I guess what would have to be decided is what is considered necessities and what is considered luxury..

I can see the logic in putting more taxes on a boat purchase than on a bed purchase.

But, as you said, the devil is in the details. Some (like me) would consider a computer purchase a necessity, while others might consider it a luxury. Then we get into the horsepower of a computer.

So, I see your point. Such a tax system might be a bigger nightmare than the current one..

Again, I point out to fiction. In the Clancy novel, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, there was debate on changing the tax code. The new SecTreasury put the entire manuals for the US tax code on a large oak conference table and the weight of the books collapsed the table.. A perfect picture of why the US Tax Code is so unworkable..

On the other hand though, if we made the US Tax Code simpler that any joe off the street could easily file their taxes, it would put MILLIONS of accountants out of work...

So, I agree that there is no easy solution.

Michale.....

Be careful what you wish for. I've lived in Europe under such a system (they call it "VAT" for "Value-Added Tax," a fine euphemism if there ever was one).

Are you willing to pay something like 30% more on everything you buy? Even Huckabee knew the number would be this high. Before you answer, consider this: that 30% is added to EVERY stage of production. So if you buy a computer, the parts bought to put that computer together are taxed at 30%, and then the computer itself is again taxed -- in other words, EVERY stage of production is taxed at this rate. This winds up DOUBLING the price paid on most manufactured goods. Are you really ready to sell the concept to voting Americans that all their prices are going to double?

It sounds great on the drawing board, but (as always) the devil is in the details...

-CW

That, to my economically challenged brain, seems to be the easiest way to go. That way, if you have the $$$ to buy expensive luxury items, you pay the price...

If you are low income and can't afford the good stuff, then you get a break...

Michale.....

I don't think you're right. It's hard to tell, as Obama is no fool and has not come out and said "I'm going to raise taxes on this specific group" ever, as far as I'm aware. But he has suggested raising the cap on earnings on Social Security (payroll) taxes. Because these taxes are currently capped around $100K per person - not per family. So if both people in a marriage are making $90K each, they still are fully taxed even though they make $180K combined.

But he has made allusions (without detail) of "exempting" people making $100K to $200K. This is per person, not per family, I believe. Again, it's hard to tell without solid details, which his web site does not provide.

So, assuming I've got it correct (due to the lack of detail, I may have it wrong, I fully admit) -- people making up to $100K pay 6.2%. People making $100K - $200K pay up to the $100K limit, then nothing from $100K to $200K (a "donut hole"). They pay (depending on their actual income) from 6.199% down to a low (if you make $200K) of 3.1%. People who make over $200K start paying 6.2% on everything above it (unless he caps this amount, too). But their effective rate will always be less than 6.2%, due to the free ride they get on income between $100K and $200K.

Logically, this donut hole makes no sense at all, because it guarantees those making the least will pay the highest rate -- the very definition of a regressive tax. It'd be a little bit better than what we've got now, since millionaires would pay more, but there's just no logical reason for doing it this way.

However, politically, it may make sense. It may be easier to get such a scheme through Congress. My main point is -- if such a compromise is necessary, why start your bargaining with the compromise? Why not start with the lofty goal (remove the cap entirely) and then eventually accept some political compromise? Obama's supposed to be the "big ideas" guy, so this is kind of disappointing.

Of course, Hillary is just pandering, which is why I would have liked another five minutes of this debate. Her final statement that there are "more progressive" ways of doing it than "raising the cap" is just flat out wrong. There aren't. She can be slightly excused for (perhaps) using the word "progressive" in its political sense ("progressive is the opposite of conservative") rather than its very specific use in talking about taxes (progressive = the more money you make the higher tax rate you pay). But still, the statement is logically meaningless.

Neither one of them should have been caught by this inane "no new taxes" trap. And I bet it's going to haunt them in the future. I bet you'll see that clip of them on the news in about a year, when they unveil their new tax plan.

But then I could be wrong...

-CW

When Obama brought up the $75,000 figure - he was talking about individuals (which, is STILL upper middle class - but still in the "middle" class area).

And that was why he was saying "depends on how you figure it" about $200,000 to $250,000 for the taxes. This number was is about couples.

So if you are a single filer - the amount is $75,000.
If you are a household filer - the amount is $200-$250,000.

Still wealthy - and still too high - but more

I find it really frustrating that all politicans seem to twist themselves inside out to cater to all of their donors and special interest groups and forget that holding elected office should be a public service to protect and help those who really need it.

The media has a lot to answer for in how they report on these issues. it would appear that they too serve special interests and not the public good.

...Stan