Corporate taxes being passed onto the consumer is not an issue. Where else would the corporation get their money aside from investments and diverse portfolios? Employees also pay the payroll tax. The capital gains taxes paid by shareholders are miniscule and should be raised higher. I do earn my own money, nor have I once whined, and nor have I said that I am entitled to the labor of others (I am entitled to their responsibility; I will not serve a tyrant). However, you have not done a very good job answering any of the questions asked or stating anything about the information i have posted. With that last article, the issue is that the profit is not only NOT going to taxes, it's not even making its way down the corporate ladder to people who DID WORK AND EARN that profit. Why is the CEO entitled to such a large bonus but the people at the bottom are not? Should not they garner the rewards of their hard work as well, especially since most of them work HARDER than the CEO's, VP's, etc.? Stress sucks at work, but it does not entitle you to pay your workers as little as possible while raking in millions or more. Why are the wealthy entitled to our labor but we are not entitled to the wealth that comes from our labor? My work ethic is not at issue here. I've worked since the age of 16, starting at a grocery store for 2.5 years, followed by another 2.5 as a stock clerk for a women's retail company, working my way to stock manager, at which point I pursued residential appraising for two years, followed by a return to retail where I worked my way towards store manager of a furniture and dinnerware store, at which point I moved to LA to pursue the film business behind the scenes and have worked my way to dolly grip and key grip, while even gaining experience gaffing and camera operating. All the while I have pursued my many creative interests from writing, to drawing, painting, printmaking, music etc. I'm never not doing something productive. I have never gone on unemployment despite chances to do so on 2 occasions (due to the freelance nature of filmwork). Requesting a society where the leaders are responsible is not whining, nor entitlement, for if that's the case, the Boston Tea Party and the civil rights movements are the whiniest occurences in American history, even the declaration of independence and the constitution sound whiny when placed under your standard. For is that not the purpose of our very own constiution? To entitle the citizens to a respectable government that supports their needs, not their wants, and supports them in times of duress? And corporations, were they not brought into legal existence to provide goods and services to the citizens? Why should they be allowed, nay, required, to exploit those with the least power? At this point, is it not the rich and powerful who are self-entitled? One thing you may want to watch is a documentary called The Corporation. It goes into the specifically American history of corporations, how they started and how they have legally evolved. It's fascinating, and whether or not you agree with everything, objective history is stated and there are facts that should concern anyone who believes in FREEDOM. The citizens of this country are who should have political power, but the power has been drained from them in the face of wealth. Could not the money that went to the CEO's in the article I sent previously have been put to better economic use in the hands of the less wealthy? The rich aren't creating jobs with it, despite incredible tax incentives even in this economy (the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the low capital gains tax, &c.), but they are outsourcing jobs by the thousands. And since on top of that, they have immense power politically, how could one not realize that they, in accordance with our government, are oppressing the majority of our population? People no longer are able to succeed at things they would enjoy and live off it, they must choose jobs that pay well but make them miserable. Does that really seem like a sound basis for society? Our existence as animals makes the concept of money very obtuse when genetically we are not predisposed to care for anything but food, sex, and security. And while yes, chimpanzees have been conditioned to use money akin to ourselves, that does not make it the end all be all system for human success. Also, another question you avoided answering pertains to the meaning of the word conservative.  The dictionary definitions are as follows:

-adjective
1. Disposed to preserver existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2 cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate
3. Traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness

There are several more definitions but you get the idea. The existing institutions, conditions and whatnot are not good enough. They are what they are due to the occurences of time, but not striving for something better is lazy, apathetic and ignorant. Once again, would our society not be better if we had more success for more people? Are massive off-shore tax havens for the rich really necessary that we can't reform them? Should social security realy go to everyone over 60, or just those that need it, and for those that need it, should they also not prove that they are being productive in some manner and not leeching on society? The average person makes back what they put into the social security system in seven years or less, but is on SS for 10-20 years. Do you think I enjoy having money taken from my check so a large number of virtually useless old people can continue to screw our society? People are living longer and longer but the employment base is getting smaller due to a lack of jobs, so an inverted pyramid where a smaller number of people tries to hold up the weight of the top isn't going to succeed, and is in fact one reason why social security is failing. We also don't need quite the massive military industrial complex that we have, and if we quit supporting Israel we could probably make it even smaller. Religion should also be heavily taxed, they want to play the political game of influence, they need to pay for it. Drugs should be legalized and taxed. Eliminating the ease of access to tax havens. Limiting corporate influence in politics (lobbyists and PAC's) Much could be done to improve our society for everyone, but people need to be willing to do it. Perpetuating the staus quo is insufficient. Religion, ignorance, greed, none of that is benefitting our society. The need for money draws the best and brightest from where they should be most effective to, once again, whichever industry is most likely to give them the quantity of wealth they feel they need. Is that REALLY best for a successful society? Does it not concern you as a citizen of a purportedly free country that corporations have more political power than you? Direct access to politicians through lobbying and a recent ability to donate enormous quantities of money through political action committees means that even people who would better for office can't get there without egregious quantites of money. Many of our politicians have never experienced the hardships of the commoner, yet knows what's wrong with them? Fund a legitimate educational system. Spread the wealth to limit poor crime. Increase oversight on the wealthy to prevent rich crime, for if there is anything that needs oversight, it is those who have power but are not explicitly involved with the government, not the citizens. I also love the rhetoric of "smaller government". What does that mean exactly? We have roughly 350 million individual citizens. Thousands upon thousands of businesses, corporations, churches, etc. And with the sheer quantity of laws on the books, how could one even dream of making it smaller? I agree with keeping government out of our immediate lives, but again, once a person or group has a certain amount of power, it's the governments JOB to regulate them to ensure they don't screw over the citizens, because they will, and do. Unfortunately, minimum wage is not enough to actually survive in much of this country. Omaha perhaps, but Denver, LA, NY, Seattle, or any relatively large metropolitan area, no. Will raising a minimum wage potentially harm some of the smallest businesses? Potentially. Will that be worse than the good caused by increasing the standard of living for more people? Probably not. Is risk involved? Absolutely. But progress has never occurred without risk.