Welcome to Gaia! ::

What the ******** should we do with all of these ******** baby boomers?

Give them a taste of their own medicine and let the "free market" handle Social Security 0.4 40.0% [ 10 ]
Ruin our country paying their ridiculous retirement pensions 0.04 4.0% [ 1 ]
Give them a pension, but put a hard limit on how much we'll spend on those pensions 0.04 4.0% [ 1 ]
Other, you have your own plan 0.28 28.0% [ 7 ]
Gold 0.24 24.0% [ 6 ]
Total Votes:[ 25 ]
< 1 2 3 4 5 >
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
Tax cuts lower your taxes, tax break is a concession or advantage allowed by government.
In otherwords. A cut is all the way across the board, a break is because you fit a certain criteria. Either way, you keep more of your own money, which isn't really a subsidy if you keep your money.
Subsidies are often given in the form of cash.
Why They're Not Subsidies

I don't care about the difference between tax cuts and tax breaks. If anything, you should try and tell that to yourself three posts ago. If you think subsidies in the form of tax breaks don't count, you're typically arguing that the tax rate on business should be zero. Because the State is still "stealing" your money and because roads, schools and water plants should all be privately owned anyway.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Tax cuts lower your taxes, tax break is a concession or advantage allowed by government.
In otherwords. A cut is all the way across the board, a break is because you fit a certain criteria. Either way, you keep more of your own money, which isn't really a subsidy if you keep your money.
Subsidies are often given in the form of cash.
Why They're Not Subsidies

I don't care about the difference between tax cuts and tax breaks. If anything, you should try and tell that to yourself three posts ago. If you think subsidies in the form of tax breaks don't count, you're typically arguing that the tax rate on business should be zero. Because the State is still "stealing" your money and because roads, schools and water plants should all be privately owned anyway.


Your first problem. You can't tax business. You can't tax a floor, ceiling, door, etc. You can only tax people.
That tax on "business" will always be paid by the customer, stock holder, or worker. The tax on the employer will be shifted to the employee.
So yes, there should be no tax break on business.
Roads, water plants, bridges etcetera should be privately owned. Public Schools are useful, but only if they are competitive with each other. Otherwise, there are a bunch of mediocre public schools with mediocre students.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Tax cuts lower your taxes, tax break is a concession or advantage allowed by government.
In otherwords. A cut is all the way across the board, a break is because you fit a certain criteria. Either way, you keep more of your own money, which isn't really a subsidy if you keep your money.
Subsidies are often given in the form of cash.
Why They're Not Subsidies

I don't care about the difference between tax cuts and tax breaks. If anything, you should try and tell that to yourself three posts ago. If you think subsidies in the form of tax breaks don't count, you're typically arguing that the tax rate on business should be zero. Because the State is still "stealing" your money and because roads, schools and water plants should all be privately owned anyway.


Your first problem. You can't tax business. You can't tax a floor, ceiling, door, etc. You can only tax people.
That tax on "business" will always be paid by the customer, stock holder, or worker. The tax on the employer will be shifted to the employee.
So yes, there should be no tax break on business.
Roads, water plants, bridges etcetera should be privately owned. Public Schools are useful, but only if they are competitive with each other. Otherwise, there are a bunch of mediocre public schools with mediocre students.

So let's just tax the employees more, right? Cut out the middle man. I think your argument here is mainly philosophical, and by philosophical I mean fantastic to the point where leprechauns s**t rainbows into unicorn kettles.

It is useful to tax businesses because a lot of public commodities as it stands are being gratuitously exploited by the private sector. If we keep this kind of radical restructuring of society out of the picture, I think you will find what I said about subsidies reasonable.
In a just world, we'd cut medicare, medicaid, SS and change the music on the weather channel to dubstep
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Tax cuts lower your taxes, tax break is a concession or advantage allowed by government.
In otherwords. A cut is all the way across the board, a break is because you fit a certain criteria. Either way, you keep more of your own money, which isn't really a subsidy if you keep your money.
Subsidies are often given in the form of cash.
Why They're Not Subsidies

I don't care about the difference between tax cuts and tax breaks. If anything, you should try and tell that to yourself three posts ago. If you think subsidies in the form of tax breaks don't count, you're typically arguing that the tax rate on business should be zero. Because the State is still "stealing" your money and because roads, schools and water plants should all be privately owned anyway.


