax on income (contractors/employees) is not a tax on its source (government).
Which is totally irrelavant to the issue of Congress exempting federal contractors and suppliers from any federal tax it chooses to.
The quote you posted addressed the issues of intergovernmental immunity from taxation as regard employees of government contractors and government agencies, and not the express exemption of such contractors or employees from remitting taxes or receiving credits for federal taxes they remitt.
My statement: "Now if you can figure out how to credit back the embedded taxes of all government consumption purchases to government contractors and service providers for income/payroll taxes before the NRST is implemented, we can discuss providing equivalent exemption to the government on its consumption under the NRST as a viable option."
Your quote does not provide any basis for a constitutional prohibition or problem in Congress exempting contractors or suppliers, as you appear to be concerned with:
YN:" The basic reason for the tax on government consumption is that you can make the rate seem lower than it is (kinda like using the inclusive rate). You also need to read up on your constitutional law in regards to income/payroll taxes and government contractors."
with the federal government from exempting its contractors and suppliers from paying any federal tax Congress may allow thereby relieving contractors and service providers of the burdens of remitting federal taxes and remove the inefficient round robin payment of federal taxes that occures as a consequence of imposing taxes on federal contractors thereby providing the ability to negotiate lower contract payouts and consequent budgetary savings to the federal govenment.
Nor does it remove the alternative action of
AG: "exempt government from paying the NRST if you like, and reduce the target revenues by that amount. That way we can assure government wouldn't get a windfall in spendable funds with which to grow on and unecessarily raise tax rates."
Which totally removes the roundrobin payment you apparently object to as a trick:
YN: ""giving ourselves money equals revenue" trick?"
If it is a trick in the NRST it is equally a trick in the current income/payroll tax system for govenment to finance income/payroll taxes paid by its contracters and service providers indeed its employees, not to mention income taxes expressly imposed on beneficiaries of the Social Security system.
If it be a trick, it should be totally removed as regards any tax system, the current tax system as well as the NRST without the specter of windfall tax revenues accruing to government that could be applied to even greater growth of government programs.
Your logic, as usual, is a non-sequiter as regards the situation under discussion.