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.
We were only half-siblings so our upbringing only overlapped during summers and one year in high school. My high-school drop out half-sister was never in a position to raise kids but she had them anyway. At least she married the illiterate father of her kids.
Before you respond with "the kids shouldn't suffer for the actions of their parents", I will respond with "why not"? Stupid decisions should hurt. Maybe if there wasn't such a safety net then people would think farther than the what they are going to drink tonight.
The federal government shouldn't own any land outside of D.C. and I'm waffling back and forth on D.C. But they do own these forests and who else will build these roads? What type of leases are these companies paying the feds? Oil companies pay leases to drill and operate wells on federal land.
While we are on oil companies, are you referring to "tax breaks" and "incentives" as part of the normal costs of doing business? If not, please provide links.
So she made bad choices, people across all walks of life do it on a regular basis, the young are not always thinking clearly. I disagree that the child should suffer for them, otherwise you end up in a cycle of the same bad behavior. She is married to the father, are they happy is the home a good place, marriage is no assurance of getting those things.
The government owns the land to save it for future generations, you know National Parks and I am all for the idea of saving a few places where we do not develop and nature is allowed to flurish. Yes the lumber companies do pay some for the right to log, but why does the government put in the roads for them, free of charge, is that smart business, me thinks not especially when one sees the profits being made off OUR trees.
As for the oil business: Factbox: Big tax benefits enjoyed by oil companies | Reuters
The government owns the land to save it for future generations, you know National Parks and I am all for the idea of saving a few places where we do not develop and nature is allowed to flurish.
Why can't the states do it? There is NOTHING in the Constitution giving the federal government the power to set up national parks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
Yes the lumber companies do pay some for the right to log, but why does the government put in the roads for them, free of charge, is that smart business, me thinks not especially when one sees the profits being made off OUR trees.
Eve though I graduated from the college with the best forestry department in the nation, I have little knowledge of this industry. I see no reason why the government should build roads for them. None at all.
I read it. The oil companies are allowed to count drilling costs at an accelerated rate against income. It's simple accounting rules. When the House, Senate and Presidency was controlled by the Democrats, why didn't they change this?
Great article on how depreciation, labor and expenses are subtracted from income to determine profit. I still don't see any "subsidy".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
Why should a company get such breaks simply for doing what they need to do to run their business????
The same reason that Apple is allowed to count R&D expenses against income in determining profit. Same way Ford is allowed to count expenses of designing a new car against income in determining profit. I may not be a CPA but I have had both undergraduate and graduate accounting classes in college.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
I found that in less than 60 seconds.
Maybe you should take some time to find articles that don't explain standard accounting practices of an industry and have some real information on these supposed subsidies and tax breaks.
As long as the federal taxes are going to services that benefit every citizen equally then you will hear no complaints.
I am not advocating stopping welfare. I want it placed at the level that is appropriate for the Constitution. Put it back in the hands of the state. If your or my state doesn't have any power to redistribute wealth then it goes to the county or maybe even the city.
So you'll have city welfare and county welfare and state welfare too. Times 50. I can't see how that would make for less government.
Quote:
If your state wants high taxes and welfare then have at it but don't ask mine to pay. I also advocate for jurisdictional taxation. If a state, county or city wants additional money then they should come up with the sources for that money. I don't ask my neighbor to pay for my big-screen TV so California shouldn't ask me (and the rest of the people outside of the state) to foot half the bill for their high speed rail line.
You talk of lowering corporate taxes to allow for the lowering of prices, do you? And you are in business, your family is involved in several. Good for you, I wish I had that sort of drive: I'd be a richer man and money is nice to have. But I digress: what would you do if your business's taxes were all lowered? Judging from the above you don't strike me as the sort who'd pass those savings on to anybody. I get this sort of "I got mine, thanks suckers!" attitude from you. Why would Wal-Mart or whoever do anyone any favours?
Loafing is a man's free choice; charity is yours. A parasite, on the other hand, is a person who demands -- and what is more, who believes -- that others must provide for him what he cannot provide, or chooses not to provide, for himself.
People of fewer scruples now had the power to "vote themselves money" that is, to exploit the naive sympathy or noble sentiments of an entire community. So the modern parasite engenders a mass political movement for parasitism, citing the material abundance around him as evidence of injustice (unfairness). And just as the traditional, "private" parasite requires a rationalization for his behavior, consisting of excuses for his inactivity and sophistries to support his claim on the efforts of others, so the new, mass-movement parasite.
