With the NRST, if the federal government collects less (due to fraud), they'll simply raise the NRST.
You're talking about a "sales" tax that is 30% when it first appears on the American scene. Add to that a 7% state sales tax, local sales taxes, city sales taxes, you're around 40%. Abuse is not going to force a reduction. This is the minimum starting point.
People will accept 7%, 10%. You want more, you better steal it before they get their hands on it, is all I'm saying.
I like the concept of the NRST, but I am against it as proposed. I do not believe, nor trust, the 23% rate. I believe that fraud will overtake the system, leading to more government control (cashless society, keeping of receipts, proving innocence, rather than they proving guilt). You're still visible to the government (If you want that $500./month -- the rich can afford to hide). It's very easy and painless for the government to raise additional revenue (I've demonstrated that raising the retail price from $100 to $101 - an apparent 1% increase - will raise $520 billion).
Plus, I"d feel more comfortable changing the tax system when we're not running deficits and are not carrying such a debt. My gut tells me that the switch to an NRST is to hide the fact that I'll be paying more to eliminate the deficit and lower the debt.
Let's cut spending first, clean up the financial mess, then take another look at the tax code.
How do you propose getting support to cut spending when the burden is carried by half or less of the population? When you borrow from Peter to pay Paul, you will always have Paul's support.....