Nope. Not Torture.

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3066372
It most definitely is the same thing. Both are getting something for free.
By not making the coporation pay, someone else has to make up the deficit. That's a transfer of wealth (and in the wrong direction, I might add.)
W/ regard to the rest of your statement, I agree. Don't even get me started on agriculture subsidies (which include tobacco) or sin taxes.
By the same token people who earn less money pay a lowwer percentage of their income in taxes as someone who earns more. That makes out entire tax code a welfare system.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
It just goes to show that supply side economics works. Lower taxes, whether it be a tax break (where they don't have to pay) or just lowering the percentage, works. I have no problem with that, especially when used to attract business (another proof it works) to your area.
The problem is when we do engage in true corporate Welfare, where we pay money to industries like sugar, ethanol, or any green business, that would not on their own be viable.
Like we pay give food stamps to people who are not producing. Or when we start giving rebate checks back to people (remember last tax year and the 600 dollar check.) The waste involved in giving back money is just ridiculous. WE need to let the people who take the risks and make the money keep the money. Instead of laundering it through the inefficient federal government.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3066396
It just goes to show that supply side economics works.
I'm gonna have to disagree. As a percentage of GDP, public debt started it's astronomical rise during the Reagan administration, when supply side was initiated. Yes, lowered taxation left more dollars in the private sector, but the gov't had to borrow to make up the revenue shortfall. Fortunately??, the Chinese were there to fund that debt. They're not so enthused anymore.
The problem is when we do engage in true corporate Welfare, where we pay money to industries like sugar, ethanol, or any green business, that would not on their own be viable.
Don't be so selective w/ your choice of industries. There are plenty of others that soak up tax dollars as well, and viability is not the determining factor.
Beef, Corn, Dairy, Soybeans, Pharmaceuticals, GMO Crops, Airplanes, Cars, the Railroads (not just Amtrack), Oil, Coal, and the list goes on.
All of those get Federal breaks. If they're viable on their own, why?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3066421
I'm gonna have to disagree. As a percentage of GDP, public debt started it's astronomical rise during the Reagan administration, when supply side was initiated. Yes, lowered taxation left more dollars in the private sector, but the gov't had to borrow to make up the revenue shortfall. Fortunately, the Chinese were there to fund that debt. They're not so enthused anymore.
Don't be so selective w/ your choice of industries. There are plenty of others that soak up tax dollars as well, and viability is not the determining factor.
Beef, Corn, Dairy, Soybeans, Pharmaceuticals, GMO Crops, Airplanes, Cars, the Railroads (not just Amtrack), Oil, Coal, and the list goes on.
All of those get Federal breaks. If they're viable on their own, why?
Don't be ridiculous, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that revenues went up significantly with lower taxes you can look at Kennedy, Reagan, W. Bush. It is just flat inaccurate to say otherwise. Government borrowed money to make up for their spending increases not to cover their lower taxes.
Viability is they key issue and the mechanism are key issues. If we are taking money from other tax payers to dump into an un-viable company or industry then yes that is a major problem. If the government lowers taxes, through either a flat out decrease, or a break to a specific sector that is beneficial.
But here in lies a huge difference. It isn't the government's money, it is the business's money. And the government just has their grubbly little fingers in some one else's cookie jar. IT isn't the government "giving" money to the corporation. It is the government is taking less money from the company. And make no mistake about that, those costs, are eventually passed onto you... IT is coming out of your pocket.
For example you listed oil, as a government subsidized industry. Most of that "subsidy" is are tax breaks. They get to keep their own money. But even with those tax breaks, the government, city state and federal, makes more money from exxon than exxon makes from exxon.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3066439
Don't be ridiculous, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that revenues went up significantly with lower taxes you can look at Kennedy, Reagan, W. Bush. It is just flat inaccurate to say otherwise. Government borrowed money to make up for their spending increases not to cover their lower taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Follow the bouncing ball.
Viability is they key issue and the mechanism are key issues. If we are taking money from other tax payers to dump into an un-viable company or industry then yes that is a major problem. If the government lowers taxes, through either a flat out decrease, or a break to a specific sector that is beneficial.
It is only beneficial if gov't decreases its budget in correspondence w/ the decrease in revenue it created by extending those breaks.
But here in lies a huge difference. It isn't the government's money, it is the business's money. And the government just has their grubbly little fingers in some one else's cookie jar. IT isn't the government "giving" money to the corporation. It is the government is taking less money from the company. And make no mistake about that, those costs, are eventually passed onto you... IT is coming out of your pocket.
Precisely my point.
For example you listed oil, as a government subsidized industry. Most of that "subsidy" is are tax breaks. They get to keep their own money. But even with those tax breaks, the government, city state and federal, makes more money from exxon than exxon makes from exxon.
You're once again not doing the math. Read your own paragraph above.
(As an aside, I'd also like to see the numbers on the gov't making more money from Exxon than Exxon itself made. SRSLY.)
Sometimes I think that people get too hung up on the politics of terminology. Mathematically, a tax break and a subsidy are the same thing - negative revenue. It's just that the former is an R term and the latter is a D term.
You do realize that you are arguing a more liberal position than I, the liberal, am - right?

