The bad thing about Ron Paul and the constitution is that he bases his politics on the constitution that was passed in 1787. For example, the 16th amendment in 1913 “authorizes unapportioned federal taxes on income”. If he wants to follow the constitution – he should be FOR federal income taxes, not against.
If his understanding of the constitution stops with the 10th amendment – that’s just insane – you cannot be one of the most modern countries in the world, yet blindly obey a document passed 200+ years ago. The constitution serves only as the building block and must be amended as the world turns, let’s not forget that the freedom of speech is given not by the constitution but by amendment to it. Ron Paul’s idea of “the constitution” is unclear and his position, although consistent, clashes with his politics of following the constitution (tax example above).
As far as adding VAT instead of income tax – imagine today that instead of paying $3.50 for a gallon of gasoline, you pay $4.55 (30% VAT) – yeah, you may get some kind of voucher at the end of the year, but will you sirvive until then? The same will happen with every other product – you want to by a $200 text book? It’s $260 now with the VAT. You want to by $30,000 car? It’s $39,000 now. I have been in Europe, and people there don’t get VAT refunds, the companies do (plus, people still pay income taxes).