I challenge anyone to get a dictionary definition of the word “fair,” and to explain how any of the proposed changes fit that definition.

Now to examine each proposal.

Option 1 — Repealing itemized deductions and increasing the Standard Deduction by 180%.

I have no problem with that. It is simple and impartial.

Option 2 — Capping the value of itemized deductions.

I do have a problem with that. That would be showing favoritism in the tax code. However, I have no problem with capping or eliminating the mortgage interest deduction. It does nothing but increase the price of housing, and encourage people to take our larger loans.

Gambling losses are also NOT deductible already, and that is good.

Medical expenses are only deductible to the extent that they exceed 7.5% of one’s AGI, so that moves farther out of range as one’s income increases.

Option 3 — Converting itemized deductions to credits, with the credit value set at 4.35%

No. Why should one be taxed on money he does not have? If you give away $100 to charity, you still get taxed $2.15 on it? Now, if they want to set that credit at or above the maximum tax rate, I would have no problem with the idea.

Option 4 — Enacting stand-alone phaseouts

Again, that is showing favoritism, so I am against it.

Option 5 — Decoupling from Federal Pease repeal

See #4 — it’s the same thing. Allowing deductions for some people but not for others shows favoritism.

I am always for objective examinations of revising our tax structure, especially if those revisions can be shown to stimulate the creation and retention of jobs here in Virginia.

If our government decides to tinker with the tax code, they should focus on providing incentives that will restore our strategic manufacturing base, point us toward energy independence and ensure that we are creating: Jobs, JOBS and more JOBS!

I think the comments here illustrate how that’s a bit of a pipe dream. Letting a tax cut expire at a the end deadline codified by law is now considered akin to raising taxes. It’s not just considered tantamount to — it’s considered the literal equivalent.

At some point during the second four year frame of the George W. Bush Administration people started talking about meddling with entitlements like social security and taxes became the new third rail in politics.

Based on these scenarios, I would pay more, not a lot, and my thought is it would be worth the amount to solve the issues. At least if the issues solved are the issues I want solved. But, I still pay more.