We gotta get past the semantics and take our country back. We can hash out the details later.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3066457
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Follow the bouncing ball.
Public Debt is the wrong number, you need to check the government revenues...
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3066457
It is only beneficial if gov't decreases its budget in correspondence w/ the decrease in revenue it created by extending those breaks.
Precisely my point.
Once again there was no decrease in revenue. During W Bush's terms there were several months with record government revenues...
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3066457
(As an aside, I'd also like to see the numbers on the gov't making more money from Exxon than Exxon itself made. SRSLY.)
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opini...tax-bills.html (it is an op-ed, but the numbers correspond with the data I've seen I didn't feel like slogging through their 10k to find the numbers)
"According to the company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit. The $45.2 billion profit figure makes a snappy headline, but the $116.2 billion in taxes that it paid is relegated to a footnote—if that. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion."
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3066457
Sometimes I think that people get too hung up on the politics of terminology. Mathematically, a tax break and a subsidy are the same thing - negative revenue. It's just that the former is an R term and the latter is a D term.
Maybe in accounting but economic costs are significantly different. A tax break allows people to keep their own money, to reinvest ect.
A Subsidy (this is key) takes money from another producer, and spreads the wealth around. Subsidies are taken from producers who would have otherwise used their money in their own business (a loss of potential earnings) and then fed through the government (a cost) then given to a less productive company. (this is assuming the entity needs a subsidy to survive) Which is a safe assumption for the most part.
This is a huge difference.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3066457
You do realize that you are arguing a more liberal position than I, the liberal, am - right?

We gotta get past the semantics and take our country back. We can hash out the details later.
On the contrary, I'm arguing that people, companies ect should be allowed to keep their own money. There is nothing wrong with an industry targeting tax break.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3066692
Public Debt is the wrong number, you need to check the government revenues...
In a colloquium ok, but in the real world? The two are inextricably tied.
Once again there was no decrease in revenue. During W Bush's terms there were several months with record government revenues...
So, supply side is simply a shell game to hide increased debt?
In addition, the Clinton administration actually balanced the budget, but that's an accounting fallacy too, isn't it? What was meant by "balanced budget" was that the debt wasn't increased, not that it was being paid off, so how 'bout another definition of terms?
Reminds me of when British Rail had a problem w/ on time performance. At the time, 90% of trains were late. The definition of late was "more than 10mins past schedule." Rather than improve performance, BritRail redefined late as w/in 30 mins of scheduled arrival time. Suddenly 90% of trains were on time.
Brilliant.
"According to the company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit.
Net profit.
What was % of gross profit? Let's work from there. It's the con artists who compare one to the other as if there were no difference. Like the "set up your own internet business" scam artists with the "I make 10k per month sitting at home on my computer." Izzat net?

IMHO, those guys are marginally more honest than the GAO.
Maybe in accounting but economic costs are significantly different. A tax break allows people to keep their own money, to reinvest ect.
A Subsidy (this is key) takes money from another producer, and spreads the wealth around. Subsidies are taken from producers who would have otherwise used their money in their own business (a loss of potential earnings) and then fed through the government (a cost) then given to a less productive company. (this is assuming the entity needs a subsidy to survive) Which is a safe assumption for the most part.
This is a huge difference.
Then the 25ish% of individuals who pay no federal taxes are being given a break, not a subsidy, correct? The 2% who pay 50+% of gross gov't revenues are not spreading the wealth around. Right?
I disagree that "it's a safe assumption for the most part" as well, btw. There are many companies granted breaks based on the influence of Lobbyist and former executives Cabinet membership's as well.
br />
There is also a substantial difference in Gov't access between small and large corporations, which is a major factor in determining who gets said breaks.
Equal representation under the law? Yeah --- nope.
On the contrary, I'm arguing that people, companies ect should be allowed to keep their own money. There is nothing wrong with an industry targeting tax break.
Absolutely agreed. That those breaks are created by politicians who have no understanding of macro-economics is the problem.
All they're interested in is preserving their own micro-economics and guess who has the resources to do so?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3067894
In a colloquium ok, but in the real world? The two are inextricably tied.
So, supply side is simply a shell game to hide increased debt?
In addition, the Clinton administration actually balanced the budget, but that's an accounting fallacy too, isn't it? What was meant by "balanced budget" was that the debt wasn't increased, not that it was being paid off, so how 'bout another definition of terms?
Reminds me of when British Rail had a problem w/ on time performance. At the time, 90% of trains were late. The definition of late was "more than 10mins past schedule." Rather than improve performance, BritRail redefined late as w/in 30 mins of scheduled arrival time. Suddenly 90% of trains were on time.
Brilliant.
Net profit.
What was % of gross profit? Let's work from there. It's the con artists who compare one to the other as if there were no difference. Like the "set up your own internet business" scam artists with the "I make 10k per month sitting at home on my computer." Izzat net?

