Adventures in Entrepreneurship with Jeremy Hanks

Although this sounds like a good idea on the surface, it’s really a bad idea and against the constitution. All taxes should be apportioned equally across the board. In other words, you can’t discriminate based on ANYTHING. Not what industry you are in, not what your product is, and not the size of your company.

The real answer is to simply get the government out of the way altogether, since they ARE the problem.

Although this sounds like a good idea on the surface, it’s really a bad idea and against the constitution. All taxes should be apportioned equally across the board. In other words, you can’t discriminate based on ANYTHING. Not what industry you are in, not what your product is, and not the size of your company.

The real answer is to simply get the government out of the way altogether, since they ARE the problem.

Bif, thanks for the comment!

I think your viewpoint comes from thinking solely about the original constitution, but the framers of the document knew it would need to be amended, and the 16th amendment allows congress the ability to levy income taxes without equal appropriations. Plus, the U.S. has a long history of using taxes to influence behavior (not saying that’s right/wrong, that’d be a much larger discussion), but in the midst of a struggling economy, why not use the system in place to take action that would be fairly easy and at the same time would definitely make quick impact.

The other point is that Mark suggests waiving lots of other requirements/fees that are more bureaucratic in nature related to govt. systems and programs and not really tax related. Both together should be a good help, in my opinion. Not that I really think, that as you suggest and I agree with, the government will do any flavor of getting out of the way. And any flavor of that has to be a step in the right direction. Thanks again for commenting!!

Bif, thanks for the comment!

I think your viewpoint comes from thinking solely about the original constitution, but the framers of the document knew it would need to be amended, and the 16th amendment allows congress the ability to levy income taxes without equal appropriations. Plus, the U.S. has a long history of using taxes to influence behavior (not saying that’s right/wrong, that’d be a much larger discussion), but in the midst of a struggling economy, why not use the system in place to take action that would be fairly easy and at the same time would definitely make quick impact.

The other point is that Mark suggests waiving lots of other requirements/fees that are more bureaucratic in nature related to govt. systems and programs and not really tax related. Both together should be a good help, in my opinion. Not that I really think, that as you suggest and I agree with, the government will do any flavor of getting out of the way. And any flavor of that has to be a step in the right direction. Thanks again for commenting!!