There are many possible solutions, and I don't claim to possess the best answer. But the present system is rotten to the core, fomenting government excess, corruption and the destruction of wealth. But whichever one we ultimately choose, I would prefer it be overseen by someone other than Mr. Huckabee.
A President wouldn't be collecting sales taxes.
Your answer implies someone you don't like cannot possibly have a good idea for the country.
“... but with exemptions for food, clothing and housing, and allowances for child care, for example.”
Peachy. So people that spend all their money on these things would pay nothing in taxes ? How is that fair ? Doesn’t it cost the government something to protect their lives, rights, and freedoms ? Why should they get that protection for free when others have to pay for it ?
What incentive does somebody have to vote against wasteful government when they know that they won’t be the ones that have to pay for it ?
The FairTax as written already untaxes too many people by providing a Prebate — a check to use to pay the FairTax on the stuff they buy up to poverty level spending. Add to that the fact that education, used goods, mortgage interest and property tax are not taxed under the FairTax, and you end up with a HUGE number of people that would pay NOTHING in net taxes. Not even the SS/M taxes they pay now. Yet they would still be eligibale for SS/M benefits when they retire. The size of the SS/M spending will explode with all those voters demanding better benefits but not having to actually pay any taxes for them.
The key to responsible voter behaviour is to make sure there is always a direct tax consequence that hits that voter — higher taxes for bigger government and lower taxes for smaller government. Any plan that attempts to untax any voter is a bad idea.
We need to REVERSE the trend toward apathy amongst voters, where they look at nothing but the benefits they’ll receive from government because they know the tax will be paid for by somebody else.