To plunder is to take by force what belongs to another man, and to do so knowingly. To anticipate slightly, we might contrast the traditional tyrant with the parasitocrat by observing that the former declares to his subjects, in effect, "You built that, and now I'm taking it," while the latter says, literally, "You didn't build that."
So you'll have city welfare and county welfare and state welfare too. Times 50. I can't see how that would make for less government.
States, counties and cities can have the OPTION of having welfare. If I am going to be governed, I want to be governed closer to home. Finally, if there are 50 states providing some type of welfare, then there will be 50 ideas on how to do it and not a "one size fits all" situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
You talk of lowering corporate taxes to allow for the lowering of prices, do you? And you are in business, your family is involved in several. Good for you, I wish I had that sort of drive: I'd be a richer man and money is nice to have. But I digress: what would you do if your business's taxes were all lowered?
My wife's personal business would be able to lower prices so that companies that can't decide to work with her will be able to finally make the "yes" decision. She would also invest in a pieces of computer equipment that would make her job much more efficient. For her family farming business, they could buy finally buy that tractor they have been needing for about 10 years. The John Deere 9R series start at $256,000 and go up to $416,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Why would Wal-Mart or whoever do anyone any favours?
It's not a favor. It's the ability to undercut the competition and get market share. You and your neighbor put up lemonade stands in your front yards. They put up a sign that says "Lemonade $1". Are you going to price your lemonade at $2 or 75 cents? Wal-Mart vs. Target is the same thing on a larger scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Judging from the above you don't strike me as the sort who'd pass those savings on to anybody. I get this sort of "I got mine, thanks suckers!" attitude from you.
You know me based on a few posts on a forum? That's awesome. Go to the library, read a single page of a book at random and then give me a plot summary. That's exactly what you did with me.
You presume that the Constiitution, AS WRITTEN, is morally legitimate. As a member of a class excluded from participation in its writing and ratification, I do not similarly presume.
So, explain this.
Provide the details. Tell us where the Constitution is morally deficient.
States, counties and cities can have the OPTION of having welfare. If I am going to be governed, I want to be governed closer to home.
The infrastructure, the offices, the system will have to be there for you to choose it as an option. But if being governed closer to home means you're okay with multiple layers of government all offering the same thing, that's your prerogative. I was just asking. Sounds redundant and needlessly wasteful to me, but okay.
Quote:
Finally, if there are 50 states providing some type of welfare, then there will be 50 ideas on how to do it and not a "one size fits all" situation.
I'm not sure how that's automatically better. If the federal government were to say "all you welfare systems shalt provide the following . . ." and left it up to each state as to how to go about it, that makes sense.
Quote:
My wife's personal business would be able to lower prices so that companies that can't decide to work with her will be able to finally make the "yes" decision. She would also invest in a pieces of computer equipment that would make her job much more efficient. For her family farming business, they could buy finally buy that tractor they have been needing for about 10 years. The John Deere 9R series start at $256,000 and go up to $416,000.
I don't disagree. Businesses would be able to lower prices. Businesses would be able to increase salaries. I don't think they would, though.
It's nice that your sister would be able to buy a tractor she has needed for the past ten years. I'm surprised its purchase couldn't be written off right now, but whatever, I'm an engineer and not a businessman. But how is buying a shiny new tractor she happens to need right now an example of the wisdom of trickle-down economics? Great, she's got a shiny tractor so can produce more in less time or pay less in fuel and make more money that way, hooray for her. But that's not what trickle-down economics promises.
And it's my experience that a business could lower prices to undercut competition and get those bids at any time. It's not taxes that determine these things.
Quote:
It's not a favor. It's the ability to undercut the competition and get market share. You and your neighbor put up lemonade stands in your front yards. They put up a sign that says "Lemonade $1". Are you going to price your lemonade at $2 or 75 cents? Wal-Mart vs. Target is the same thing on a larger scale.
Wal-Mart's low prices stem from their heavy-handedness in their purchasing decisions, and that power stems from buying in massive bulk from Chinese sweatshops and so on. It's not tax-based. You've oversimplified ridiculously. And argued that lower taxes could increase profits for businesses. Well, I know that. That's why big corporations want lower taxes. They don't want to pass the savings on to us, they're not going to pass those savings on to us, the premise behind trickle-down economics is flawed. I'm sure you like it, it increases your business's profits. But the line of bull we're sold on why corporate taxes should be lowered is because prosperity comes from the top and works its way down.
I don't see why taxes should be lowered just so as to increase your business's profits, frankly. Isn't it the market that's supposed to reward success in business? I'm sure lower taxes would be beneficial to your business, I'm just not convinced that's a good reason to lower them.
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.
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.
Awrite! Where's the line?
