Suckiing on the Federal Teat!!!!

[zeke]

Im not calling him a liar. I think he's misiformed on what a subsidy is. What he is describing is an incentive. Why do you think OnePercenter is wrong about the definition of subsidy?

Yes you are and no he is not.

You rabbit have a hard time with understanding the meaning of words.

For instance, the Federal government, for a number of reason, wants to give people the incentive to have children. The government wants to give people the incentive to raise children.

Are you with me on that.

The reward for taking the incentive to have children is that the government will give those people a subsidy in the form of tax writes offs that will reduce the income tax burden for those having children.

I have been given incentive to have children in the form of a subsidy through the tax code. The subsidy is an actual reduction in taxes owed. The incentive was to take advantage of that subsidy.

Why is this so hard for you? Is it because you have SO much invested in trying to prove yourself correct? Give it up.

It's not a subsidy, Zeke. A subsidy is money or its equivalent given by the federal government to someone or on someone's behalf. OnePercenter already established this.

Good God rabbit. The "equivalent" given by the government is the reduction in taxes owed.
Which is just another way of saying the government has subsidized my having children. Because the government doesn't usually provide "cash" subsidies. The government does provide incentive in the form of subsidies that do reduce taxes owed.

The government wants to give a business the incentive to fund their R&D department. The reward for doing that will be to subsidize the R&D department with a tax deduction targeted "specifically" to the expense of running an R&D department.

I think you need a dictionary to understand the definition of subsidy. And incentive. You seem to have them greatly confused.
.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Corporations are people to you know.

I never said that and I don't necessarily agree.



ALL people get a personal deduction therefore to Idiots like you ALL people are being subsidized because deductions are subsidies.



I don't consider a business write off to be a subsidy. I do consider people who make the same income as I that get more tax deductions to be receiving subsidies at my expense.

Also, when the ULTRA wealthy come out and demand a "flat tax" then MAYBE there will be one. You now how plutocracies run. What the ultra rich want, they get. Eventually. But so far they've been pretty quite about it. Why you think that is?

Many people advocate a flat tax. You just don't want to hear it

It really doesn't matter what YOU consider.

If people get subsidies from the government in the form of "special" tax treatment, then to any reasonable mind when companies get "special" treatment through the tax code, then those business's are being subsidized as well. Corporations are people also being subsidized through the tax code. Just like "real" people are.

Just the way it is and what is the big fucking deal about it? In an earlier post even you admitted favorable tax treatment is a subsidy. Business or personal.

And what difference does it make that people like you want a "flat tax". You are not of the ultra rich (no matter how big you say your business is) and it will be ONLY what the ultra rich want as to whether or not the tax code is drastically changed in the future. You just have a real hard time excepting that you and your kind just are not as important as you would like to be. But it'll be ok. The ultra rich will eventually figure out how to get even better tax treatment than they have today. It's what they pay all those attorneys, tax consultants and lobbyists for.

Deducting business expenses is not special treatment.

I was trying to illustrate that what you call subsidies for business are also applicable to individuals. if you call for the end of one you must call for the end of the others as well.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Rabbit old asshole. Straighten that out with skull pilot. According to him (and I agree) when I take my tax deduction for my wonderful children, I am being "subsidized" by the Federal government through the tax code for having children.

You calling skull a liar? Why?

Im not calling him a liar. I think he's misiformed on what a subsidy is. What he is describing is an incentive. Why do you think OnePercenter is wrong about the definition of subsidy?

It is an incentive because it is a subsidy.

Charging some people more in taxes than others is giving those charged less a subsidy at the expense of those paying more.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes you are and no he is not.

You rabbit have a hard time with understanding the meaning of words.

For instance, the Federal government, for a number of reason, wants to give people the incentive to have children. The government wants to give people the incentive to raise children.

Are you with me on that.

The reward for taking the incentive to have children is that the government will give those people a subsidy in the form of tax writes offs that will reduce the income tax burden for those having children.

I have been given incentive to have children in the form of a subsidy through the tax code. The subsidy is an actual reduction in taxes owed. The incentive was to take advantage of that subsidy.

Why is this so hard for you? Is it because you have SO much invested in trying to prove yourself correct? Give it up.

It's not a subsidy, Zeke. A subsidy is money or its equivalent given by the federal government to someone or on someone's behalf. OnePercenter already established this.

Good God rabbit. The "equivalent" given by the government is the reduction in taxes owed.
Which is just another way of saying the government has subsidized my having children. Because the government doesn't usually provide "cash" subsidies. The government does provide incentive in the form of subsidies that do reduce taxes owed.

The government wants to give a business the incentive to fund their R&D department. The reward for doing that will be to subsidize the R&D department with a tax deduction targeted "specifically" to the expense of running an R&D department.

I think you need a dictionary to understand the definition of subsidy. And incentive. You seem to have them greatly confused.
.

Zeke, you dont give someone something by not taking what is theirs. Get it right.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbit old asshole. Straighten that out with skull pilot. According to him (and I agree) when I take my tax deduction for my wonderful children, I am being "subsidized" by the Federal government through the tax code for having children.

