Why should government be kept smaller, and restricted to only certain tasks?

[bripat9643]

as long as the public can vote for their free lunch they will until they wake up one day and realize they trade away all their liberty and rights for that free lunch

You're giving them too much credit for realizing they traded away their freedom. The serfs still believe they are free.

The serfs were never free.

In a world driven by capitalist theory, only capital is free.

Have enough capital and you can perhaps, if you're careful, buy enough freedom to thrive.

But as the BIG FISH are now eating the small fish (using the government to do it) many of you who might be "free" for now, are going to become SERFS yourselves, soon enough.

Welcome to our nightmare.

Your definition of "free" means "free from having to work."

In this world, that kind of freedom will never be attained by the majority of people.

 

[dblack]

This is a complex world with difficult problems and situations. We need a government that reflects that.

This quote is fucking priceless.

 

[OnePercenter]

Wrong. It's almost entirely on the developer's dime.

Which the developer receives a subsidy (write-off) on cost of products, raw materials, freight, storage, labor costs, pensions, annuities, and overhead, which become unrealized tax revenues to be made up by taxpayers.

All the developers expenses are deducted from his revenue to get his net income. That's how the income tax works, dipshit. It taxes INCOME, not expenditures. By definition, building infrastructure is an expense that has to be deducted from revenue, just like any other expense.

A deduction lowers tax liability which is unrealized tax revenues.

You really don't understand the concepts of "business expense" and "write-off."

My properties, cars, 1/10th of a G5 (and maintenance), limos, car service, communication devices, golf club memberships, and on, are all business expenses thus a subsidized write-off.

 

[OnePercenter]

The entire development is "written off." You obviously think that is some kind of magic which means the developer doesn't have to pay for it.

Ever hear of an Enterprise Zone? There are many in every state.

Yes, and that still doesn't mean the developer doesn't have to pay for the infrastructure he builds.

Except in an Enterprise Zone, 2/3rds of the money is up front, the last 1/3 is all subs monies. The developer makes 100% day one. I've done these, they're a SWEET deal!

 

[OnePercenter]

Unrealized tax revenue.

Taxpayers



They don't. Expenses are subsidized (write-off) so it's unrealized (lost).

No, they aren't subsidized. Expense are always deducted from revenue to determine income. The government taxes income, not revenue or expenses.

Do you know anything about business or taxation?

More than you.

Obviously not. You don't even know what an expense or a write-off is.

Economics 101. Subsidies are 'aid'. All tax write-offs/write-downs are 'aid'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which the developer receives a subsidy (write-off) on cost of products, raw materials, freight, storage, labor costs, pensions, annuities, and overhead, which become unrealized tax revenues to be made up by taxpayers.

All the developers expenses are deducted from his revenue to get his net income. That's how the income tax works, dipshit. It taxes INCOME, not expenditures. By definition, building infrastructure is an expense that has to be deducted from revenue, just like any other expense.

A deduction lowers tax liability which is unrealized tax revenues.

You really don't understand the concepts of "business expense" and "write-off."

My properties, cars, 1/10th of a G5 (and maintenance), limos, car service, communication devices, golf club memberships, and on, are all business expenses thus a subsidized write-off.

Let me make this simple, there is no such thing as unrealized tax revenues. You really should learn the difference between cash and accrual accounting so you don't look like a complete idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

Taxpayers



They don't. Expenses are subsidized (write-off) so it's unrealized (lost).

No, they aren't subsidized. Expense are always deducted from revenue to determine income. The government taxes income, not revenue or expenses.

More than you.

Obviously not. You don't even know what an expense or a write-off is.

Economics 101. Subsidies are 'aid'. All tax write-offs/write-downs are 'aid'.

Hmm, wrong. expenses and so-called "write-offs" are just one side of the balance sheet when calculating a company's income. The income tax is a tax on INCOME, not expenses or gross revenues. You can't seem to get that simple concept through your cotton picken skull.

What idiot turds like you commonly refer to as "write-offs" are just expenses that exceed revenues. They reduce a firms net income and therefor they reduce its tax liability, but they are by no stretch of the imagination "subsidies."

 

[bripat9643]

Ever hear of an Enterprise Zone? There are many in every state.

Yes, and that still doesn't mean the developer doesn't have to pay for the infrastructure he builds.

