Corportate Tax Breaks Explained for Marixt Idiots

[ScreamingEagle]

I see.....you are assuming we must maintain the same amount of tax income which then in turn would cause tax increases/debt.....however that is not necessarily a prerequisite for a tax exp. program as not all tax breaks are bad......

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...

conservatives want to decrease spending any way they can so I don't see all tax exp. programs being all bad as long as they are not 'paid for'.....

Of course the number of those tax exp. programs has increased alot over the past couple decades so I agree with you that they are definitely helping to cause financial problems along with regular direct program spending....it's amazing how creative our politicians can be when it comes to spending....

As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

Of course I know government doesn't operate on a strict budget like businesses do......which is why we need to pare down ALL spending and taxes and limit government to basic necessities....

So you would cut the military and not build a wall?

Defense of our country is the one most important requirement of the federal government....

 

[Brain357]

I see.....you are assuming we must maintain the same amount of tax income which then in turn would cause tax increases/debt.....however that is not necessarily a prerequisite for a tax exp. program as not all tax breaks are bad......

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...

conservatives want to decrease spending any way they can so I don't see all tax exp. programs being all bad as long as they are not 'paid for'.....

Of course the number of those tax exp. programs has increased alot over the past couple decades so I agree with you that they are definitely helping to cause financial problems along with regular direct program spending....it's amazing how creative our politicians can be when it comes to spending....

As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

Of course I know government doesn't operate on a strict budget like businesses do......which is why we need to pare down ALL spending and taxes and limit government to basic necessities....

So you would cut the military and not build a wall?

Defense of our country is the one most important requirement of the federal government....

So by ALL you ment some?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I see.....you are assuming we must maintain the same amount of tax income which then in turn would cause tax increases/debt.....however that is not necessarily a prerequisite for a tax exp. program as not all tax breaks are bad......

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...

conservatives want to decrease spending any way they can so I don't see all tax exp. programs being all bad as long as they are not 'paid for'.....

Of course the number of those tax exp. programs has increased alot over the past couple decades so I agree with you that they are definitely helping to cause financial problems along with regular direct program spending....it's amazing how creative our politicians can be when it comes to spending....

As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

In actuality, the restaurant charges everyone more for steaks to make up for the discounts for people who wear the right tie. My analogy is dead on.

In real life, that is exactly what happens. I have provided the evidence directly from the people who writes the tax laws for our country in this topic SEVERAL times.

In real life businesses cannot raise prices unless others are raising prices.....discounts can come from ad budgets in order to bring in more customers which in turn results in more income...

 

[g5000]

We have this insane system where two people or entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of tax.

One entity pays less, and the other has to make up the difference.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not taking out a mortgage.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not having kids.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not buying the right kind of refrigerator.

This is why I call tax expenditures one of the most massive government behavioral control programs in history. How can any right thinking libertarian support this?

They can't. Those who think they are conservatives or libertarians who support this insanity are pseudocons.

It was no leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

Everyone who defends tax expenditures is to blame for the individual mandate tax.

All spending programs, whether tax expenditure programs or direct spending programs, target various groups who benefit.....'tis the nature of politics and big government....

This is exactly why I say tax expenditures are no different than food stamps. Both are paid for by all taxpayers. They are both government handouts.

Solution: reduce both taxes and spending and create a smaller government.....no real conservative supports big government....

I'm with you 100 percent. I've been saying this on this forum for years. And all my adult life before that.

The pseudocons think I'm a liberal.

I can't wait to see them call me a marxist in the next abortion topic when I post my pro-life views.

Or call me a leftie the next time I talk about how we need less government in health care as I have many dozens of times on this forum.

Fucking pseudocons are clueless.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I see.....you are assuming we must maintain the same amount of tax income which then in turn would cause tax increases/debt.....however that is not necessarily a prerequisite for a tax exp. program as not all tax breaks are bad......

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...

conservatives want to decrease spending any way they can so I don't see all tax exp. programs being all bad as long as they are not 'paid for'.....

Of course the number of those tax exp. programs has increased alot over the past couple decades so I agree with you that they are definitely helping to cause financial problems along with regular direct program spending....it's amazing how creative our politicians can be when it comes to spending....

As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

Of course I know government doesn't operate on a strict budget like businesses do......which is why we need to pare down ALL spending and taxes and limit government to basic necessities....

So you would cut the military and not build a wall?

Defense of our country is the one most important requirement of the federal government....

So by ALL you ment some?

Don't get cute....if all we had was a Defense budget and some necessities we would have a much much smaller government....

 

[g5000]

I see.....you are assuming we must maintain the same amount of tax income which then in turn would cause tax increases/debt.....however that is not necessarily a prerequisite for a tax exp. program as not all tax breaks are bad......

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...

conservatives want to decrease spending any way they can so I don't see all tax exp. programs being all bad as long as they are not 'paid for'.....

Of course the number of those tax exp. programs has increased alot over the past couple decades so I agree with you that they are definitely helping to cause financial problems along with regular direct program spending....it's amazing how creative our politicians can be when it comes to spending....