IMHO, those guys are marginally more honest than the GAO.
Then the 25ish% of individuals who pay no federal taxes are being given a break, not a subsidy, correct? The 2% who pay 50+% of gross gov't revenues are not spreading the wealth around. Right?
I disagree that "it's a safe assumption for the most part" as well, btw. There are many companies granted breaks based on the influence of Lobbyist and former executives Cabinet membership's as well.
There is also a substantial difference in Gov't access between small and large corporations, which is a major factor in determining who gets said breaks.
Equal representation under the law? Yeah --- nope.
Absolutely agreed. That those breaks are created by politicians who have no understanding of macro-economics is the problem.
All they're interested in is preserving their own micro-economics and guess who has the resources to do so?
figures, you can look at the number, they are right there, and you can say nuu uhhhh. The simple fact is tax revenues go up when taxes go down. It has been proven time and time again.
The simple fact is with the defined accounting procedures that the USG gets more tax dollars than Exxon puts in the bank.
Why doesn't an corporation (especially an american one) deserve to have face time with government?
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3068122
Why doesn't an corporation (especially an american one) deserve to have face time with government?

It's not a problem unless action is taken that is contrary to the best interests of the politicians constituents (voters).
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3068888
It's not a problem unless action is taken that is contrary to the best interests of the politicians constituents (voters).
Have you ever considered that the industry, corporation or company represents a portion of the constituency?
Think about it, around 50% of Americans own some sort of stock. (I'm going to assume the company is not lobbying for something detrimental to their own business, and said agenda will benefit the company thus increase stock prices.) So if some corporation is lobbying for x. They are in fact a portion of the constituency lobbying the government.
It is safe to say Exxon is lobbying hard right now to get the legislation that would end some of the oil industry tax breaks, killed.
If those breaks get removed. And they are forced to pay even more to the government, there are going to be major domestic job cuts in support of lower margin projects. So in arguing for their own best interest, they are arguing for the best interest of the people who work for them, or in support of them. Then you have people who own Exxon stock who are going to lose money, because that will definitely hit their stock price...
I'm not saying that corporation's, industry's, or big business's ability to buy face time is right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out that when people say no lobbying or something to that effect, the end result is, we shut people, Americans, out of the governing process. And that is kind of opposite of the whole idea of our government.
It is however quite an interesting dilemma.
 
taznut

taznut

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3063017
Think your store is more the exception than the rule. Probably the norm for a Big Box store in a smaller town. Living in Mayberry is different than living in New York, Dallas, or Little Rock. What's the cost of living in Iowa as compared to a larger metropolis? What's the median price range for houses and rental properties in your area?
cost of living isnt too bad here... housing prices are nothing compared to places like LA and Las Vegas but is a little higher in Ames than the towns around me... house=100k-175k (for the most part) and rent is about 550/mo to 800/mo for a 2 bed room
 
taznut

taznut

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3065975
I can't speak for Taznuts but I think that is what civilized societies do. They help fellow citrizens that are in need.
The problem is seperating out those in need from those who chose to be a burden on society. From my perspective the deadbeats are taking food out of the mouths of the people that truly need it. They are lowly scum.
+1

i realize there are losers in our society that do not deserve this... people that expect everything to be given to them without putting in any effort... this is not what i am advocating... im not sure what you meant by punishing a large group of people to help a few but i think it is this "why should A LOT of people pay a few cents more so that A FEW can afford a worthwhile life style?" to which i answer, i dont know... maybe its a moral issue... the fact that maybe that millionaire doesnt need that multimillion dollar bonus every year... that if it was divided up among the employees and they each only get 500$ more a year that it would be more important to that poor person than the millions would be to the rich... i cannot believe someone would actually believe the statement you put forth let alone speak it out loud
sorry bang for posting this with your quote, just thought you hit the nail on the head
 
taznut

taznut

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3066125
Why should we be forced to?
I give a significant portion of my income to charities. But it should be my choice, not a requirement... (which is the next step in Taznuts logic.)
i think part of your problem is you dont read anything i write... i dont know how many times i have said i'm not looking for a hand out.... i dont think people should receive handouts... they should receive what they earn... and 20-30k/yr for full time is hardly anywhere close to that...
so to clarify... NO i dont think you should be required to GIVE to charities
 
