That is why I have trouble with some of your assertions on the powers of the government to lay and collect any manner of tax it sees fit and the idea that it also allows for liberal powers to us force against the people.
Unfortunately that has been the interpretation right from the very first day of its ratification by those we hold to be the founders themselves, not just some extension of a prenumbra in a modern day court.
As far as the use of force to collect a tax, seems the all time example of that lay with the ole General and first President himself George Washington collecting a still tax from the farmers in Pennsylvania. And that was right out of the gate after ratification of the Constitution.
George Washington's Proclamation Whiskey Rebellion August 7, 1794:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/gwproc03.htmGeorge Washington's address on October 20 1794
to General Lee at Bedford, PA
As far as limits on powers to lay collect those taxes the first tax case before the USSC, comprised of several members of the Constitutional convention responsible for the provisions regarding taxation, made clear what little limts to tax there actually are.
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. " "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution." "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states," "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
If that does any damage to any preconceived notions on what national government can or can't do as regards taxes, not much I can do about that.
The Fair Tax is the closest we have come to ridding ourselves of the burden of opressive income taxes. It has legs, it has a bill in the house, it has co-sponsors and it has the ear of the tax panel. We may not get it in its proposed form but we sure do have a chance. If we don't grab it now we may not have another chance in our lifetimes.
I have been a layman economist by necessity for 25 years. I'm not an expert but when I hear that international corporations will relocate jobs and headquarters here in the US because of the FT I believe them. It only makes sense to situate your company where corporate taxes, whether income VA or other are not burdensom.
I can't imagine the explosive growth that will occur under a FT. Yes prices will rise, yes it will be a difficult transition. New home prices? Yeah that's a problem but escalations of 10-20% a year in the price of homes in my neighborhood has not stymied demand.
We can argue details till the sun goes down but I'll tell you right now nothting one the table that I know of would be as good for the economy as the fair tax.