I've been thinking about how we respond to issues of tax fairness. Donald Trump's tax returns as reported by The New York Times show that he paid no personal income tax some years, and $750 a couple years. Trump makes the claim that he pays millions in taxes every year. So, let's break down how both of these statements might (or might not) be true by looking at taxes we pay.

An Analogy:
A community has a bridge that has become old and dangerous. They're only using one lane to cross both ways. They hire contractor O to rebuild the bridge. He brings in the best engineers and union labor to build a strong 4 lane freeway bridge, including shoulders for emergency access and engineered strong enough to withstand a major earthquake, knowing that someday an earthquake will hit.

Re-posting this from my webpage of several years ago:

JUSTICE HUGO BLACK ON CORPORATE PERSONHOOD
Posted Fri, 04/23/2010 - 13:28 by jim
I found Justice Hugo Black's dissenting opinion in this 1938 case to be an extremely clear and convincing argument that corporate personhood was NOT intended to be created by the 14th Amendment. Below is an extensive excerpt from Black's dissenting opinion. If you don't have time to read it, just scan down and read the sections I put in bold.

CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. v. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77 (1938)

Decided Jan. 31, 1938.

Mr. Justice BLACK (dissenting). [emphasis added]

"I do not believe the word 'person' in the Fourteenth Amendment includes corporations. 'The doctrine of stare decisis, however appropriate and even necessary at times, has only a limited application in the field of constitutional law.' This Court has many times changed its interpretations of the Constitution when the conclusion was reached that an improper construction had been adopted. Only recently the case of West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 , 57 S.Ct. 578, 108 A.L.R. 1330, expressly overruled a previous interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment which had long blocked state minimum wage legislation. When a statute is declared by this Court to be unconstitutional, the decision until reversed stands as a barrier against the adoption of similar legislation. A constitutional interpretation that is wrong should not stand. I believe this Court should now overrule previous decisions which interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to include corporations.

Neither the history nor the language of the Fourteenth Amendment justifies the belief that corporations are included within its protection. The historical purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was clearly set forth when first considered by this Court in the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, decided April, 1873-less than five years after the proclamation of its adoption

In an AP article interviewing Trump supporters one supporter "said she doesn't have a problem applying a religious test to visitors, immigrants and refugees."

Article VI of the United States Constitution states, in part: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/10/big_corporations_can...

By Jim Robison and Jackie Calder

I came across an organization purporting to be raising money to help a particular candidate, but which I find highly suspect.
I will give you the information, and let you decide.
The organization is called "Voters for Hillary" and has a website. The website is very easy to find, but I will not include the address here as I do not want to inadvertently increase it's ranking in search engines by linking to it. The website contains some basic information about Hillary Clinton, with updates from news reports, twitter updates, and an empty blog feed.