Your first problem. You can't tax business. You can't tax a floor, ceiling, door, etc. You can only tax people.
That tax on "business" will always be paid by the customer, stock holder, or worker. The tax on the employer will be shifted to the employee.
So yes, there should be no tax break on business.
Roads, water plants, bridges etcetera should be privately owned. Public Schools are useful, but only if they are competitive with each other. Otherwise, there are a bunch of mediocre public schools with mediocre students.

So let's just tax the employees more, right? Cut out the middle man. I think your argument here is mainly philosophical, and by philosophical I mean fantastic to the point where leprechauns s**t rainbows into unicorn kettles.

It is useful to tax businesses because a lot of public commodities as it stands are being gratuitously exploited by the private sector. If we keep this kind of radical restructuring of society out of the picture, I think you will find what I said about subsidies reasonable.


What commodities are being exploited by the private sector? Is that to say even if there are to such a great degree, are there not commodities that are exploited by the public sector?
Regardless, you cannot tax Business. You can only tax people. Taxing business is a false ploy.
My argument is not philosophical. The public school in Washington D.C are some of the worst in the country. Do they compete with each other? Do they try to get the best students to come to their public schools? Do they advertise their school activities, clubs, or sports?
Subsidies is just a nice way of saying redistribution of wealth which is a nice of way of saying theft.
I'm against thievery.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Tax cuts lower your taxes, tax break is a concession or advantage allowed by government.
In otherwords. A cut is all the way across the board, a break is because you fit a certain criteria. Either way, you keep more of your own money, which isn't really a subsidy if you keep your money.
Subsidies are often given in the form of cash.
Why They're Not Subsidies

I don't care about the difference between tax cuts and tax breaks. If anything, you should try and tell that to yourself three posts ago. If you think subsidies in the form of tax breaks don't count, you're typically arguing that the tax rate on business should be zero. Because the State is still "stealing" your money and because roads, schools and water plants should all be privately owned anyway.


Your first problem. You can't tax business. You can't tax a floor, ceiling, door, etc. You can only tax people.
That tax on "business" will always be paid by the customer, stock holder, or worker. The tax on the employer will be shifted to the employee.
So yes, there should be no tax break on business.
Roads, water plants, bridges etcetera should be privately owned. Public Schools are useful, but only if they are competitive with each other. Otherwise, there are a bunch of mediocre public schools with mediocre students.

So let's just tax the employees more, right? Cut out the middle man. I think your argument here is mainly philosophical, and by philosophical I mean fantastic to the point where leprechauns s**t rainbows into unicorn kettles.

It is useful to tax businesses because a lot of public commodities as it stands are being gratuitously exploited by the private sector. If we keep this kind of radical restructuring of society out of the picture, I think you will find what I said about subsidies reasonable.


What commodities are being exploited by the private sector? Is that to say even if there are to such a great degree, are there not commodities that are exploited by the public sector?
Regardless, you cannot tax Business. You can only tax people. Taxing business is a false ploy.
My argument is not philosophical. The public school in Washington D.C are some of the worst in the country. Do they compete with each other? Do they try to get the best students to come to their public schools? Do they advertise their school activities, clubs, or sports?
Subsidies is just a nice way of saying redistribution of wealth which is a nice of way of saying theft.
I'm against thievery.

You're being absurd. When the employee of this business uses his government-subsidized car to drive government-paid road with his government-subsidized gasoline, is he then personally responsible for the damage to the roads, the damage to the environment, the front collision with a drunk driver? Is there not another entity in play here?
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Christien Chalfant
That tax on "business" will always be paid by the customer, stock holder, or ******** the stockholder, pandering to the stockholder's interests is exactly what constantly disrupts the economy's normal operation in unnecessary ways.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Wendigo
Christien Chalfant
That tax on "business" will always be paid by the customer, stock holder, or ******** the stockholder, pandering to the stockholder's interests is exactly what constantly disrupts the economy's normal operation in unnecessary ways.


So the stock holder, who invests in the company, and owns a part of the company, therefore having some sort of the control of the company, shouldn't get the right to put their interests for what they think the company should do?
And you give no evidence of stockholder's interests disrupting the economy's "normal operation in unnecessary ways."
What exactly is normal operation? Supply and Demand? Production and Consumption?
What's unnecessary?
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Tax cuts lower your taxes, tax break is a concession or advantage allowed by government.
In otherwords. A cut is all the way across the board, a break is because you fit a certain criteria. Either way, you keep more of your own money, which isn't really a subsidy if you keep your money.
Subsidies are often given in the form of cash.
Why They're Not Subsidies

I don't care about the difference between tax cuts and tax breaks. If anything, you should try and tell that to yourself three posts ago. If you think subsidies in the form of tax breaks don't count, you're typically arguing that the tax rate on business should be zero. Because the State is still "stealing" your money and because roads, schools and water plants should all be privately owned anyway.


