Ending income taxes

[deepthunk]

Anyone who watches the market news can see the stock market is on the brink of dire straits, the indications are plain. The REAL reason for this instability is that the government has been using borrowed money to buttress the economy and maintain numerous jobs for years and there are clear indications that the federal government is about to cut spending drastically, yanking the buttresses out from under the American economy and leading to global economic collapse.

It occurs to me that there is a very simple no non-sense way to avoid economic collapse and the possible wars that could follow and its shockingly simple, end income and reduce capital gains taxes by making the 66% of companies that operate without paying taxes, pay them (and stop giving them tax “benefits”).

You see the corporations are not “people”, when an individual pays taxes its money out of their own pocket and that hurts. Corporations however are not people; the corporate employees pay personal income taxes, taxes paid by the company however are never “felt” by either the shareholders or the employee’s. By slowly reducing personal income taxes while ending tax benefits for corporations and banning the hiding of corporate profits in overseas tax havens, consumer spending can be increased while balancing the national budget by creating domestic jobs through increased consumer spending and increasing job creating ventures through the reduction in personal taxes.

At this point it’s either that or hide your gold under your mattress and invest heavily in nonperishable foods, firearms, toilet paper and other post economy goods.

That’s my two cents on the subject.

 

[deepthunk]

Hey, skim words added a shopping link to “toilet paper”, has anyone ever actually bought toilet paper online? How much time does one have to spend at ones computer before it becomes necessary to order butt wipe by mail.

 

[healthmyths]

OK... let's do that!

And in exchange would it be ok for these employers to NO LONGER PAY equally SS/Medicare benefits?
In other words Assuming there are 100 million people that average $30,000 a year in pay.
Now lets no longer require those employers to pay 7.65% of that $30,000 above salary or $3,000 on behalf of the employee.
That would be a reduction of $230 billion a year in payroll taxes revenue..

 

[g5000]

"Corporations are people" is nowhere to be found in the Citizens United decision, any more than "death panels" are to be found in ObamaCare. "Corporations are people" was intellectually lazy shorthand invented by liberals which completely misrepresents what was in the ruling.

Moving on...

The reason the markets are jittery is not because the government has borrowed money. It is because the Fed has printed over a trillion dollars and no one believes their exit strategy is viable. And every time the Fed even glances at the exit, like they are now, it makes the market dive, like it is now.

They are also jittery over the more immediate crisis that is about to explode in Japan. Japan is about to go bust in a galactic spectacular supernova kind of way.

Speaking of wars, we are about to experience a currency war such has never before been seen.

Buckle up!

 

[g5000]

People get mad because some corporations get tax breaks that end up with those corporations not paying any taxes.

Some of those same people who get mad at corporations not paying taxes are also the people who take the mortgage interest deduction, child tax credits, and all kinds of other tax breaks so they end up not paying any taxes, either!

Many of the 47% of Americans who don't pay any federal income taxes get all indignant over some corporation not paying any federal income taxes, and they do so without any sense of irony at all.

We are a nation of hypocrites and treasury leeches. "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


End tax expenditures. All of them.

 

[buckeye45_73]

People get mad because some corporations get tax breaks that end up with those corporations not paying any taxes.

Some of those same people who get mad at corporations not paying taxes are also the people who take the mortgage interest deduction, child tax credits, and all kinds of other tax breaks so they end up not paying any taxes, either!

Many of the 47% of Americans who don't pay any federal income taxes get all indignant over some corporation not paying any federal income taxes, and they do so without any sense of irony at all.

We are a nation of hypocrites and treasury leeches. "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


End tax expenditures. All of them.

yep, I love to see people bitch about tax breaks then use them. It's funny how some people bitch about them, and I say well will your reps get rid of them.......the answer is noway Jose, and they have no response.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whenever they can, most people are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allows them to take, just as most people pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? Those who use benefits written into the law? Or the government who passes laws that benefit some but not all?

Whenever they can, corporations are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allowed them to take, just as they pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? The corporations who benefit from a law that allows them to pay no taxes. Or the government who passes laws that allow some corporations to pay no taxes but not all?

If you go to McDonalds for a Big Mac and the cashier charges you 25 cents as their franchise is offering a special that day, do you pay the usual $2.95 because you don't think it fair that you pay a quarter while others are paying $2.95? Do you refuse to buy things on sale because you dont think it is fair to pay less than others have to pay at other times?

Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be a true flat tax to support government and everybody who earns income pays that same flat tax regardless of the source of income or what sort of income it is? And wouldn't the American people ALL then keep closer tabs on what the government spends their money on because it directly affects them? Most especially when the government demands more of the people's money?

I support a flat income tax, with no form of income excluded, as being the least regressive and most fair of all forms of taxation. It is the most visible and the least easy to manipulate without the people noticing the changes.

 

[tooAlive]

End the income tax.

Implement a flat consumption tax.

Problem solved, equality for all.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

End the income tax.

Implement a flat consumption tax.

Problem solved, equality for all.

In other words raise taxes on the poor and cut taxes for the rich by instituting a policy where the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes then the rich do. No thank you

 

[Foxfyre]

End the income tax.

Implement a flat consumption tax.

Problem solved, equality for all.

In other words raise taxes on the poor and cut taxes for the rich by instituting a policy where the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes then the rich do. No thank you

Your concept is in error, however, because it would not necessarily cut taxes for the rich. It would result in the poor paying a much higher percentage of their income than the rich do, however, and that is what would make a consumption tax, sales tax, value added tax, or anything similar a regressive tax. A flat income tax would assign the exact same pecentage to everybody.

It would initially raise taxes on the poor and would likely reduce taxes for the rich--which is why liberals oppose the concept--but it remains the most fair, the most honest, removes the ability to use taxes in dishonest ways, and is the most likely system to promote better government and to generate greater prosperity for all that would give the poor their best shot at becoming unpoor despite having to pay taxes in the interim.

 

[healthmyths]

People get mad because some corporations get tax breaks that end up with those corporations not paying any taxes.

Some of those same people who get mad at corporations not paying taxes are also the people who take the mortgage interest deduction, child tax credits, and all kinds of other tax breaks so they end up not paying any taxes, either!

Many of the 47% of Americans who don't pay any federal income taxes get all indignant over some corporation not paying any federal income taxes, and they do so without any sense of irony at all.

We are a nation of hypocrites and treasury leeches. "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


End tax expenditures. All of them.

FACTS support your comment:

What are the largest tax expenditures? In 2008 expenditures (tax deductions allowed) these are the amounts and types of deductions that Romney MAY suggest be eliminated or reduced. If ALL the deductions were eliminated another $653 billion would be added to tax revenue...

Ranked by size the type of deduction and the amounts written off against taxes in 2008
NOTE Largest tax deduction: is the employers' payment of employees' medical insurance premiums...$131 billion a year..
Next Largest: is Employers' deducting $117.7 billion in contributions for employees pensions..
Next Largest: $88.5 billion in home owners deducting interest.

THREE LARGEST DEDUCTIONS against tax liability of $236 Billion just for individuals who work for employers and own their homes.. INDIVIDUALS NOT companies benefits!!!
Amount of
Deduction Type of deduction that government ALLOWS tax payer to subtract from taxes

• 
  [*]$131.0 billion Benefits individual: Exclusion of employer medical insurance premiums and medical care
  [*]$117.7 Benefits Individual: Net exclusion of pension contributions and earnings
  [*]$ 88.5 Benefits Individual : Deductibility of mortgage interest on owner-occupied homes
  [*]$ 55.9 Benefits company: Accelerated depreciation of machinery and equipment
  [*]$ 49.1 Benefits company: Deductibility of non-business state and local taxes
  [*]$ 46.8 Benefits individuals and companies: Deductibility of charitable contributions (Obama deducted $245,000 in donations)
  [*]$ 31.5 Benefits company: Deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations
  [*]$ 30.0 Benefits individuals: Capital gains exclusion on home sales
  [*]$ 29.1 Benefits individuals: Deductibility of State and local property tax on owner-occupied homes
  [*]$ 28.4 Benefits individuals: Child credit
  [*]$ 24.2 Benefits individuals:Capital gains (except agriculture,timber, and coal)
  [*]$ 21.5 Benefits individuals:Step-up basis of capital gains at death

$653.7 billion
Of these 12 deductions nine benefit individuals.. 3 companies...

HMMMM! Let's do away with them all RIGHT???

 

[g5000]

Whenever they can, most people are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allows them to take, just as most people pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? Those who use benefits written into the law? Or the government who passes laws that benefit some but not all?

