@Jimgov He has 2 kids actually.

+1 to hecks. Dude, you are on fire today!

@CF? Really? And he is against the child deductions? Wow. I don't know what to say. I just lost the deduction on my daughter this year and it hurt.

He is against all deductions and just wants a fair tax. Actually, krellin makes sense, even if he does like to be gruff (and I can't complain about it as I do the same occasionally). A truly fair tax with the government just getting what it needs along with budget cuts to eliminate waste and start paying down the deficit truly do make sense. So a 10% sales tax on simple luxuries with a 15% on premium luxuries (don't know if the percentages work or not, but you get the idea) and make necessities tax free. Then you are taxed on what you *spend* not what you make. Saving for the future won't be a tax break as you will still have to spend the money to get some use out of it so it will just delay when you pay the tax on it.

The issue with this is that people living paycheck to paycheck spend a larger percentage of their income than do people who are well-off. Sales taxes are inherently regressive, unless you make huge allowances and have an incredibly broad definition of "necessities". For example: gasoline, computers, internet service, cell phones. All of the above are "necessities" for some types of jobs, but certainly someone could live without them all indefinitely (assuming they have some form of income that doesn't require a vehicle to get to work). So do you tax them? Or not?

I already laid that out. Luxry cars get luxury tax at purchase. Basic cars get the basic tax. And bus passes are not taxable. Cell phones could also be tiered but if your job truly reqjuires one, I doubt you are fiscally hurting and the law could be adjusted so if a company truly required one, they would be obligated to provide it.

As far as the wealthy not spending as much, that is total bull. Money doe sno good if it isn't spent. The rich have their multi million dollar homes. So a 15% luxury tax on that purchase would equate to hundreds of thousands in income per home. nd even homes could be on a basic versus luxury scale based on the region. I'm not going to go through all the details as I laid them out once and you are perfectly capable of looking back a page or two to find them.

@Draug - I do like the look of your tax system. I haven't studied it very much, but I like it in general. As for the tax system, how about this. We keep the same basic tax structure. Maybe lower it significantly for the low end and keep the upper end about the same. And take away every deduction. Every one. How's that for fair?

As for a fair tax, what is fair. Enough for the government to do it's job? What is that? You want roads? Bridges? A military? A way to take care of the elderly? Everyone wants a smaller government (I think). But no one wants to actually give anything up.

I overlooked the larger percentage. But that becomes irrelevant when you only tax non-necessities and I still argue the cell is a non-necessity for most and if your job requires it, you clearly make more than the average bear.

I'm good with the neccesity/nicety/luxury sales tax or a flat tax with a preset per person and per househould deduction with the household deduction varying by geographic region so my Cinci deduction would be a bit lower than the immigrant working at In-N-Out Burger as housing in LA is significantly more expensive than in Cincinnati.

@Draug A know a lot of people who don't have land lines.. only cell phones. Who would decide what's a luxury and what's not?

@CF - That is there choice. A landline is cheaper per month. It would be a tax exempt item. Broadcast TV ia free so satellite service and cable servife would be taxed with HD, DVR, and premium taxed at the luxury rate.

The easiest way to implement and enforce it would be just lile Europe's VAT. It is part of the price you pay to the seller or service provider. Believe it or not, it works already over there. And yes, it means goods would cost more but we woild have a lot more in.our pockets because we could keep everything we earned with no income tax.

And if someone really wanted something of a "luxury" nature but couldn't afford new, there would be a whole new market for used goods where VAT was already paid. Plus this would encourage barter/recycle models like freecycle.

And there would be no tax exempt.purchases for manufacturers. Steel would have a VAT and the car made from.it would.have a VAT. Anything.imported would hqve both a tariff and VAT applied to it.

Draug -- I'm not clear on your reason for wanting to tax expenditures vs. income. What's the meaningful difference between the two, especially considering that you're clearly not trying for a one-size-fits-all flat sales tax?

I'm for a flat tax with deductions per person and per household as well where all income is taxed. But a sales tax hits everyone equally based upon what they purchased. If you are rich and want to take the bus, you get the same tax break as someone who can't afford a car. If you are rich and want to drive a 10 year old clunker, you get the same tax break as someone who drives a 10 year old clunker. But if you are rich and want to drive a brand new Rolls, or you are upper middle and want to drive a new or nearly new Mercedes like I do, then you pay the tax based on the value of the car when you buy it. Want to buy a McMansion? Pay the premium sales tax instead of getting some write off for the interest. Don't mind living in a rental property? Then you don't have to pay a tax for having bought something. It's as fair as you can get. You buy what you can afford and pay taxes on the goods and services not some piece of paper whose only use is to buy goods and services. But if you want a flat tax, I'm good with that too. The key is only two deductions: a per household and a per person. No interest write-offs or business loss write-offs or stock loss write-offs. A flat tax per person and another (with no write-offs or deductions) as a corporate tax. So Microsoft pays the same tax rate as Joe's Diner.

One more note on the VAT tax. Even if goods are built overseas, they have to be sold here so that gets the taxes currently lost when businesses move production overseas and we would revoke all non-tariff treaties so that everyone would be on even footing. tariffs would suddenly happen even with Canada and Mexico on *any* goods imported, thereby discouraging moving production overseas.