Every advantage you list about the NRST can also apply to a national excise tax; the excise tax would be even easier to administer since it could be paid at the distribution point instead of thousands of cash registers. We do excise taxes on cigarettes and liquor and gasoline now and it is not hard to handle. The excise tax also doesn't zing you each time you purchase something by showing you the before and after costs on the receipt. Many here think that is a good idea, but you do NOT persuade people by zinging them. The reasoned arguments can get some people to reluctantly go along. People will know that an excise tax is being included in the price, but it will just not zing them.
The original point in the article is that the current income taxes are hidden in our domestic business costs so that the average citizen doesn't realize he is paying them each time he purchases something, even if he pays 0% income taxes directly. The reason the politicians have been able topush them up so high, currently over $2 trillion and growing, is because it is so well hid. I think the first step in changing to either the NRST or an excise tax is to make the case to joe six-pack that he is currently paying the tax with his purchases and lately with his job because the switch to imports hits the lower wage people first.
You don't persuade people by hiding the truth from them either.
You point to the original article suggesting that an excise tax be put on the product when it enters the market. You are embedding the cost again, hiding it from the consumer who is the ultimate tax payer, and placing it on business. What's the point?
Be honest about it and the constant reminder of the cost will make it harder for politicians to raise the rate.
Remember, the tax isn't about the product's cost. It's about the cost of government.
I hope others who are more eloquent will answer as well.