Whenever they can, corporations are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allowed them to take, just as they pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? The corporations who benefit from a law that allows them to pay no taxes. Or the government who passes laws that allow some corporations to pay no taxes but not all?

If you go to McDonalds for a Big Mac and the cashier charges you 25 cents as their franchise is offering a special that day, do you pay the usual $2.95 because you don't think it fair that you pay a quarter while others are paying $2.95? Do you refuse to buy things on sale because you dont think it is fair to pay less than others have to pay at other times?

Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be a true flat tax to support government and everybody who earns income pays that same flat tax regardless of the source of income or what sort of income it is? And wouldn't the American people ALL then keep closer tabs on what the government spends their money on because it directly affects them? Most especially when the government demands more of the people's money?

I support a flat income tax, with no form of income excluded, as being the least regressive and most fair of all forms of taxation. It is the most visible and the least easy to manipulate without the people noticing the changes.

It isn't like the corporations are some kind of innocent bystanders who would be silly not to use the tax breaks. They paid good money to Congressional campaign funds to get those tax breaks.

Tax expenditures need to be banned, period. All of them. You would see campaign donations plunge if tax expenditures were banned. If a Congressman can't put a tax break in the code for a union or corporation, then those special interests would have no motive to pay him to do so.

 

[g5000]

People get mad because some corporations get tax breaks that end up with those corporations not paying any taxes.

Some of those same people who get mad at corporations not paying taxes are also the people who take the mortgage interest deduction, child tax credits, and all kinds of other tax breaks so they end up not paying any taxes, either!

Many of the 47% of Americans who don't pay any federal income taxes get all indignant over some corporation not paying any federal income taxes, and they do so without any sense of irony at all.

We are a nation of hypocrites and treasury leeches. "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


End tax expenditures. All of them.

FACTS support your comment:

What are the largest tax expenditures? In 2008 expenditures (tax deductions allowed) these are the amounts and types of deductions that Romney MAY suggest be eliminated or reduced. If ALL the deductions were eliminated another $653 billion would be added to tax revenue...

Ranked by size the type of deduction and the amounts written off against taxes in 2008
NOTE Largest tax deduction: is the employers' payment of employees' medical insurance premiums...$131 billion a year..
Next Largest: is Employers' deducting $117.7 billion in contributions for employees pensions..
Next Largest: $88.5 billion in home owners deducting interest.

THREE LARGEST DEDUCTIONS against tax liability of $236 Billion just for individuals who work for employers and own their homes.. INDIVIDUALS NOT companies benefits!!!
Amount of
Deduction Type of deduction that government ALLOWS tax payer to subtract from taxes

• 
  [*]$131.0 billion Benefits individual: Exclusion of employer medical insurance premiums and medical care
  [*]$117.7 Benefits Individual: Net exclusion of pension contributions and earnings
  [*]$ 88.5 Benefits Individual : Deductibility of mortgage interest on owner-occupied homes
  [*]$ 55.9 Benefits company: Accelerated depreciation of machinery and equipment
  [*]$ 49.1 Benefits company: Deductibility of non-business state and local taxes
  [*]$ 46.8 Benefits individuals and companies: Deductibility of charitable contributions (Obama deducted $245,000 in donations)
  [*]$ 31.5 Benefits company: Deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations
  [*]$ 30.0 Benefits individuals: Capital gains exclusion on home sales
  [*]$ 29.1 Benefits individuals: Deductibility of State and local property tax on owner-occupied homes
  [*]$ 28.4 Benefits individuals: Child credit
  [*]$ 24.2 Benefits individuals:Capital gains (except agriculture,timber, and coal)
  [*]$ 21.5 Benefits individuals:Step-up basis of capital gains at death

$653.7 billion
Of these 12 deductions nine benefit individuals.. 3 companies...

HMMMM! Let's do away with them all RIGHT???

That is not a comprehensive list. And many of those deductions which benefit "individuals" benefit only very wealthy individuals.

There are well over a TRILLION dollars of tax expenditures every year.

We absolutely need to end them all. End tax expenditures and you eliminate a large part of the corruption in DC.

All that would remain to be eliminated is the corruption surrounding corporate regulatory capture.

 

[healthmyths]

Whenever they can, most people are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allows them to take, just as most people pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? Those who use benefits written into the law? Or the government who passes laws that benefit some but not all?

Whenever they can, corporations are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allowed them to take, just as they pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? The corporations who benefit from a law that allows them to pay no taxes. Or the government who passes laws that allow some corporations to pay no taxes but not all?

