[Athos]

There are no gains or losses if there is no transactions

False. Assets can have gains or losses without transactions. They are subject to market fluctuations. A gain in a stock can leverage favorable interest rates. The reduction in the cost of money is obviously much greater than paying taxes on that money.

if the Dems feel the uber rich are not paying their "fair share then the answer is to change the tax code to a graduated flat tax and remove all loop holes.

False again. A flat tax is hardly a fair tax - it favors the rich.

My preference would be to eliminate income taxes all together and replace them with consumption and sales taxes .

Consumption and sales taxes are regressive taxes.

[Athos]

There is no way punitive taxes on 700 people will dent the problem of over obligation.

The current tax discussions are for paying for Biden's infrastructure policies. The problem of "over obligation" is a separate issue.

Graduated flat tax is a term used by economists .You can call it anything you wish . It is different than a progressive tax system

False. A graduated and progressive tax are the same with different names.

I note that the Dems never have an issue when wealthy individuals like Zuckerberg spend their own money to influence elections in the Dems favor

False. Tax fairness applies to all regardless of politics - or race, religion, national origin, age, ethnicity or favorite baseball team.

[tomder55]

Consumption and sales taxes are regressive taxes.

and yet the bluest of the blue states have the most and highest sales taxes . Go figure

[Athos]

The reduced rate for cap gains is an incentive to invest in long term entrepreneurship and job creating

False. This is the bill of goods the rich have sold you. The cap gains reduced rate is put there over the years by the wealthy and their lobbyists. The reduced rate favors the wealthy few.

and yet the bluest of the blue states have the most and highest sales taxes . Go figure

That does not change their regressive nature.

[tomder55]

Jl has the best take on this tax plan . It is ruse. It is meant to fool people into believing there is a funding plan for outrageous spending . Then when it fails Quid can say the plan would have cost nothing except for the fact that it was rejected by obstructionists in either the Congress or the court

[Athos]

In Citizens United ,SCOTUS decided that corporations could spend money advocating the election or non-election of political candidates just as individuals could.

Does anyone seriously believe that individuals have the same political clout that corporations have? This is what the SC declared.

The amounts spent, as federal law required, had to be publicly disclosed.

False. This turned out that donors were not always disclosed if they went through certain non-profits who are not required to publish their donor lists, even including foreign entities. Russia, anyone?

Corporate spending to influence politicians is done so with lobbying efforts to a much greater extent than during campaigns

This is a bit like saying murdering in daytime is much better than murdering during the night. (Think about that).

The way to fix your concerns is term limits for all.

False. The way to fix Citizens United is to undo it.