Your first problem. You can't tax business. You can't tax a floor, ceiling, door, etc. You can only tax people.
That tax on "business" will always be paid by the customer, stock holder, or worker. The tax on the employer will be shifted to the employee.
So yes, there should be no tax break on business.
Roads, water plants, bridges etcetera should be privately owned. Public Schools are useful, but only if they are competitive with each other. Otherwise, there are a bunch of mediocre public schools with mediocre students.

So let's just tax the employees more, right? Cut out the middle man. I think your argument here is mainly philosophical, and by philosophical I mean fantastic to the point where leprechauns s**t rainbows into unicorn kettles.

It is useful to tax businesses because a lot of public commodities as it stands are being gratuitously exploited by the private sector. If we keep this kind of radical restructuring of society out of the picture, I think you will find what I said about subsidies reasonable.


What commodities are being exploited by the private sector? Is that to say even if there are to such a great degree, are there not commodities that are exploited by the public sector?
Regardless, you cannot tax Business. You can only tax people. Taxing business is a false ploy.
My argument is not philosophical. The public school in Washington D.C are some of the worst in the country. Do they compete with each other? Do they try to get the best students to come to their public schools? Do they advertise their school activities, clubs, or sports?
Subsidies is just a nice way of saying redistribution of wealth which is a nice of way of saying theft.
I'm against thievery.

You're being absurd. When the employee of this business uses his government-subsidized car to drive government-paid road with his government-subsidized gasoline, is he then personally responsible for the damage to the roads, the damage to the environment, the front collision with a drunk driver? Is there not another entity in play here?


You're assuming that everything is provided by the gov't. Which because of socialist policies, gov't tries really hard to.
But yes. Those damages to the environment, to the roads, and the collision with the driver are due to the individual and individuals combining into the collective.
They all made a conscious decision to drive the car, to drive on a certain route or road, they're unlucky it was the same as a drunk driver. But then the drunk driver made a conscious decision to drink, then made a decision to drive. Other individuals made a conscious decision to allow him to drive, to not take his keys, or to not get him prior rehabilitation if he was an alcoholic.
So the damages to the road that are done by countless cars being driven on them, the pollution to the environment, and collision of cars is in result because of the individual.
If it's not the employee, then it's the gov't official that decided to take money from the taxpayers and "redistribute" it somewhere else. Then getting other officials to go along with the idea. Then making a political propaganda scheme to sell the "benefits" to the people.
Ban
Robot Macai
What should we do with them?
You do realize that Obama is technically a Boomer, right? I mean, one of the late trailing Boomers, a Generation "Jones" guy if you will, but still technically a Boomer. And so is practically every other leading liberal fighting for the exact things you're talking about? Also, every leading conservative fighting to gut social security. You're talking about a huge portion of the population. Guess what? Populations are diverse.

Obama is actually GenX
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant


Your first problem. You can't tax business. You can't tax a floor, ceiling, door, etc. You can only tax people.
That tax on "business" will always be paid by the customer, stock holder, or worker. The tax on the employer will be shifted to the employee.
So yes, there should be no tax break on business.
Roads, water plants, bridges etcetera should be privately owned. Public Schools are useful, but only if they are competitive with each other. Otherwise, there are a bunch of mediocre public schools with mediocre students.

So let's just tax the employees more, right? Cut out the middle man. I think your argument here is mainly philosophical, and by philosophical I mean fantastic to the point where leprechauns s**t rainbows into unicorn kettles.

It is useful to tax businesses because a lot of public commodities as it stands are being gratuitously exploited by the private sector. If we keep this kind of radical restructuring of society out of the picture, I think you will find what I said about subsidies reasonable.


What commodities are being exploited by the private sector? Is that to say even if there are to such a great degree, are there not commodities that are exploited by the public sector?
Regardless, you cannot tax Business. You can only tax people. Taxing business is a false ploy.
My argument is not philosophical. The public school in Washington D.C are some of the worst in the country. Do they compete with each other? Do they try to get the best students to come to their public schools? Do they advertise their school activities, clubs, or sports?
Subsidies is just a nice way of saying redistribution of wealth which is a nice of way of saying theft.
I'm against thievery.

