Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-04-2016, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Free State of Florida
4,958 posts, read 2,237,693 times
Reputation: 5839

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
Obviously. In each case, the tax code is stepping in to alleviate negative consequences that would otherwise have been the responsibility of the individual involved. This is what SNAP, Section 8, and the EITC do as well. This is not to say that there are not valid reasons in any of these cases. But the simple facts are that these are all socially and politically motivated hand-outs, and hence all examples of welfare.
Respectfully, this couldn't be more wrong.

Losses are mostly indiscriminate. Most successful business owners fail, and manyfail more than once. You never, never want to deter risk-taking in business and discriminating against losses would do exactly that.

More importantly, taxes are based on earnings. Earnings can be offset by deductions and losses. Business often incur losses at startup (risk-taking) and expansion (again, risk-taking). Carrying losses forward is a valuable business tool, fair and really, the complete opposite of this:


Quote:
In each case, the tax code is stepping in to alleviate negative consequences that would otherwise have been the responsibility of the individual involve
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2016, 02:02 PM
 
10,743 posts, read 5,672,124 times
Reputation: 10873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
What has gone without understanding is the simple fact that all of this should be labeled as corporate welfare. This is the only point I have raised.
Is the deduction of cost of goods sold in the calculation of taxable income "corporate welfare?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 02:03 PM
 
4,224 posts, read 3,018,697 times
Reputation: 3812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Jasper View Post
Respectfully, this couldn't be more wrong.
Respectfully, you are only providing reasons why you think these welfare payments are justified. You are not at all addressing the fact that they are indeed welfare payments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 02:04 PM
 
10,743 posts, read 5,672,124 times
Reputation: 10873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
Obviously. In each case, the tax code is stepping in to alleviate negative consequences that would otherwise have been the responsibility of the individual involved. This is what SNAP, Section 8, and the EITC do as well. This is not to say that there are not valid reasons in any of these cases. But the simple facts are that these are all socially and politically motivated hand-outs, and hence all examples of welfare.
There is no handout. I'm only a little surprised that you don't understand that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 02:49 PM
 
3,925 posts, read 4,130,367 times
Reputation: 4999
$18.6 trillion debt divided by 215 million working population would required each of the persons ages 15-64, to pay $88,000, to pay off the debt.

The USA debt can never be paid off. Eventually the country will collapse AND BRING DOWN THE WHOLE WORLD but especially China which owns 10% of it. This is why China would never start a war with the USA, because we would simply nationalize their debt to us, and essentially wipe it out.

wHO OWNS THE DEBT?:

https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-...l-debt-3306124
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Free State of Florida
4,958 posts, read 2,237,693 times
Reputation: 5839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
Respectfully, you are only providing reasons why you think these welfare payments are justified. You are not at all addressing the fact that they are indeed welfare payments.

I'm not addressing the fact that monkeys have wings either, because in fact, they do not.

Welfare is a form of financial support given to those in need. Writing off a loss or carrying over a loss to diminish tax liability is not, by any definition, welfare.

Keeping as much of your earnings as possible is not, by any definition, welfare.

Now if you want to discuss the automotive and financial bail outs, then you're on to something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 04:11 PM
 
36 posts, read 26,297 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Jasper View Post
I'm not addressing the fact that monkeys have wings either, because in fact, they do not.


Now wait a minute! Monkeys do so have wings! I saw them carry Dorothy and Toto to the Emerald City!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Free State of Florida
4,958 posts, read 2,237,693 times
Reputation: 5839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockitman52 View Post
Now wait a minute! Monkeys do so have wings! I saw them carry Dorothy and Toto to the Emerald City!!
I stand corrected....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 05:25 PM
 
36 posts, read 26,297 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockitman52 View Post
I saw them carry Dorothy and Toto to the Emerald City!!
I have no idea if that could be considered "welfare", but I'm sure someone will weigh in on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Central IL
20,722 posts, read 16,372,564 times
Reputation: 50380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockitman52 View Post
The middle-class most certainly does NOT pay more taxes than any other group...

The top 20% of earners pay 86.8% of the federal income tax and 69% of all taxes. (Less of the total tax share because nearly everyone pays excise taxes, such as on gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes.)

The top 1% of earners pay 43.6% of fed income tax

The top 0.1% pays over 20% of the federal income tax

Meanwhile....

The lowest 40% "pays" -3.7% of federal income tax, but +4.2% of all taxes

And the "workhorse" middle class (middle 20%) pays 4.2% of income tax and 9.2% of all taxes


Source: Tax Policy Center


45% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch

Good! That is the point of progressive taxation. Poorer people must spend a much larger percentage of their income just to pay for the basics than the top % do. Those who are richer can AFFORD to pay more and so they DO. America did not collapse when there were 75% and 90% tax brackets....I don't think it will if we moved closer to that again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top