If you go to McDonalds for a Big Mac and the cashier charges you 25 cents as their franchise is offering a special that day, do you pay the usual $2.95 because you don't think it fair that you pay a quarter while others are paying $2.95? Do you refuse to buy things on sale because you dont think it is fair to pay less than others have to pay at other times?

Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be a true flat tax to support government and everybody who earns income pays that same flat tax regardless of the source of income or what sort of income it is? And wouldn't the American people ALL then keep closer tabs on what the government spends their money on because it directly affects them? Most especially when the government demands more of the people's money?

I support a flat income tax, with no form of income excluded, as being the least regressive and most fair of all forms of taxation. It is the most visible and the least easy to manipulate without the people noticing the changes.

It isn't like the corporations are some kind of innocent bystanders who would be silly not to use the tax breaks. They paid good money to Congressional campaign funds to get those tax breaks.

Tax expenditures need to be banned, period. All of them. You would see campaign donations plunge if tax expenditures were banned. If a Congressman can't put a tax break in the code for a union or corporation, then those special interests would have no motive to pay him to do so.

What are the largest tax expenditures? In 2008 expenditures (tax deductions allowed) these are the amounts and types of deductions that Romney MAY suggest be eliminated or reduced. If ALL the deductions were eliminated another $653 billion would be added to tax revenue...

Ranked by size the type of deduction and the amounts written off against taxes in 2008
NOTE Largest tax deduction: is the employers' payment of employees' medical insurance premiums...$131 billion a year..
Next Largest: is Employers' deducting $117.7 billion in contributions for employees pensions..
Next Largest: $88.5 billion in home owners deducting interest.

THREE LARGEST DEDUCTIONS against tax liability of $236 Billion just for individuals who work for employers and own their homes.. INDIVIDUALS NOT companies benefits!!!

NOT ONE of the THREE largest deductions are to the benefit of the evil corporations!!!
PLUS are you aware that employers pay annually to the Federal government in Social security/Medicare tax $ 409 billion on the $5 trillion in wages/salaries employers pay?
Federal Revenues by Source

Amount of
Deduction Type of deduction that government ALLOWS tax payer to subtract from taxes

• 
  [*]$131.0 billion Benefits individual: Exclusion of employer medical insurance premiums and medical care
  [*]$117.7 Benefits Individual: Net exclusion of pension contributions and earnings
  [*]$ 88.5 Benefits Individual : Deductibility of mortgage interest on owner-occupied homes
  [*]$ 55.9 Benefits company: Accelerated depreciation of machinery and equipment
  [*]$ 49.1 Benefits company: Deductibility of non-business state and local taxes
  [*]$ 46.8 Benefits individuals and companies Deductibility of charitable contributions (Obama deducted $245,000 in donations)
  [*]$ 31.5 Benefits company: Deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations
  [*]$ 30.0 Benefits individuals:Capital gains exclusion on home sales
  [*]$ 29.1 Benefits individualseductibility of State and local property tax on owner-occupied homes
  [*]$ 28.4 Benefits individuals: Child credit
  [*]$ 24.2 Benefits individuals:Capital gains (except agriculture,timber, and coal)
  [*]$ 21.5 Benefits individuals:Step-up basis of capital gains at death

$653.7 billion
Of these 12 deductions nine benefit individuals.. 3 companies...

HMMMM! Let's do away with them all RIGHT???

 

[TemplarKormac]

Whenever they can, most people are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allows them to take, just as most people pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? Those who use benefits written into the law? Or the government who passes laws that benefit some but not all?

Whenever they can, corporations are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allowed them to take, just as they pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? The corporations who benefit from a law that allows them to pay no taxes. Or the government who passes laws that allow some corporations to pay no taxes but not all?

If you go to McDonalds for a Big Mac and the cashier charges you 25 cents as their franchise is offering a special that day, do you pay the usual $2.95 because you don't think it fair that you pay a quarter while others are paying $2.95? Do you refuse to buy things on sale because you dont think it is fair to pay less than others have to pay at other times?

Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be a true flat tax to support government and everybody who earns income pays that same flat tax regardless of the source of income or what sort of income it is? And wouldn't the American people ALL then keep closer tabs on what the government spends their money on because it directly affects them? Most especially when the government demands more of the people's money?