You're being absurd. When the employee of this business uses his government-subsidized car to drive government-paid road with his government-subsidized gasoline, is he then personally responsible for the damage to the roads, the damage to the environment, the front collision with a drunk driver? Is there not another entity in play here?


You're assuming that everything is provided by the gov't. Which because of socialist policies, gov't tries really hard to.
But yes. Those damages to the environment, to the roads, and the collision with the driver are due to the individual and individuals combining into the collective.
They all made a conscious decision to drive the car, to drive on a certain route or road, they're unlucky it was the same as a drunk driver. But then the drunk driver made a conscious decision to drink, then made a decision to drive. Other individuals made a conscious decision to allow him to drive, to not take his keys, or to not get him prior rehabilitation if he was an alcoholic.
So the damages to the road that are done by countless cars being driven on them, the pollution to the environment, and collision of cars is in result because of the individual.
If it's not the employee, then it's the gov't official that decided to take money from the taxpayers and "redistribute" it somewhere else. Then getting other officials to go along with the idea. Then making a political propaganda scheme to sell the "benefits" to the people.

Perhaps I should be more clear. As it stands, the auto industry has been bailed out, the roads are paved at the behest of state and federal contracts, gasoline is being subsidized. But that was beside the point really.

What I was referring to, was an employee getting in a company vehicle to serve a professional function. He will then drive in the name of a business, which is normally expected to reimburse the State for any cost the employee will accumulate in his profession. Damage to property, roads, coal seam fires (In the case of the drunk driver or various other accidents, the business is expected to treat it as a workplace accident and seek to reimburse the employee or his estate, whichever applies). As such, there is ample precedent for treating the business as a single entity and not "individuals doing unrelated things" which is a gigantic cop-out.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr

So let's just tax the employees more, right? Cut out the middle man. I think your argument here is mainly philosophical, and by philosophical I mean fantastic to the point where leprechauns s**t rainbows into unicorn kettles.

It is useful to tax businesses because a lot of public commodities as it stands are being gratuitously exploited by the private sector. If we keep this kind of radical restructuring of society out of the picture, I think you will find what I said about subsidies reasonable.


What commodities are being exploited by the private sector? Is that to say even if there are to such a great degree, are there not commodities that are exploited by the public sector?
Regardless, you cannot tax Business. You can only tax people. Taxing business is a false ploy.
My argument is not philosophical. The public school in Washington D.C are some of the worst in the country. Do they compete with each other? Do they try to get the best students to come to their public schools? Do they advertise their school activities, clubs, or sports?
Subsidies is just a nice way of saying redistribution of wealth which is a nice of way of saying theft.
I'm against thievery.

You're being absurd. When the employee of this business uses his government-subsidized car to drive government-paid road with his government-subsidized gasoline, is he then personally responsible for the damage to the roads, the damage to the environment, the front collision with a drunk driver? Is there not another entity in play here?


You're assuming that everything is provided by the gov't. Which because of socialist policies, gov't tries really hard to.
But yes. Those damages to the environment, to the roads, and the collision with the driver are due to the individual and individuals combining into the collective.
They all made a conscious decision to drive the car, to drive on a certain route or road, they're unlucky it was the same as a drunk driver. But then the drunk driver made a conscious decision to drink, then made a decision to drive. Other individuals made a conscious decision to allow him to drive, to not take his keys, or to not get him prior rehabilitation if he was an alcoholic.
So the damages to the road that are done by countless cars being driven on them, the pollution to the environment, and collision of cars is in result because of the individual.
If it's not the employee, then it's the gov't official that decided to take money from the taxpayers and "redistribute" it somewhere else. Then getting other officials to go along with the idea. Then making a political propaganda scheme to sell the "benefits" to the people.

Perhaps I should be more clear. As it stands, the auto industry has been bailed out, the roads are paved at the behest of state and federal contracts, gasoline is being subsidized. But that was beside the point really.

The auto industry was bailed out, but should it have been? No, failing business should go ahead and fail. Yes, there are plenty and an abundance of public roads, but who declared the government as the catalyst for paving the roads and creating them? Oh that's right. The gov't appointed itself to all that, the people never asked for public roads. Regardless, I don't hate the highway nor do I refrain from using it, my point is that there were plenty of other people who could've designed and put forth the highway.

Heimdalr
What I was referring to, was an employee getting in a company vehicle to serve a professional function. He will then drive in the name of a business, which is normally expected to reimburse the State for any cost the employee will accumulate in his profession. Damage to property, roads, coal seam fires (In the case of the drunk driver or various other accidents, the business is expected to treat it as a workplace accident and seek to reimburse the employee or his estate, whichever applies). As such, there is ample precedent for treating the business as a single entity and not "individuals doing unrelated things" which is a gigantic cop-out.

