No More PBS?
No it can't mean anything. That's why a gave you definition of it. Did you not read it? Do I need to explain it to you?
And you'd rather get bogged down in semantics than talk about a real problem that relentlessly pushes wealth into the hands of a few? However you want to name it.
I don't get it.
RealityForAll said:
DB, I think you have made my point. "Corporate welfare" is a catch-all phrase that is so pliable that it can mean anything.
I don't get how you solve a problem when you are unable to define the problem. In my prior post. I gave examples of some common things that are called "corporate welfare." However, I don't believe that the mortgage interest expense deduction is "corporate welfare." Further, I support giving various tax breaks to retain and attract new businesses. Additionally, the taxation of carried interest is unfair and unjust but is not "corporate welfare" as corporations do not primarily benefit.
Please provide your definition of "corporate welfare."
drummerboy said:
No it can't mean anything. That's why a gave you definition of it. Did you not read it? Do I need to explain it to you?
And you'd rather get bogged down in semantics than talk about a real problem that relentlessly pushes wealth into the hands of a few? However you want to name it.
I don't get it.
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/RealityForAll">RealityForAll said:
DB, I think you have made my point. "Corporate welfare" is a catch-all phrase that is so pliable that it can mean anything.
FYI, Dictionary.com easily provides one:
"financial assistance, as tax breaks or subsidies, given by the government to profit-making companies, especially large corporations."
RealityForAll said:
DB, I think you have made my point. "Corporate welfare" is a catch-all phrase that is so pliable that it can mean anything.
If you do have a definition of "corporate welfare", then please share it with all of us. As I continue to be unclear of what the definition is.
Hey Reality, let's try it a little differently. You seem smug and secure in your abilities to deflect, so here is a real question; Using your own definition of corporate welfare, and recognizing the need to sacrifice Bert and Ernie to help buy another supercarrier full of unproven technology, what corporate funding would you cut? Subsidies to oil companies? Tax breaks for corporations? Try to list a few, so we know it isn't just small potato programs like CPB that you would like to see disappear.
@qrys, thanks for the definition. However, I have problems with the definition.
Tax breaks are defined as "a tax concession or advantage allowed by a government." However, the tax is usually defined by the same legislative and regulatory process that created the "tax break."
Are all tax breaks bad?
1. Should the very ill be able to itemize their medical expenses?
2. I think the relevant question is: Is subjecting carried interest to one level of tax as capital gains fair? Rather than labeling carried interest taxation as "corporate welfare" when no corporations are typically involved.
3. A deduction for depreciation on capital assets is a tax break. Is depreciation a form of "corporate welfare"?
4. Clearly retired NJ pensioners now living outside NJ are receiving a tax break by not being taxed in NJ on NJ pensions (despite having earned such pension by laboring in NJ, hence sufficient nexus for taxation) .
IMHO, I think that you have to look fairness in tax policy rather than the fact that a tax break has been provided for certain expenses and income.
qrysdonnell said:
FYI, Dictionary.com easily provides one:
"financial assistance, as tax breaks or subsidies, given by the government to profit-making companies, especially large corporations."
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/RealityForAll">RealityForAll said:
DB, I think you have made my point. "Corporate welfare" is a catch-all phrase that is so pliable that it can mean anything.
If you do have a definition of "corporate welfare", then please share it with all of us. As I continue to be unclear of what the definition is.
@FilmCarp:
No smugness here. I am just applying rational analysis to this issue (by first seeing if allegations/descriptions/labeling match definitions). I have not yet provided a definition of "corporate welfare." Although, I have provided examples of what others believe to be "corporate welfare." Once again, if you can't define "corporate welfare" then you cannot identify "corporate welfare" nor fix it.
PS I think the focus should be on good tax policy versus bad tax policy.
PPS According to wikipedia the follwoing were three largest fossil fuel subsidies:
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
1. Foreign tax credit ( 5.3 billion)
2. Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ( 4.1 billion)
3. Oil and Gas exploration and development expense ($7.1 billion)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
Foreign tax credits do not appear to be subsidies to me as they are a mechanism to prevent double taxation (namely, taxation in country where oil was produced and then again in US where corporation is set up and where profits from subs roll-up to).
FilmCarp said:
Hey Reality, let's try it a little differently. You seem smug and secure in your abilities to deflect, so here is a real question; Using your own definition of corporate welfare, and recognizing the need to sacrifice Bert and Ernie to help buy another supercarrier full of unproven technology, what corporate funding would you cut? Subsidies to oil companies? Tax breaks for corporations? Try to list a few, so we know it isn't just small potato programs like CPB that you would like to see disappear.
