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?
Perhaps I have just overlooked or not used the proper keyword to find a bill so we can see the legislative language of your proposal. I haven't found one yet, and looks like you don't have any critters interested in supporting your magic fix to put government on that starvation diet you have dreamed up.
Without even one Congress Critter introducing even a bill for so much as a showpiece, just how do you figure on getting your tariff only government?
Even such times as tariffs were of significance in the nation they we generally targeted to protection more than they were for revenue generation and that at the expense of sectors of the economy that could not function without imports (e.g. southern agriculture at the time of Andrew Jackson), as we can in the modern industrial economy that we have today.
So please do back up your assertion with a citation we can investigate, that there is was ever a time of overwhealming availability of domestic goods and services where federal government was supported by tariffs on foreign imports alone.
I've provided you with historical experience.
But you have no way of knowing that they will -
Human nature and self interest says they will. Simple law of supply and demand. If the price is apparent and not avoidable for the majority of folks, folks will limit their appetites in response the cost laid upon them.
and if what you're saying about my idea is true,
Minority of products are foreign imports with a tarrif >>> Price up.
Majority of products are domesitc with no tax >>> Price down.
Majority of folks avoid the tax, no perceived cost for largess on the majority who avoid the foreign imports.
then it's likely that people will not respond the way you wish them to.
And my puppy dog won't wolf down the chocolate bar on my desk when I turn my back on her.
What makes you think that if the NRST is passed, people won't get sick of paying that much money,
I'm relying on it.
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?
don't tax you,
don't tax me,
tax that guy with the import behind the tree.
Who is already taxed with an NRST.
Then tax you with you cup of tea.
1) One selective tax levy will not allow a perceptible drop the tax rate of a broadbased NRST.
2) Business will not willingly go for the complexity of a selective tax laid upon them once they are free of the current system and have experienced the freedom and advantages of the NRST,
3) The person levied with an additional tax is not likely to be too happy about the situation.
3) Either house can block legislation with failure of majority, The senate can block legislation to change the tax system by a minority of 41 votes, and a president can veto it.
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?
It is up to the people as always isn't it? That is why you have nil support for a tariff only tax system.
Never know until its tried, Then NRST has written legislation to support, dissatisfaction with the current income/payroll tax system and the advantages of the NRST to argue for it without upsetting the current applecart of bennies. I rely on changing the perceptions of people as regard the cost of government to induce change in government if that is what they desire to do.
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Where is your legislation, what do you rely on to effect your changes?