Fine, the company car. But is that company car provided by the gov't or is it provided by the employer?
Reimburse the State for any cost the employee will accumulate? But now see here, the employee doesn't have to drive the company car, but perhaps he has to. Then the company would have already made arrangements about the car concerning repairs, mileage, etcetera and those would be known with the driver. Otherwise in a say, small business, the employee would drive his own car and would then be reimbursed for the miles driven, as part of his job. But the Employer reimburses the employee not the gov't.
If the accident happens while doing a company action then of course it's a workplace accident. But then why should the employers and employees be treated as a collective entity? Because of workplace accidents? Sorry but that's really just trying to simplify things. A company is individuals doing related things, not unrelated things. Hence the man reimbursing for mileage driven, the man driving his own car while on the job or a provided company car, the man on the assembly line, the man managing exports to the Caribbean and so forth. They are always related.
But business, as a whole, cannot be taxed. You cannot tax every single person within that company the same way as you would call it business. You could have a fair tax and no "business tax," then that would be the same tax and it would be fair.
But you cannot take a collective nor can you tax a building. Only individuals can be taxed.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
The auto industry was bailed out, but should it have been? No, failing business should go ahead and fail. Yes, there are plenty and an abundance of public roads, but who declared the government as the catalyst for paving the roads and creating them? Oh that's right. The gov't appointed itself to all that, the people never asked for public roads. Regardless, I don't hate the highway nor do I refrain from using it, my point is that there were plenty of other people who could've designed and put forth the highway.

Heimdalr
What I was referring to, was an employee getting in a company vehicle to serve a professional function. He will then drive in the name of a business, which is normally expected to reimburse the State for any cost the employee will accumulate in his profession. Damage to property, roads, coal seam fires (In the case of the drunk driver or various other accidents, the business is expected to treat it as a workplace accident and seek to reimburse the employee or his estate, whichever applies). As such, there is ample precedent for treating the business as a single entity and not "individuals doing unrelated things" which is a gigantic cop-out.

Fine, the company car. But is that company car provided by the gov't or is it provided by the employer?
Reimburse the State for any cost the employee will accumulate? But now see here, the employee doesn't have to drive the company car, but perhaps he has to. Then the company would have already made arrangements about the car concerning repairs, mileage, etcetera and those would be known with the driver. Otherwise in a say, small business, the employee would drive his own car and would then be reimbursed for the miles driven, as part of his job. But the Employer reimburses the employee not the gov't.
If the accident happens while doing a company action then of course it's a workplace accident. But then why should the employers and employees be treated as a collective entity? Because of workplace accidents? Sorry but that's really just trying to simplify things. A company is individuals doing related things, not unrelated things. Hence the man reimbursing for mileage driven, the man driving his own car while on the job or a provided company car, the man on the assembly line, the man managing exports to the Caribbean and so forth. They are always related.
But business, as a whole, cannot be taxed. You cannot tax every single person within that company the same way as you would call it business. You could have a fair tax and no "business tax," then that would be the same tax and it would be fair.
But you cannot take a collective nor can you tax a building. Only individuals can be taxed.

The public did ask for public roads, and they continue to ask for public roads to this day. Actually, most of the time you'll see companies lobbying their local government to build roads befitting their expanded operations. The practice isn't going away any time soon, you can disagree all you'd like but it stays a fantasy suited only to make ideological, hypothetical rants like yours.

The company car is provided by both the State and the manufacturer, by a ratio depending on type and make.

I am trying to simplify things. There are inherent risks and inherent public expenditure related to the private sector's use of public commodities. Draining aquifers, pollution, road damage, water purification, power shortages, all of them are public expenditures. To gauge each employee's use of public commodities and tax them accordingly requires a bureaucracy so intrusive and sprawling they have clerks registering how much time you use to wash your hands in the company bathroom.
First point, Ford wasn't bailed out. So when you start on the government bailed out the auto industry? Get it right. it was Government Motors that was bailed out, and Dodge. Not Ford.

Gas subsidies? Where? And lets also not forget that the most money made off of gas is by the government. Taxes are wonderful things when you buy such.

Oddly, Nevada has a rich mining heritage...but old Harry suck a d**k Reid refuses to allow them to be taxed. Imagine that. A luxury item that is in his state, and he won't tax it.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games