Principled: "Not so Bonaparte. Compliance would be higher, and costs lower."
____________________________________________________________
Went to the link you supplied. 23% sounds about right, including the exemptions noted. (I would call that a high rate, but that's just me.) I'm aware that proponents of the NRST believe compliance will be no problem, but considering how much sales tax evasion already takes place, I'm not convinced that they're right. But, as I said, even with these drawbacks, the NRST would be a great improvement on what we have now. Personally, I wouldn't bother with rebate checks to the needy. I'd just exempt those goods that are necessities.
That's the problem. "Those goods that are necessities" as defined by Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank??
First "food and housing" (politically defined). Then "clothing". Then " medical care". Then whatever Lobbyists can angle for. Exemptions and Loopholes as far as the eye can see. Pretty soon you have a "sales tax code" every bit as complex as the current monstrosity.
The monthly Rebate (roughly $200 per month TO ALL, not just the "needy") is simpler -- and vastly less vulnerable to political manipulation.
And beyond that, it's just more libertarian (in the finest sense of the word) to Rebate the excess, and let Individual Citizens decide what constitutes our "basic necessities", than for Government to define it for Us.