The 28th Amendment to the Constitution

I fully agree on the need to keep electricity power generation small and local. The UK's high AC above ground distribution causes radation problems for householders above which these cables pass. Efficient maybe but at a huge cost to local people, even if they are unawair of it. But our economy depends on huge electricity supply. All domestic appliances use it, even A rated equiptment. There would need to be mega numbers of small local power plants. I doubt if the equation of supply and demand would ballance with these little plants however much greener.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "as a whole", but they fully support spending for necessities of the state. Not just the military, but roads, schools, and such.

To the 30's? Who? I think you've been thinking too much of Tino's scarecrow too.

So, what % of a company would you be able to own and still rent from it? Suppose I buy a share of a publicly traded REIT that owns a bunch of apartment buildings. Would I have to look up which buildings they own and avoid living in any of them? The government doesn't even have to know who owns an LLC. And you're not renting it to yourself. The LLC is renting it to you. The LLC is a separate entity. Hey, replace it with a C corp if you want, same difference. Maybe a large family has 20 family members and they each own 5% of an LLC that rents the house to one of them for $1/mo. Maybe there's 100 family members who do it. Where do YOU draw the line? This is clearly a major loophole that you can't just explain away by proposing some "no relationship" rule. Nobody is allowed to rent any property from any company they have an ownership interest in? Are you kidding? Bunches of companies ALREADY do this as a tax avoidance scheme! A company, say Wal-Mart, owns a subsidiary, say Wal-Mart Real Estate, which owns the land and buildings where Wal-Mart stores are located. These properties are held in Real Estate Investment Trusts, which avoid taxes as long as they pay out 90% of their earnings to shareholders. In high tax states, the store pays "rent" to Wal-Mart Real Estate, which is a deduction on their taxable income in that state. The Real Estate company then pays a dividend to the parent company and escapes the state tax. According to you, that would be fraud, but you know what? It isn't.

And with a system where you have to pay tax on a new house but not on a used house why would anyone buy a new house? Say I could buy a new house for $130,000 (tax included) or an equivalent used house for $100,000 why would I ever choose the new house? Even if I were stupid enough to buy the new house, if I had to sell within a few years, I wouldn't be able to get what I owe out of it since used houses would be worth 30% less. You'd be better off with a federal property tax than trying to implement different taxes depending on whether a property is new, used, for investment, etc.

I've seen a lot of complaining about school funding lately, and not a lot from either party in terms of infrastructure such as roads.

At least! The pubs! Never met Tino's scarecrow!

Neither party talks about roads because both agree with roads. If the parties talked about their similarities, we'd all realize how much we have in common, and the partisanship our system seems to be built upon would collapse.

Not likely I'm afraid. No news is good news- and neither side wants the other to share in good news.