Except in an Enterprise Zone, 2/3rds of the money is up front, the last 1/3 is all subs monies. The developer makes 100% day one. I've done these, they're a SWEET deal!

2/3rds of what money? The state or city government does not pay a developer to construct a development in an enterprise zone. All it does is reduce the property taxes property owners in the zone have to pay.

 

[bripat9643]

Which the developer receives a subsidy (write-off) on cost of products, raw materials, freight, storage, labor costs, pensions, annuities, and overhead, which become unrealized tax revenues to be made up by taxpayers.

All the developers expenses are deducted from his revenue to get his net income. That's how the income tax works, dipshit. It taxes INCOME, not expenditures. By definition, building infrastructure is an expense that has to be deducted from revenue, just like any other expense.

A deduction lowers tax liability which is unrealized tax revenues.

According to that notion, my net income is "unrealized tax revenues." I can't imagine anything more idiotic.

You really don't understand the concepts of "business expense" and "write-off."

My properties, cars, 1/10th of a G5 (and maintenance), limos, car service, communication devices, golf club memberships, and on, are all business expenses thus a subsidized write-off.

ROLF! How about labor expense? Is that a "subsidized write-off?" How about the cost of building a factory? Insurance? Materials?

 

[OnePercenter]

All the developers expenses are deducted from his revenue to get his net income. That's how the income tax works, dipshit. It taxes INCOME, not expenditures. By definition, building infrastructure is an expense that has to be deducted from revenue, just like any other expense.

A deduction lowers tax liability which is unrealized tax revenues.

You really don't understand the concepts of "business expense" and "write-off."

My properties, cars, 1/10th of a G5 (and maintenance), limos, car service, communication devices, golf club memberships, and on, are all business expenses thus a subsidized write-off.

Let me make this simple, there is no such thing as unrealized tax revenues. You really should learn the difference between cash and accrual accounting so you don't look like a complete idiot.

Anytime someone uses a subsidy to reduce their taxes, that lost (unrealized) revenue has to be made up. It's that simple.

 

[Iceman]

my properties, cars, 1/10th of a g5 (and maintenance), limos, car service, communication devices, golf club memberships, and on...

lol

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes, and that still doesn't mean the developer doesn't have to pay for the infrastructure he builds.

Except in an Enterprise Zone, 2/3rds of the money is up front, the last 1/3 is all subs monies. The developer makes 100% day one. I've done these, they're a SWEET deal!

2/3rds of what money? The state or city government does not pay a developer to construct a development in an enterprise zone. All it does is reduce the property taxes property owners in the zone have to pay.

It also guarantees payment, so banks line up to finance. You forgot sales tax subsidies.

 

[OnePercenter]

All the developers expenses are deducted from his revenue to get his net income. That's how the income tax works, dipshit. It taxes INCOME, not expenditures. By definition, building infrastructure is an expense that has to be deducted from revenue, just like any other expense.

A deduction lowers tax liability which is unrealized tax revenues.

According to that notion, my net income is "unrealized tax revenues." I can't imagine anything more idiotic.

You really don't understand the concepts of "business expense" and "write-off."

My properties, cars, 1/10th of a G5 (and maintenance), limos, car service, communication devices, golf club memberships, and on, are all business expenses thus a subsidized write-off.

ROLF! How about labor expense? Is that a "subsidized write-off?" How about the cost of building a factory? Insurance? Materials?

Yes. Also pensions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A deduction lowers tax liability which is unrealized tax revenues.

My properties, cars, 1/10th of a G5 (and maintenance), limos, car service, communication devices, golf club memberships, and on, are all business expenses thus a subsidized write-off.

Let me make this simple, there is no such thing as unrealized tax revenues. You really should learn the difference between cash and accrual accounting so you don't look like a complete idiot.

Anytime someone uses a subsidy to reduce their taxes, that lost (unrealized) revenue has to be made up. It's that simple.

No it doesn't.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Don't confuse him with facts.

Developers are required to build all the infrastructure when they build, out of their own pocket, but he wants to give the government all the credit.

Then the cost is written-off which is unrealized revenue. Unrealized revenue has to be made up somewhere, namely taxpayers.

Unrealized revenue?