You calling skull a liar? Why?

Im not calling him a liar. I think he's misiformed on what a subsidy is. What he is describing is an incentive. Why do you think OnePercenter is wrong about the definition of subsidy?

It is an incentive because it is a subsidy.

Charging some people more in taxes than others is giving those charged less a subsidy at the expense of those paying more.

No, it isn't. Not taking more money from someone does not amount to a subsidy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Im not calling him a liar. I think he's misiformed on what a subsidy is. What he is describing is an incentive. Why do you think OnePercenter is wrong about the definition of subsidy?

It is an incentive because it is a subsidy.

Charging some people more in taxes than others is giving those charged less a subsidy at the expense of those paying more.

No, it isn't. Not taking more money from someone does not amount to a subsidy.

Charging some people less than others is a subsidy to those getting the lower rates.

Tell me who uses more government services, a family with 6 kids or a single guy?

If the single guy had the exact same income as the single parent of 6, the single guy would be charged more in taxes. The parent pays less.

That is a subsidy in the form of a tax deduction.

The single guy is paying more so the guy with kids can pay less

 

[zeke]

It is an incentive because it is a subsidy.

Charging some people more in taxes than others is giving those charged less a subsidy at the expense of those paying more.

No, it isn't. Not taking more money from someone does not amount to a subsidy.

Charging some people less than others is a subsidy to those getting the lower rates.

Tell me who uses more government services, a family with 6 kids or a single guy?

If the single guy had the exact same income as the single parent of 6, the single guy would be charged more in taxes. The parent pays less.

That is a subsidy in the form of a tax deduction.

The single guy is paying more so the guy with kids can pay less

Company A and Company B are both similar sized and similar sales and type of business.
The government is interested in these types of business's doing more in the way of research. The government is offering special tax write offs for research dollars spent.

Company A isn't interested and Company B is more than interested. So company B starts/expands its research efforts and at tax time takes full advantage of the additional write offs offered by the government.

The government has subsidized the research efforts of company B.

No ifs ands or buts about it.

Just like the government wants people to have kids and subsidizes the effort.

The government wants people to own houses and they subsidize the effort.

The government wants people and business to do a lot of things. They even want to subsidize some of those things by using the opportunity of paying less tax as the incentive.

Churches use hell and damnation to get 10% tithe. Not going to hell is the incentive. Paying 10% to the church is the subsidy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, it isn't. Not taking more money from someone does not amount to a subsidy.

Charging some people less than others is a subsidy to those getting the lower rates.

Tell me who uses more government services, a family with 6 kids or a single guy?

If the single guy had the exact same income as the single parent of 6, the single guy would be charged more in taxes. The parent pays less.

That is a subsidy in the form of a tax deduction.

The single guy is paying more so the guy with kids can pay less

Company A and Company B are both similar sized and similar sales and type of business.
The government is interested in these types of business's doing more in the way of research. The government is offering special tax write offs for research dollars spent.

Company A isn't interested and Company B is more than interested. So company B starts/expands its research efforts and at tax time takes full advantage of the additional write offs offered by the government.

The government has subsidized the research efforts of company B.

No ifs ands or buts about it.

Just like the government wants people to have kids and subsidizes the effort.

The government wants people to own houses and they subsidize the effort.

The government wants people and business to do a lot of things. They even want to subsidize some of those things by using the opportunity of paying less tax as the incentive.

Churches use hell and damnation to get 10% tithe. Not going to hell is the incentive. Paying 10% to the church is the subsidy.

None of that is justification for treating some people differently than others.

The government has no business coercing people to do things via bribery (subsidies)

 

[The Rabbi]

It is an incentive because it is a subsidy.

Charging some people more in taxes than others is giving those charged less a subsidy at the expense of those paying more.

No, it isn't. Not taking more money from someone does not amount to a subsidy.

Charging some people less than others is a subsidy to those getting the lower rates.

Tell me who uses more government services, a family with 6 kids or a single guy?

If the single guy had the exact same income as the single parent of 6, the single guy would be charged more in taxes. The parent pays less.

That is a subsidy in the form of a tax deduction.

The single guy is paying more so the guy with kids can pay less

Thats a zero sum way of looking at it. And wrong.
Two businesses gross 100,000. One has expenses of $50,000. The other has expenses of $75,000. The one with lower expenses according to you is subsidizing the one with higher expenses.
That's absurd.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thats a zero sum way of looking at it. And wrong.
Two businesses gross 100,000. One has expenses of $50,000. The other has expenses of $75,000. The one with lower expenses according to you is subsidizing the one with higher expenses.
That's absurd.

Standard business deductions are not subsidies. Write offs given to one business and denied to others are.

 

[The Rabbi]

Standard business deductions are not subsidies. Write offs given to one business and denied to others are.

Not necessarily. It might be that way. Or it might not. Depends on the business. IF the write offs are meant to "encourage" some kind of behavior or other, then yes. But if it falls to the nature of the business, like depletions, then no.