I support a flat income tax, with no form of income excluded, as being the least regressive and most fair of all forms of taxation. It is the most visible and the least easy to manipulate without the people noticing the changes.

It isn't like the corporations are some kind of innocent bystanders who would be silly not to use the tax breaks. They paid good money to Congressional campaign funds to get those tax breaks.

Tax expenditures need to be banned, period. All of them. You would see campaign donations plunge if tax expenditures were banned. If a Congressman can't put a tax break in the code for a union or corporation, then those special interests would have no motive to pay him to do so.

All that sarcasm aside, you realize that if we ended tax exemptions for corporations who make certain products and services we need in America, that you could see them hike prices on those certain products and services. That in turn would make it harder for the ordinary citizen to obtain them. You can't just take those tax exemptions away without hurting someone else in the process. This is the other side of "trickle down economics."

Cause and effect.

 

[Avatar4321]

End the income tax.

Implement a flat consumption tax.

Problem solved, equality for all.

In other words raise taxes on the poor and cut taxes for the rich by instituting a policy where the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes then the rich do. No thank you

You are seriously going to suggest that the poor will be paying more in taxes then the rich? Let's assume that this class divide is a reality for the sake of this discussion.

If you are taxed on what you consume, what on earth makes you think the rich will be paying less in taxes? The taxes we pay will be determined by how much we consume. Both the rich and the poor can exercise discretion to purchase what they want. No one can force someone who is rich or poor to purchase a good or service.

So everyone will be treated equally according to their choices. How exactly is treating everyone the same way, regardless of how much income they make, going to burden the poor more than the rich? Why do you think that I, as a poor man, should be less obligated to support my nations taxes than someone who makes more than I do? And if I use more of my income to consume goods and services, how is that any ones fault but my own?

You need to stop with this mindset of people being treated differently because of how much money they earn. A man is not better or worse than his brethren because he makes alot of money or because he makes little money. This is an artificial divide created by politicins to attempt to divide the people so that they can obtain power over us.

We should be seeking taxation that is equitable. Not a tax system that divides a man because of his income and profits.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Anyone who watches the market news can see the stock market is on the brink of dire straits, the indications are plain. The REAL reason for this instability is that the government has been using borrowed money to buttress the economy and maintain numerous jobs for years and there are clear indications that the federal government is about to cut spending drastically, yanking the buttresses out from under the American economy and leading to global economic collapse.

It occurs to me that there is a very simple no non-sense way to avoid economic collapse and the possible wars that could follow and its shockingly simple, end income and reduce capital gains taxes by making the 66% of companies that operate without paying taxes, pay them (and stop giving them tax “benefits&#8221.

Yeah that's brilliant. In the first paragraph you say the whole problem is the government's debt is too high, then you proceed to suggest the solution is to cut revenues drastically.

You see the corporations are not “people”, when an individual pays taxes its money out of their own pocket and that hurts. Corporations however are not people; the corporate employees pay personal income taxes, taxes paid by the company however are never “felt” by either the shareholders or the employee’s. By slowly reducing personal income taxes while ending tax benefits for corporations and banning the hiding of corporate profits in overseas tax havens, consumer spending can be increased while balancing the national budget by creating domestic jobs through increased consumer spending and increasing job creating ventures through the reduction in personal taxes.

You see, I don't actually pay income taxes. The government nominally taxes me, to be sure, yes. But I simply pass the cost onto the corporations. If I pay $3.50 a gallon for gas and government decides to tax my income 10% more, I simply pass that extra cost onto the corporations by only paying $3.15 a gallon - so the tax hike is never "felt" by me.

 

[g5000]

People get mad because some corporations get tax breaks that end up with those corporations not paying any taxes.

Some of those same people who get mad at corporations not paying taxes are also the people who take the mortgage interest deduction, child tax credits, and all kinds of other tax breaks so they end up not paying any taxes, either!

Many of the 47% of Americans who don't pay any federal income taxes get all indignant over some corporation not paying any federal income taxes, and they do so without any sense of irony at all.

We are a nation of hypocrites and treasury leeches. "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


End tax expenditures. All of them.

FACTS support your comment:

What are the largest tax expenditures? In 2008 expenditures (tax deductions allowed) these are the amounts and types of deductions that Romney MAY suggest be eliminated or reduced. If ALL the deductions were eliminated another $653 billion would be added to tax revenue...

