One issue that seems to pop up as needing to be addressed every four years in tax reform.  Everyone agrees the current tax system is overly complex, but at the same differs over how to solve it.  Some want to just simplify the current system, others want a flat income tax (not necessarily realizing that a flat tax won't stay flat thanks to the lobbyists), still others are in favor of a comsumption based system, which both Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson have during this campaign supported, although Thompson favors going to a flat tax system first as a transitionary step. 

The most interesting and possibly the consumption based system with the best chance of being enacted would be a sales tax based system.

A Sales Tax based system that taxes products is easier to physically track and enforce than the current income tax.  In fact there are probably millions of Americans who either don't pay taxes or don't pay all the taxes they could, because it is easier to hide labor already performed than it is to hide physical products.  The Fair tax is such a tax system based on a flat national sales tax.
 
Recently there have been attacks on Huckabee over his support of the Fair Tax proposal, with most of the editorials saying something to the effect that the implementation of the Fair Tax is impractical and could lead to the implementation of both the Fair tax and the income tax.
 
These attacks are probably more based on anything attached to Huckabee and not based on the merits of the proposal. This does not need to be so.
 
The answer to this dilema is as follows...
 
The bill implementing the Fair Tax and getting rid of the income tax would have to be structured with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that eliminates the income tax 5 to 10 years after ratification.  The Fair Tax does not get imposed until the amendment to the Constitution is ratified.  Once it is ratified the Fair Tax is phased in while the Income Tax is phased out over the time frame scheduled in the amendment.  The collectors of the Fair Tax would be the sales tax agency in each state, who would keep a 20% collection commission that would be earmarked for education and healthcare spending, with no other strings attached. 
 
With this strategem, again the national sales tax will not go into effect until the amendment to the constitution that gets rid of the income tax is ratified and the states have an incentive to ratify the amendment (so that they keep more of the money with far less strings attached to that money).  The key is to get it through both houses of Congress.
 
If I was proposing the bill, I would add a 25% gaming tax, similar to what Nevada charges, on the winning from games of chance to reduce the final cost of the Fair Tax. Furthermore, instead of giving the prebate or stipend to everyone, I would make necessities for survival, business to business transactions, government mandated purchases, and investments for future needs permanently exempted within the language of the amendment and try to be as specific as possible.
 
Now some will raise the point of those wealthy individuals who purchase in overabundance what most of us would consider necessities, particularly food stuff. Those who become gluttons of exempted items would waste their money on goods of limited importance, money that they would otherwise be able to chose to spend elsewhere.  
 
Of course with Democrats in charge of both houses it may be wiser to go with a "progressive national sales tax" with the zero percent rate (that would be for those items exempted like medical care, housing, wheat bread, ground round, etc...), a luxury rate (for things like hard liquor, yachts, caviar, etc...), and one or more middle rates (for things like new clothing, soda, cookies, sofas, etc...).  With this sort of tax the corporate lobbyists will stay in business, but be lobbying to lower taxes on their commodity instead of getting some sort of income tax exemption, which has invariably ended up pushing taxes up on everyone else with the pay as you go rules that has always been a part of the Democrats modus operendi.  This method of sales tax, while simpler would probably end up needing more accountants and tax lawyers than a straight fair tax, but far less than the current income tax.  If the Republicans can take back both houses of Congress, then we can, if we choose, alter the progressive national sales tax into a national fair tax or some other consumption tax.  Whatever the case may be we will give Congress an incentive to be more business friendly than they currently are and give tax payers a better incentive to invest in their futures, which could make our solutions to the Social Security and Medicare problems more palatable amongst those who are currently opposing these solutions.
 
The Republican party has been moving in the direction of eliminating property taxation (i.e. income, car, & property) believing that once you own it the government should not take what you worked for or purchased away from you by taxing it out of your hands.  This leaves us favoring consumption and tariff taxation as the means to fund the government.  This is one way to complete the move on the federal level.
 
-Sincerely,
Matt Kauble