The Government, at various levels, provides forms of financial assistance or relief to individuals in serious financial difficulty, that is, they do not have enough money to pay for the necessities of life. Those forms of financial assistance or relief have collectively been given the name "Welfare".
So when Government provides forms of financial assistance or relief to profit making businesses that has been called "Corporate Welfare".
All Mr. Reality appears to be saying is that certain forms of Corporate Welfare are justifiable.
It's that usual false equivalency certain debaters love to try fooling audiences with: not all not salad items are vegetables (tomatoes are really fruit) yet all flora are vegetal in nature....
Unnecessary distraction that merely serves to build up time-wasting frustration.
Please explain how relief from double taxation (taxation in the source country) outside the us and again in the US where the company, or its sub, is also taxed) is "welfare". Without the foreign tax credit ("FTC"), US companies would not be able to compete overseas with non-US companies because almost all other countries tax only tax profits earned in the particular country. Japan, UK, and France do not tax their corporations on a worldwide basis. In order to avoid double taxation of US companies on foreign source income we have the FTC. IMHO, the reason the lefties use the word welfare is in order to create anger in their base and to cause an emotional rather than rational response. The FTC is a neutral method to eliminating double taxation.
LOST said:
The Government, at various levels, provides forms of financial assistance or relief to individuals in serious financial difficulty, that is, they do not have enough money to pay for the necessities of life. Those forms of financial assistance or relief have collectively been given the name "Welfare".
So when Government provides forms of financial assistance or relief to profit making businesses that has been called "Corporate Welfare".
All Mr. Reality appears to be saying is that certain forms of Corporate Welfare are justifiable.
@joanne
It appears that you are frustrated by the discussion of what "corporate welfare" is. The law and policy run on definitions. It is pretty clear to me that banishing corporate welfare is a bad idea if "corporate welfare" means whatever the firebrand desires it to be.
If you really desire to banish this evil (namely, corporate welfare), I would think that you would be able to provide a substantive response to the issues that I have raised. Or, alternatively, a usable definition of "corporate welfare."
Do you believe that: NOT being able to accurately identify what it is your railing against is not important. If so, then I would be scared if you were ever to be on a jury (or have any other fact finding role).
joanne said:
It's that usual false equivalency certain debaters love to try fooling audiences with: not all not salad items are vegetables (tomatoes are really fruit) yet all flora are vegetal in nature....
Unnecessary distraction that merely serves to build up time-wasting frustration.
Please explain how the mortgage interest expense deduction is "corporate welfare."
RealityForAll said:
Please explain how relief from double taxation (taxation in the source country) outside the us and again in the US where the company, or its sub, is also taxed) is "welfare". Without the foreign tax credit ("FTC"), US companies would not be able to compete overseas with non-US companies because almost all other countries tax only tax profits earned in the particular country. Japan, UK, and France do not tax their corporations on a worldwide basis. In order to avoid double taxation of US companies on foreign source income we have the FTC. IMHO, the reason the lefties use the word welfare is in order to create anger in their base and to cause an emotional rather than rational response. The FTC is a neutral method to eliminating double taxation.
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/LOST">LOST said:
The Government, at various levels, provides forms of financial assistance or relief to individuals in serious financial difficulty, that is, they do not have enough money to pay for the necessities of life. Those forms of financial assistance or relief have collectively been given the name "Welfare".
So when Government provides forms of financial assistance or relief to profit making businesses that has been called "Corporate Welfare".
All Mr. Reality appears to be saying is that certain forms of Corporate Welfare are justifiable.
RealityForAll said:
@joanne
It appears that you are frustrated by the discussion of what "corporate welfare" is. The law and policy run on definitions. It is pretty clear to me that banishing corporate welfare is a bad idea if "corporate welfare" means whatever the firebrand desires it to be.
If you really desire to banish this evil (namely, corporate welfare), I would think that you would be able to provide a substantive response to the issues that I have raised. Or, alternatively, a usable definition of "corporate welfare."
Do you believe that: NOT being able to accurately identify what it is your railing against is not important. If so, then I would be scared if you were ever to be on a jury (or have any other fact finding role).
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/joanne">joanne said:
It's that usual false equivalency certain debaters love to try fooling audiences with: not all not salad items are vegetables (tomatoes are really fruit) yet all flora are vegetal in nature....
Unnecessary distraction that merely serves to build up time-wasting frustration.
Perhaps Joanne is just bored shitless.
I'm gonna go over and check the thread about how to talk to Trump voters to see if there is any good advice on communicating with this obfuscating troll. I of course don't expect to find anything.