Ranked by size the type of deduction and the amounts written off against taxes in 2008
NOTE Largest tax deduction: is the employers' payment of employees' medical insurance premiums...$131 billion a year..
Next Largest: is Employers' deducting $117.7 billion in contributions for employees pensions..
Next Largest: $88.5 billion in home owners deducting interest.

THREE LARGEST DEDUCTIONS against tax liability of $236 Billion just for individuals who work for employers and own their homes.. INDIVIDUALS NOT companies benefits!!!
Amount of
Deduction Type of deduction that government ALLOWS tax payer to subtract from taxes

• 
  [*]$131.0 billion Benefits individual: Exclusion of employer medical insurance premiums and medical care
  [*]$117.7 Benefits Individual: Net exclusion of pension contributions and earnings
  [*]$ 88.5 Benefits Individual : Deductibility of mortgage interest on owner-occupied homes
  [*]$ 55.9 Benefits company: Accelerated depreciation of machinery and equipment
  [*]$ 49.1 Benefits company: Deductibility of non-business state and local taxes
  [*]$ 46.8 Benefits individuals and companies: Deductibility of charitable contributions (Obama deducted $245,000 in donations)
  [*]$ 31.5 Benefits company: Deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations
  [*]$ 30.0 Benefits individuals: Capital gains exclusion on home sales
  [*]$ 29.1 Benefits individuals: Deductibility of State and local property tax on owner-occupied homes
  [*]$ 28.4 Benefits individuals: Child credit
  [*]$ 24.2 Benefits individuals:Capital gains (except agriculture,timber, and coal)
  [*]$ 21.5 Benefits individuals:Step-up basis of capital gains at death

$653.7 billion
Of these 12 deductions nine benefit individuals.. 3 companies...

HMMMM! Let's do away with them all RIGHT???

The three deductions at the top of your list are highly regressive tax expenditures.

The mortgage interest deduction in particular is one of the grossest regressive tax expenditures there is. It is ironic those who claim to be protecting the little guy defend it.

 

[Avatar4321]

It isn't like the corporations are some kind of innocent bystanders who would be silly not to use the tax breaks. They paid good money to Congressional campaign funds to get those tax breaks.

Tax expenditures need to be banned, period. All of them. You would see campaign donations plunge if tax expenditures were banned. If a Congressman can't put a tax break in the code for a union or corporation, then those special interests would have no motive to pay him to do so.

Then the politicians would have no way to launder our tax money to their campaign coffers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whenever they can, most people are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allows them to take, just as most people pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? Those who use benefits written into the law? Or the government who passes laws that benefit some but not all?

Whenever they can, corporations are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allowed them to take, just as they pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? The corporations who benefit from a law that allows them to pay no taxes. Or the government who passes laws that allow some corporations to pay no taxes but not all?

If you go to McDonalds for a Big Mac and the cashier charges you 25 cents as their franchise is offering a special that day, do you pay the usual $2.95 because you don't think it fair that you pay a quarter while others are paying $2.95? Do you refuse to buy things on sale because you dont think it is fair to pay less than others have to pay at other times?

Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be a true flat tax to support government and everybody who earns income pays that same flat tax regardless of the source of income or what sort of income it is? And wouldn't the American people ALL then keep closer tabs on what the government spends their money on because it directly affects them? Most especially when the government demands more of the people's money?

I support a flat income tax, with no form of income excluded, as being the least regressive and most fair of all forms of taxation. It is the most visible and the least easy to manipulate without the people noticing the changes.

It isn't like the corporations are some kind of innocent bystanders who would be silly not to use the tax breaks. They paid good money to Congressional campaign funds to get those tax breaks.

Tax expenditures need to be banned, period. All of them. You would see campaign donations plunge if tax expenditures were banned. If a Congressman can't put a tax break in the code for a union or corporation, then those special interests would have no motive to pay him to do so.

There is simply no way to allow a benefit to one demographic, group, entity or whatever without being unfair to another.

In my opinion, the greatest source of graft, corruption, inequities, and manipulation in government is allowing those in government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, to use our money to dispense favors, benefits, opportunities, or charity to targeted groups, demographics, entities, etc. And of course in doing that, they increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes which becomes their number one goal.

Would you agree to a constitutional amendment that prevents anybody in the federal government from providing any benefit to anybody that was not provided to all regardless of political or socioeconomic standing? And that prevent them from giving themself any benefit that was not given to all? And that prevented them from passing any law that they too were not subject to?