A colleague recently wrote demanding that taxes should be raised. He didn't seem to want his own taxes raised but only on "the rich." I, too, feel the rich are good for more. Recently, a federal commission's tax simplification proposals - if implemented even in part - would help us to this end.

Better yet, the loophole closing measures would be bad news for H&R Block stock and could force numerous lawyers and accountants to find more constructive ways to make a living.

The commission recommends eliminating what I call the "McMansion deduction." Do you have your favorite garish large house in town? I do, too. Suppose the thing cost $2 million to build. Now, if someone wants to be ostentatious in such an un-Central Illinois way, it is their affair. But, does Uncle Sam really need to be such a major partner in the effort? The interest on the first $1 million of the mortgage is fully deductible, as is the full amount of property tax. That could be $65,000 in interest and possibly $40,000 in property tax.

There are good reasons to help people own the roof they are under. The value in putting people under a huge roof is less apparent. The commission points out that home ownership in America is more than 70 percent. But this is no higher than Australia and England, which do not allow deductions for home mortgage interest and property taxes. The commission also points out that lower income families who need the help usually take the standard deduction. It recommends giving a tax credit to lower income home buyers and letting others fend for themselves.

Besides closing loopholes, what else can we do to get the rich to pay more? To keep things sound, a tax system must be seen as reasonably fair and just. It must raise the necessary revenue and not unduly stifle economic development. Fair and just is very much in the eye of the beholder, but the judgment should be based on fact not fantasy.

One constant theme is the view of many that "the rich" working through clever lawyers and accountants are not only failing to pay their fair share, but really not paying much at all. The recent stories about Teresa Heinz-Kerry with millions in income but almost nothing in tax liability fuels these beliefs. Her income is mostly from tax-free municipal bonds and, unfortunately, no politician has the courage to take that on. Bill Gates and his wife, with their charitable donations, probably escape most taxes.

The rest of the rich are paying an overwhelming share of income taxes collected. IRS data shows the top 1 percent of taxpayers, with annual income of more than $300,000, pay more than 35 percent of income taxes. The top 10 percent (incomes above $92,000) pay about two-thirds and the bottom half of earners bear just 4 percent of the burden.

If we raised taxes on this top group could we make them pay the whole thing or would we be killing the goose that laid the golden egg? The answer is an interesting mix of theory and fact. An average married couple has an income today of $63,000. Assuming two children and standard deductions, they would pay $4,200 in taxes or about 6.5 percent. President Bush reportedly paid close to the 35 percent maximum.

This differential strikes me as fair. If we raised that 35 percent rate on Bush and others, how much more could we bring in? We don't need to experiment because it has been tried. In 1980, the top tax rate was not our current 35 percent but 70 percent. In the Roosevelt/ Eisenhower era, the top rate was 91 percent. In 1980, under the higher rate, the top 1 percent paid only about 20 percent of taxes collected, rather than the 35 percent they now pay.

In the 1930s income tax law was simple. One paid 4 percent on income over $4,000. Unfortunately, to raise necessary revenues, tax rates need to be higher, but at some point raising the rate becomes counterproductive. To get those at the top to pay the most, we cut their deductions as much as possible and find the tax rate that is the delicate balance between incentive to produce and revenue generation. Experts believe that rate is something under 30 percent.

The commission recommends that we should close loopholes, lower rates a bit and the top 10 percent will wind up paying more taxes than ever as they work harder and take on more risk investing their money.

Carson Varner is a professor of finance, insurance and law at Illinois State University.