shans

And while we are at this, I am very interested in another thought experiment. * Person 1: income $400k per year, lives in California -- must spend $1.5M+ to afford a 4 BR home for a family of 4 -- must spend $15 per hour on child care workers because of minimum wage laws -- spends an average of $20 per person per meal, because of all the costs baked into the price of goods and services in the state -- spends 10 - 12% on state income tax but does not receive any direct benefits from state programs because of their income level (the only point being about the additional expense of it that is not a direct benefit, not that the state tax is unfair). -- spends 9% of all goods purchased on sales tax

* Person 2: income $400k per year lives in TX * spends $700 - 800k on an equivalent or better home * spends an average of $12 - 15 per meal per person * can spend $10 per hour on child care workers because of minimum wage laws * spends 0% on state income tax * spends a 6 - 7% on all goods purchased on sales tax

Ignoring things like what the specific min wage levels should be, etc, etc, is cost of living something that should show up in "fair tax" owed?

If the answer is no... I have a hard time seeing how any specific tax level could be considered fair (even after the argument of "well people should just move to another state").

If the answer is yes, then I have a hard time imagining how any federal income tax system could achieve the goal of "fairness".

And perhaps getting rid of the income tax altogether (perhpas replaced by Universal or partial BI + national sales tax as one idea) would result in a much faire / progressive system.