As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

In actuality, the restaurant charges everyone more for steaks to make up for the discounts for people who wear the right tie. My analogy is dead on.

In real life, that is exactly what happens. I have provided the evidence directly from the people who writes the tax laws for our country in this topic SEVERAL times.

In real life businesses cannot raise prices unless others are raising prices.....discounts can come from ad budgets in order to bring in more customers which in turn results in more income...

Every gas station in my town has different prices. There is a 20 cent different per gallon between the highest and the lowest.

The price of the same loaf of bread differs from grocery story to grocery store. This is something I have tracked for many years on a wide variety of products in my town.

So in real life businesses do raise prices higher than their competitors. Open your eyes.

 

[Brain357]

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...


As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

Of course I know government doesn't operate on a strict budget like businesses do......which is why we need to pare down ALL spending and taxes and limit government to basic necessities....

So you would cut the military and not build a wall?

Defense of our country is the one most important requirement of the federal government....

So by ALL you ment some?

Don't get cute....if all we had was a Defense budget and some necessities we would have a much much smaller government....

Cute? You said ALL. You need to look up the definition of all.

 

[g5000]

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...


As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

Of course I know government doesn't operate on a strict budget like businesses do......which is why we need to pare down ALL spending and taxes and limit government to basic necessities....

So you would cut the military and not build a wall?

Defense of our country is the one most important requirement of the federal government....

So by ALL you ment some?

Don't get cute....if all we had was a Defense budget and some necessities we would have a much much smaller government....

"Necessities."

Ah, there's the rub!

 

[usmbguest5318]

How much did the other nine ship-owners have to fork over to cover Mr. Hat's yearly fee?

As a member of a boating club, I can say the answer depends on whether the Mr. Sam opts to raise the annual fee or impose a one-time fee from all members to pay for Mr. Hat's services or whether Mr. Sam chooses to absorb the cost by forgoing Mr. Hat's fee.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

Of course I know government doesn't operate on a strict budget like businesses do......which is why we need to pare down ALL spending and taxes and limit government to basic necessities....

So you would cut the military and not build a wall?

Defense of our country is the one most important requirement of the federal government....

So by ALL you ment some?

Don't get cute....if all we had was a Defense budget and some necessities we would have a much much smaller government....

Cute? You said ALL. You need to look up the definition of all.

Some people are so picky it gives one a headache....

 

[g5000]

Here's a funny thing about tax expenditures and government spending.

In 1986, Ronald Reagan enacted a tax reform which got rid of a lot of tax expenditures, thus enabling him to also lower tax rates. He did a classic "widen the tax base, lower the tax rates" move.

However, Ronald Reagan increased spending so much he tripled the national debt. The only President to ever do so.

 

[Brain357]

Solution: reduce both taxes and spending and create a smaller government.....no real conservative supports big government....

I'm with you 100 percent. I've been saying this on this forum for years. And all my adult life before that.

The pseudocons think I'm a liberal.

I can't wait to see them call me a marxist in the next abortion topic when I post my pro-life views.

Or call me a leftie the next time I talk about how we need less government in health care as I have many dozens of times on this forum.

Fucking pseudocons are clueless.

I think we agree on the major points.....but i disagree with your minor point that says all tax exp. are no different than food stamps.

For example, i would agree that EITC is no different than food stamps but i would not agree that

So you would cut the military and not build a wall?

Defense of our country is the one most important requirement of the federal government....

So by ALL you ment some?

Don't get cute....if all we had was a Defense budget and some necessities we would have a much much smaller government....

Cute? You said ALL. You need to look up the definition of all.

Some people are so picky it gives one a headache....[/QUOTE]

There is a big difference between cutting all spending and just cutting what you think should be cut. That isn't picky. How about paying for a wall?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I see.....you are assuming we must maintain the same amount of tax income which then in turn would cause tax increases/debt.....however that is not necessarily a prerequisite for a tax exp. program as not all tax breaks are bad......

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...

conservatives want to decrease spending any way they can so I don't see all tax exp. programs being all bad as long as they are not 'paid for'.....

Of course the number of those tax exp. programs has increased alot over the past couple decades so I agree with you that they are definitely helping to cause financial problems along with regular direct program spending....it's amazing how creative our politicians can be when it comes to spending....

As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

In actuality, the restaurant charges everyone more for steaks to make up for the discounts for people who wear the right tie. My analogy is dead on.

In real life, that is exactly what happens. I have provided the evidence directly from the people who writes the tax laws for our country in this topic SEVERAL times.

In real life businesses cannot raise prices unless others are raising prices.....discounts can come from ad budgets in order to bring in more customers which in turn results in more income...

Every gas station in my town has different prices. There is a 20 cent different per gallon between the highest and the lowest.

The price of the same loaf of bread differs from grocery story to grocery store. This is something I have tracked for many years on a wide variety of products in my town.

So in real life businesses do raise prices higher than their competitors. Open your eyes.

When you compare apples to apples people will typically go for the lower price...