When I took accounting a few decades ago I was told that accrued revenue was an asset. Did they change the rules at some point, or are you just full of shit?

Judging by his response to try and scrounge a point in support of "government", I'd say its looking like the later.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Wealthy, exclusive communities or built up by a business entity for profit.

The challenge was to provide examples of communities where the infrastructure was not built by the government. I succeeded, and all the "Government is great" crowd can do is whinge about how I cheated.

Anyone who even THINKS all government is great is lacking a great deal of information.
Anyone who thinks we need minimal government and yet supports a global military usually only cares about their stock portfolio.

If we were allowed to drill and dig more of our own resources in this country and allow ourselves to become more self reliant, instead of showing our vulnerability to depend on those nations in increasingly volatile parts of the world, we wouldn't find as great a need to guard our own self interests. If the United Nations were less long winded and diplomatic without any "teeth" and guts to enforce their own resolutions, we could find ourselves in a much smaller military role and not the world's police.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Which community in the US hasn't had infrastructure provided by the government?

That wasn't your question, Chuckles, and moving the goalposts doesn't work with me.

The fact that our various governments forcibly insert themselves into EVERYTHING now does not mean they HAVE to or that it's impossible to get anything accomplished if they don't. I realize your tiny brain doesn't have the capacity for imagination in it to picture a world different from the one you've occupied all your life, but that is actually very recent and localized, globally speaking. For a much, MUCH longer time, communities lived without any real government to speak of except in a very distant, mostly abstract sense (Yeah, there's a king, but who the hell sees him?).

Even today, right here in America, there are many small communities that just don't bother with the trappings of bureaucracy and handle community concerns themselves. Yes, they still have government-funded roads and shit near them, because it's hard to get away from those fuckers, even when you're trying. Do they require it? Despite your inability to imagine or believe it, the answer is no.

'small communities that just don't bother with the trappings of bureaucracy and handle community concerns themselves' Care to name one?

Already been done for you, and then you and your disingenuous dipshit friends summarily dismissed them as not meeting requirements you never set. Can't imagine why I'd bother to dignify this question with ANOTHER answer when you already proved unworthy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unrealized tax revenue.

Unrealized tax revenue?

Is that a new way of saying "You didn't earn that?"

OnePrecenter seems to be confusing an expense with revenue. He thinks that when a developer spends money on building a street, that's revenue rather than money out of his pocket..

Hard to believe, I know, but there it is.

Well, he also thinks that reporting business activity on one's taxes - which are required by and punishable under the law - is somehow requesting and receiving benevolence from his Great God Government. So he's clearly a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wrong. It's almost entirely on the developer's dime.

Which the developer receives a subsidy (write-off) on cost of products, raw materials, freight, storage, labor costs, pensions, annuities, and overhead, which become unrealized tax revenues to be made up by taxpayers.

All the developers expenses are deducted from his revenue to get his net income. That's how the income tax works, dipshit. It taxes INCOME, not expenditures. By definition, building infrastructure is an expense that has to be deducted from revenue, just like any other expense.

You really don't understand the concepts of "business expense" and "write-off."

Bri, sweetie, you don't understand. One believes that ALL money belongs to the government, and is then generously given to us by that same government. Therefore, any money that one is allowed to keep and spend on one's business, rather than handing over to the government, is "unrealized revenue" by the government and, therefore, a "subsidy" - aka gift - from the government to you.

 

[bripat9643]

Which the developer receives a subsidy (write-off) on cost of products, raw materials, freight, storage, labor costs, pensions, annuities, and overhead, which become unrealized tax revenues to be made up by taxpayers.

All the developers expenses are deducted from his revenue to get his net income. That's how the income tax works, dipshit. It taxes INCOME, not expenditures. By definition, building infrastructure is an expense that has to be deducted from revenue, just like any other expense.

You really don't understand the concepts of "business expense" and "write-off."

Bri, sweetie, you don't understand. One believes that ALL money belongs to the government, and is then generously given to us by that same government. Therefore, any money that one is allowed to keep and spend on one's business, rather than handing over to the government, is "unrealized revenue" by the government and, therefore, a "subsidy" - aka gift - from the government to you.

He practically stated that explicitly when he said my net income is "unrealized tax revenue." It's difficult to comprehend how dumb these libturds are sometimes.