Nah, I'm amused. We have the same arguments going on here - originally the conservatives levelled the claims at the local businesses seeking support to remain able to employ thousands of locals, and disparaged those claims. Now when the arguments are lobbed back at the multinationals and the blatantly-ripping-us-off (detailed financial reporting has revealed this, and our Tax Office is unable to reclaim owed taxes), we waste time in Parliament with conservatives using these arguments to defend their wealthy donors. Then legislation is introduced to make it easier for those corporations to pay even less, or siphon even more away.
Pretty basic amusing if you've studied basic logic, or participated in even basic debating.
Argue or vote to save Public Media, this came from WNYC today:
protectmypublicmedia.org/?mc_cid=3320cad5bf&mc_eid=2776148c52"> http://protectmypublicmedia.org/?mc_cid=3320cad5bf&mc_eid=2776148c52
rcarter31 said:
Argue or vote to save Public Media, this came from WNYC today:
protectmypublicmedia.org="" ?mc_cid="3320cad5bf&mc_eid=2776148c52"" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">protectmypublicmedia.org/?mc_cid=3320cad5bf&mc_eid=2776148c52"> protectmypublicmedia.org/?mc_cid=3320cad5bf&mc_eid=2776148c52" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> http://protectmypublicmedia.org/?mc_cid=3320cad5bf&mc_eid=2776148c52
They don't care about petitions to save radio funding. You've got little kids in wheelchairs asking for more cancer medicine and they don't care.
considering I made similar comments about the mortgage deduction, I kinda think you don't read my posts,
so why bother with you?
RealityForAll said:
I don't get how you solve a problem when you are unable to define the problem. In my prior post. I gave examples of some common things that are called "corporate welfare." However, I don't believe that the mortgage interest expense deduction is "corporate welfare." Further, I support giving various tax breaks to retain and attract new businesses. Additionally, the taxation of carried interest is unfair and unjust but is not "corporate welfare" as corporations do not primarily benefit.
Please provide your definition of "corporate welfare."
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/drummerboy">drummerboy said:
No it can't mean anything. That's why a gave you definition of it. Did you not read it? Do I need to explain it to you?
And you'd rather get bogged down in semantics than talk about a real problem that relentlessly pushes wealth into the hands of a few? However you want to name it.
I don't get it.
maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" realityforall"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/RealityForAll">RealityForAll said:
DB, I think you have made my point. "Corporate welfare" is a catch-all phrase that is so pliable that it can mean anything.
I think you will agree, that rural folks are the most likely to have toxic water, toxic soil, and so on, yet they are continually discriminated against by the majority of society. Does not this very discrimination feed into what we are now experiencing politically?
I disagree that rural folks are "continually discriminated against by the majority of society". Do jerks make comments about hillbillies, etc.- sure. But the things I've heard from Trump supporters about Hillary supporters are just as pernicious and nasty. And just as common-perhaps even more common. Who made the comment about "New York values" in the debate? Who calls their towns and communities the "real America"? Who uses the very offensive "libtard' moniker? Of course one example doesn't make the other right, but this idea that people in rural communities are the poor victims of the disdain of we coastal elites is total bs.
It was a defensive statement, not an offensive one. Please do not take what I posted out of context as it is below. I don't believe I have ever used the words, New York values, real America or libtard to disparage. The irony is that the place I see this term slinging the most is in the MOL forums when someone doesn't have a good supporting argument, the personal attacks begin.
You have a right to believe that rural communities don't suffer and I have a right to ask not be called an ignorant hillbilly libtard real America New Yorker.
noseygirl99 said:
I think you will agree, that rural folks are the most likely to have toxic water, toxic soil, and so on, yet they are continually discriminated against by the majority of society. Does not this very discrimination feed into what we are now experiencing politically?
I disagree that rural folks are "continually discriminated against by the majority of society". Do jerks make comments about hillbillies, etc.- sure. But the things I've heard from Trump supporters about Hillary supporters are just as pernicious and nasty. And just as common-perhaps even more common. Who made the comment about "New York values" in the debate? Who calls their towns and communities the "real America"? Who uses the very offensive "libtard' moniker? Of course one example doesn't make the other right, but this idea that people in rural communities are the poor victims of the disdain of we coastal elites is total bs.
The mortgage interest deduction is middle class welfare. And there is no reason to support one form of residential arrangement (ownership) over another (rental). Better to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction and lop a percent or two (or whatever makes it revenue neutral) off the middle income tax rate
Disagree that the mortgage interest deduction is middle class welfare. I look at it as an incentive for further economic activity driven by the citizenry. If the middle class becomes a class of renters then it is likely landlords could stifle economic advancement or it will create an incentive for more government regulation (e.g. rent control, caps on rent increases, increased welfare housing).