 

[g5000]

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...


As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

In actuality, the restaurant charges everyone more for steaks to make up for the discounts for people who wear the right tie. My analogy is dead on.

In real life, that is exactly what happens. I have provided the evidence directly from the people who writes the tax laws for our country in this topic SEVERAL times.

In real life businesses cannot raise prices unless others are raising prices.....discounts can come from ad budgets in order to bring in more customers which in turn results in more income...

Every gas station in my town has different prices. There is a 20 cent different per gallon between the highest and the lowest.

The price of the same loaf of bread differs from grocery story to grocery store. This is something I have tracked for many years on a wide variety of products in my town.

So in real life businesses do raise prices higher than their competitors. Open your eyes.

When you compare apples to apples people will typically go for the lower price...

Just like with tax expenditures, most people do not even notice they are being ripped off by higher priced apples.

Seriously, open your eyes. Start comparing like to like at the grocery stores in your town. Welches grape jelly. Bread. Land O'Lakes Butter. Milk. You'll be amazed.

Then ask yourself why.

 

[Doc1]

We have this insane system where two people or entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of tax.

One entity pays less, and the other has to make up the difference.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not taking out a mortgage.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not having kids.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not buying the right kind of refrigerator.

This is why I call tax expenditures one of the most massive government behavioral control programs in history. How can any right thinking libertarian support this?

They can't. Those who think they are conservatives or libertarians who support this insanity are pseudocons.

It was no leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

Everyone who defends tax expenditures is to blame for the individual mandate tax.

Must be hard to think you're the smartest guy anywhere you are, what a burden it must be for you.
You're an idiot. You ASSUME all money belongs to the Government, that is your beginning premise. Like I said kid, you're an idiot.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is a big difference between cutting all spending and just cutting what you think should be cut. That isn't picky. How about paying for a wall?

If a wall is necessary for defense i'm all for it...

 

[Brain357]

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...


As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

In actuality, the restaurant charges everyone more for steaks to make up for the discounts for people who wear the right tie. My analogy is dead on.

In real life, that is exactly what happens. I have provided the evidence directly from the people who writes the tax laws for our country in this topic SEVERAL times.

In real life businesses cannot raise prices unless others are raising prices.....discounts can come from ad budgets in order to bring in more customers which in turn results in more income...

Every gas station in my town has different prices. There is a 20 cent different per gallon between the highest and the lowest.

The price of the same loaf of bread differs from grocery story to grocery store. This is something I have tracked for many years on a wide variety of products in my town.

So in real life businesses do raise prices higher than their competitors. Open your eyes.

When you compare apples to apples people will typically go for the lower price...

Will you drive across town to save $.02 a gallon of gas or just stop at the one on the way home?

 

[Brain357]

So you really weren't serious about cutting
ALL spending. You are even for increasing spending. Very fiscally responsible.

 

[g5000]

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

In actuality, the restaurant charges everyone more for steaks to make up for the discounts for people who wear the right tie. My analogy is dead on.

In real life, that is exactly what happens. I have provided the evidence directly from the people who writes the tax laws for our country in this topic SEVERAL times.

In real life businesses cannot raise prices unless others are raising prices.....discounts can come from ad budgets in order to bring in more customers which in turn results in more income...

Every gas station in my town has different prices. There is a 20 cent different per gallon between the highest and the lowest.

The price of the same loaf of bread differs from grocery story to grocery store. This is something I have tracked for many years on a wide variety of products in my town.

So in real life businesses do raise prices higher than their competitors. Open your eyes.

When you compare apples to apples people will typically go for the lower price...

Will you drive across town to save $.02 a gallon of gas or just stop at the one on the way home?

Exactly. A gallon of milk in a "convenience" store is radically higher than at the chain grocery stores.

But we are WAY off the tax expenditure restaurant analogy now.

I guess we could say the convenience story is the government of Luxemborg and the chain stores with economies of scale are the US government. But I am really reaching.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

In actuality, the restaurant charges everyone more for steaks to make up for the discounts for people who wear the right tie. My analogy is dead on.

In real life, that is exactly what happens. I have provided the evidence directly from the people who writes the tax laws for our country in this topic SEVERAL times.

In real life businesses cannot raise prices unless others are raising prices.....discounts can come from ad budgets in order to bring in more customers which in turn results in more income...

Every gas station in my town has different prices. There is a 20 cent different per gallon between the highest and the lowest.

The price of the same loaf of bread differs from grocery story to grocery store. This is something I have tracked for many years on a wide variety of products in my town.

So in real life businesses do raise prices higher than their competitors. Open your eyes.

When you compare apples to apples people will typically go for the lower price...

Just like with tax expenditures, most people do not even notice they are being ripped off by higher priced apples.

Seriously, open your eyes. Start comparing like to like at the grocery stores in your town. Welches grape jelly. Bread. Land O'Lakes Butter. Milk. You'll be amazed.

Then ask yourself why.

When you consistently pay more at one grocery store over another grocery store you start going to the cheaper grocery store....