They all have merit for their own reasons. My order would

likely be pretty close to yours.

I have thought about your first one a lot around college. Is donating money to endow the Head Football Coaching position at ND really the goal of our tax policy? Is Donating money for the types of sports facilities schools have been building the goal of our tax policy? I think there might be a rationale on the college front to permit higher donations if they expand access or affordability.

I have spent time thinking about the capital gains tax rates. To me it makes sense to distinguish between active / passive ownership and / or shares purchased directly from the company. As I understand it the primary objective is to spur investment and generate economic activity. However does me buying your shares of Apple actually do anything for Apple? I can see if a company raises new funds then you are creating capital for them to expand but that is not true if I buy your shares and then sell to someone else. All in favor of eliminating carried interest.

Estate Tax is one I would definitely support. I do think we need to think about rates and how they can be avoided. I would be in favor of lower rates with fewer ways to avoid it.

I would not support a wealth tax although I would love to fall in that category. I think the original policy behind the estate tax sort of functioned as a wealth tax and i think it is a better method for that.

I also would like to find a way to avoid companies offshoring their profits to avoid taxes. I dont know if somehting like paying taxes where x% of your top earning employees live including their families.

There are two ideas I have been kicking around in my head that one is a revenue policy and one is a disclosure rule. For the disclosure rule require every entity to dosclose what % of their revenues came from governmental entities. We talk a lot about the free market but there are a lot of government programs people want to pretend dont exiat.

The revenue idea I kick around is related to employers who pay their employees so little they qualify for government support while turning a huge profit. I will admit this started from what I see as the hyprocrisy of the Walton family complaining about taxes while their employees wages are subsidized with government programs. I dont know that such a policy makes sense or is feasible just an idea in response to somethign that bothers me about our economy.

I have written before about the idea a big part of the problem is the shift in view away from the idea that corporations have any community responsibility / obligation. There is a lot of money we spend to create the environment that most want to take advantage of but want to pay as little as possible. Look at the recent attacks of cargo ships even our naval presence around the world works at some level as a subsidy. Would those companies locate overseas if 10% of their ships would not make it to the US? I dont know how to reestablish that sense of responsibility but would be all for ideas that do that.

Appreciate the post and the thought you put in the topic.