Maybe 'low (or no) income housing is a better term(s)
ETA: I notice the point of my previous post was lost on you
@Gilgul
Tax policies, such as the mortgage interest expense deduction ("MIED"), support home ownership and this policy, IMHO, appears to be a pretty good goal and tax policy. I think you are stretching the word "welfare" when you apply it to the MIED (I would favor the term, "middle class home ownership tax benefit"). Finally, if the MIED will cause some to aspire to home ownership (who otherwise would not), then I think the policy goal is being accomplished.
Gilgul said:
The mortgage interest deduction is middle class welfare. And there is no reason to support one form of residential arrangement (ownership) over another (rental). Better to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction and lop a percent or two (or whatever makes it revenue neutral) off the middle income tax rate
RealityForAll said:
@Gilgul
Tax policies, such as the mortgage interest expense deduction ("MIED"), support home ownership and this policy, IMHO, appears to be a pretty good goal and tax policy. I think you are stretching the word "welfare" when you apply it to the MIED (I would favor the term, "middle class home ownership tax benefit"). Finally, if the MIED will cause some to aspire to home ownership (who otherwise would not), then I think the policy goal is being accomplished.
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Gilgul">Gilgul said:
The mortgage interest deduction is middle class welfare. And there is no reason to support one form of residential arrangement (ownership) over another (rental). Better to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction and lop a percent or two (or whatever makes it revenue neutral) off the middle income tax rate
MIED is terrible policy. It had the effect, among other things, of subsidizing suburban sprawl at the expense of our cities. Of course, who could say no to MIED at the time. It was part of our American ******** - home ownership and all that good stuff.
All economic analysis shows that there is no inherent benefit to promoting home ownership as opposed to rental. Other than home ownership with a mortgage being a form of forced savings, there is no economic benefit to owning a home over renting. The whole "if I rent I am throwing away money" argument is bunk. If you own a home you are throwing away tons of money in the form of interest, property, taxes, maintenance, etc. Nor is their any evidence to show that ownership communities are inherently more stable, secure or desirable compared to rental communities.
22 March, 2017, 1056 hrs. Tjohn is in agreement with Gilgul.
Gilgul said:
All economic analysis shows that there is no inherent benefit to promoting home ownership as opposed to rental. Other than home ownership with a mortgage being a form of forced savings, there is no economic benefit to owning a home over renting. The whole "if I rent I am throwing away money" argument is bunk. If you own a home you are throwing away tons of money in the form of interest, property, taxes, maintenance, etc. Nor is their any evidence to show that ownership communities are inherently more stable, secure or desirable compared to rental communities.
Duly noted.
tjohn said:
22 March, 2017, 1056 hrs. Tjohn is in agreement with Gilgul.
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Gilgul">Gilgul said:
All economic analysis shows that there is no inherent benefit to promoting home ownership as opposed to rental. Other than home ownership with a mortgage being a form of forced savings, there is no economic benefit to owning a home over renting. The whole "if I rent I am throwing away money" argument is bunk. If you own a home you are throwing away tons of money in the form of interest, property, taxes, maintenance, etc. Nor is their any evidence to show that ownership communities are inherently more stable, secure or desirable compared to rental communities.
Anyway, there was a time when politicians embraced government support for the middle class. I think that was before they realized that support for the rich would yield more campaign donations.
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Our amazing driving nanny is available for work.
Apr 28, 2024 at 8:05am
-
(NO FEES) Hire A Fresh Energetic Nanny/ Housekeeper Here ! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(No Fees) Hire A Baby Nurse Here for Your New Borns! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(NO Fees) Hire Housekeepers Here! ( 732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(No Fees) Hire Home Health Aides Here! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
Summer Private Speech Therapist
Apr 26, 2024 at 9:12pm
-
Apr 26, 2024 at 1:58pm
-
(Classic Painting and Materials) Fair Prices. Spring and Summer Specials
Apr 25, 2024 at 5:14pm
Help Wanted
-
Part Time help for special needs young adult
Apr 27, 2024 at 4:43pm
-
Apr 25, 2024 at 6:15pm
Lessons/Instruction
For Sale
Advertisement
DB, I think you have made my point. "Corporate welfare" is a catch-all phrase that is so pliable that it can mean anything.
If you do have a definition of "corporate welfare", then please share it with all of us. As I continue to be unclear of what the definition is.