In short, the same charges you level against my proposal can be leveled against yours, if they are to be believed at all.
You may speculate all you wish, level any charges you can dream up. That doesn't make you statement valid, nor exhonerate the real problems I have pointed out in regards the tariff only system that you advocate.
Sorry, your spin doesn't hold water, its full of holes, snake oil of the first order just a case of looking for that which gives you a personal out from taxation.
Don't tax you,
don't tax me,
let's just tax that man behind the tree.In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-Voltaire (1764)
That's your tariff only system and the snake oil you propose, using the same old populist arguments that have been around since the beginning of government and people trying to short change responsibily since the days of Cain and Abel.
I've done considerably more than speculate; I've provided you with historical experience. You, on the other hand, are speculating that people are going to react to your tax proposal in a particular way. But you have no way of knowing that they will - and if what you're saying about my idea is true, then it's likely that people will not respond the way you wish them to.
What makes you think that if the NRST is passed, people won't get sick of paying that much money, and start demanding that government find alternative sources to support the level of government that they're comfortable with, without having to pay any more than they already are? You said yourself that the Constitution authorizes many forms of taxation. What gives you the impression that people will voluntarily renounce those forms that give them the most benefit with the least burden to themselves?