taznut

taznut

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069127
Have you ever considered that the industry, corporation or company represents a portion of the constituency?
Think about it, around 50% of Americans own some sort of stock. (I'm going to assume the company is not lobbying for something detrimental to their own business, and said agenda will benefit the company thus increase stock prices.) So if some corporation is lobbying for x. They are in fact a portion of the constituency lobbying the government.
It is safe to say Exxon is lobbying hard right now to get the legislation that would end some of the oil industry tax breaks, killed.
If those breaks get removed. And they are forced to pay even more to the government, there are going to be major domestic job cuts in support of lower margin projects. So in arguing for their own best interest, they are arguing for the best interest of the people who work for them, or in support of them. Then you have people who own Exxon stock who are going to lose money, because that will definitely hit their stock price...
I'm not saying that corporation's, industry's, or big business's ability to buy face time is right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out that when people say no lobbying or something to that effect, the end result is, we shut people, Americans, out of the governing process. And that is kind of opposite of the whole idea of our government.
It is however quite an interesting dilemma.
really
... again, i cant believe someone would think this way let alone admit it... so they are fighting for the company to do well which means my stock will go up... great!!! with a ration of 1000:1 (their stock versus mine) who does this truly help... thats right, the rich... you have to have money to make money... the more money you have the more you can make... and how do they get this money??? by screwing over the little guy... so i have less, they have more and the cycle continues... but i should allow them to control government, they will increase the price of my one share of stock....
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3069217
i think part of your problem is you dont read anything i write... i dont know how many times i have said i'm not looking for a hand out.... i dont think people should receive handouts... they should receive what they earn... and 20-30k/yr for full time is hardly anywhere close to that...
so to clarify... NO i dont think you should be required to GIVE to charities
Arbitrarily increasing prices, so you can pay your employees more is a hand out. You've been complaining about how lousy your pay is as a stocker at a walmart. So you are advocating that a company like walmart increase their prices by x to give all no skill jobs in walmart a raise to some higher wage.
Your position isn't expendable, but you are. Hence your "low" wage. But if you're making 8-10 dollars an hour putting cans of spaghettios on a shelf you're being paid quite well for what you're doing?
Where in the world does this concept that every job in America should pay enough to support you, a new car payment, a fishtank, a cell phone, an apartment, and whatever else you spend your money on?
Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3069232
really
... again, i cant believe someone would think this way let alone admit it... so they are fighting for the company to do well which means my stock will go up... great!!! with a ration of 1000:1 (their stock versus mine) who does this truly help... thats right, the rich... you have to have money to make money... the more money you have the more you can make... and how do they get this money??? by screwing over the little guy... so i have less, they have more and the cycle continues... but i should allow them to control government, they will increase the price of my one share of stock....
Do you really think that?
Think about it, 45-50% of Americans own stock. 45-50% of Americans aren't rediculously rich. A company lobbying for itself is helping their share holders. How much clearer can I make it.
Government can regulate, tax, legislate stuff right out of business. And they do it, on a regular basis. Say there was legislation in place that would put the company I work for out of business. And they are lobbying against that bill. Guess what, they are almost directly lobbying for me, because I don't want to be out of a job. Every time government going after business big or small, "every day joes" get hurt, because they get laid off.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3069215
+1

i realize there are losers in our society that do not deserve this... people that expect everything to be given to them without putting in any effort... this is not what i am advocating... im not sure what you meant by punishing a large group of people to help a few but i think it is this "why should A LOT of people pay a few cents more so that A FEW can afford a worthwhile life style?" to which i answer, i dont know... maybe its a moral issue... the fact that maybe that millionaire doesnt need that multimillion dollar bonus every year... that if it was divided up among the employees and they each only get 500$ more a year that it would be more important to that poor person than the millions would be to the rich... i cannot believe someone would actually believe the statement you put forth let alone speak it out loud
sorry bang for posting this with your quote, just thought you hit the nail on the head

If you think you are under taxed consider you state and federal income taxes, excise taxes on gasoline, motor oils, tires, sporting equipment etc. which are taxes you never see on a receipt but pay just the same. No go pull out your phone, cell phone, gas, water and cable bills. Pay particular attention to your utility bills. Not only do you pay a lot of taxes but on those utility bills you will find you pay a lot of taxes and fees specifically to subsidize the "poor" already,
You don't seriously think even you most fervent run of the mil right winger is arguing against doing anything for the poor do you? They are just fed up subsidizing the life styles of people who made bad choices in life.
I think it was in this thread I posted that there is a statistic for the percentage of people living in poverty that own cell phones. That is absurd. Can't pay rent of buy enough food but by god I do got me a nice phone.
I am all for workfare. Little or no cash payments and the people receiving assistance will either be required to be in job training or performing community service until they find a job and will punch a time clock doing either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top