FACT: Tax Breaks are NOT Subsidies!

[akelch]

They are available to everyone.

OK, first of all, "domestic manufacturing companies" is not "everyone". And the tax break in question would in fact be a "Manufacturing Subsidy".

Putting that aside, however, "a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries"???

Are you kidding me? And you're complaining because people want that done away with?

Why would I have a problem with a company keeping more of the money they've already earned?

And there are tax breaks for every company and individual to take advantage of. They're still not subsidies, because the government isn't putting money in anyone's pockets that wasn't already there.

And if it was up to me? There would only be a flat tax on consumption. No more of this income tax and loophole nonsense.

Amen to that!!!

 

[Vast LWC]

Why the hell should I who have no children subsidize other people's children by paying more in taxes?

If you're for ending subsidies to businesses (I am) then you should want to end all other subsidies as well.

I have no issue with that... Just as soon as all the old bastards that took my tax money, all the years I was single, pay me back.

Actually, I take that back.

There needs to be an incentive to procreate. Otherwise we don't have a working base to support our asses when we retire.

 

[ilia25]

A subsidy is money a corporation receives from the government. In other words, taxpayer dollars going to a corporation.

So what? The bottom line is the same whether you call subsidy or tax break: the corporation is now has a million more, and the government has a million less.

It means that a tax break isn't a subsidy.

The point is that the effect of a million dollar tax break on the company and government finances is exactly the same as a million dollar subsidy.

And you're wrong, the government does not have "a million less."

It does have a million less that it would if there was no tax break or subsidy.

That money never belonged to the government in the first place. So they never lost anything.

Those semantics, true or false, are irrelevant to the bottom line.

 

[freedombecki]

These threads amuse me. Good let's have a bunch of uneducated amateurs with agendas and a vague grasp on the subject try to dissect complex issues and make the rest of us believe their notions. God bless the internet.

Shup, Mr. Brunswick. this is night sock class @ USMB University. It's fun!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why the hell should I who have no children subsidize other people's children by paying more in taxes?

If you're for ending subsidies to businesses (I am) then you should want to end all other subsidies as well.

I have no issue with that... Just as soon as all the old bastards that took my tax money, all the years I was single, pay me back.

Actually, I take that back.

There needs to be an incentive to procreate. Otherwise we don't have a working base to support our asses when we retire.

People have never needed an incentive to procreate. I have over 6 billion pieces of proof.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

FACT: Tax Breaks are NOT Subsidies!

I thought this was common knowledge but apparently it's not. Hopefully this thread will finally put this misconception to rest.

Sounds like you could use a "little" help.....​

January 9, 2013

Big Oil $ub$idy Flip-Flop​

"The oil and gas industry gets no subsidies, zero, nothing,” API President Jack Gerard said on Tuesday. “We get cost-recovery benefits, much like other industries. You can go down the road of allowing economic activity, generating hundreds of billions to the government, or you can take the alternative route by trying to extract new revenue from industry by increasing their cost to do business.”

Tax deductions are indeed subsidies, as API admitted in a document that labeled “subsidies for alternative fuels” as “preferential tax treatment.” And the oil industry’s $4 billion preferential treatment is written permanently into the tax code."

 

[boedicca]

I disagree with the OP. A tax break is a subsidy in that it does not treat all taxpayers equally. By providing a tax break to one taxpayer, a burden is shifted to another.

The fairest thing to do is a flat tax on all tax payers - same rate for everyone.

Period.

 

[Dragonlady]

Money that a company earns belongs to them. Being able to keep more of it via tax breaks does not constitute as a gift for that company.

Money I earn is not all mine. I owe a debt to my country for providing me with the safety and security I enjoy, the public school education I received, the roads I drive on, the water coming out of my taps, and the rights and freedoms I enjoy. The quality of my life is enhanced because I live in a first world country, with all of the advantages in life which that provides to me and to my family.

Living in a first world country also provides me with certain economic opportunities to work and improve my economic situation, and I am well aware that the costs of maintaining such a social infrastructure are enormous. I therefore have no problem with paying that bill when it is presented to me.

Large, profitable corporations do not exist in backwater third world countries. Investment in businesses in those countries is seen as risky. Mega-corporations thrive in modern, first world nations, but it costs a lot of money to maintain that infrastructure, without which, the corporation could not exist. A corporation's tax bill is it's share of the costs which make it's existence possible.

Conservatives fail to see the roll that government has in providing businesses with the infrastructure and economic climate they need to survive and thrive. Taxes are our share of the costs of that infrastructure.

 

[zeke]

This ain't very hard. Of course it's a subsidy. Because some lobbyist representing the company or companies in question, went to the Congress person who could influence a decision on taxes favorable to that particular company or groups of companies. The favorable tax treatment was made into tax law to return the favor to the corporations for the corporation(s) GIFT of funds to the politicians campaign coffer.

Thereby returning a gift with a gift. Making that favorable tax treatment a subsidy for those particular corporations.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I thought this was common knowledge but apparently it's not. Hopefully this thread will finally put this misconception to rest.

and Ronald Reagan raised taxes and said it wasn't taxes he was raising, it was revenue...

Reagan didn't raise taxes he raised revenue.

 

[boedicca]

Money that a company earns belongs to them. Being able to keep more of it via tax breaks does not constitute as a gift for that company.

Money I earn is not all mine. I owe a debt to my country for providing me with the safety and security I enjoy, the public school education I received, the roads I drive on, the water coming out of my taps, and the rights and freedoms I enjoy. The quality of my life is enhanced because I live in a first world country, with all of the advantages in life which that provides to me and to my family.

Living in a first world country also provides me with certain economic opportunities to work and improve my economic situation, and I am well aware that the costs of maintaining such a social infrastructure are enormous. I therefore have no problem with paying that bill when it is presented to me.

Large, profitable corporations do not exist in backwater third world countries. Investment in businesses in those countries is seen as risky. Mega-corporations thrive in modern, first world nations, but it costs a lot of money to maintain that infrastructure, without which, the corporation could not exist. A corporation's tax bill is it's share of the costs which make it's existence possible.

Conservatives fail to see the roll that government has in providing businesses with the infrastructure and economic climate they need to survive and thrive. Taxes are our share of the costs of that infrastructure.

Blah blah blah strawman strawman strawman. Are you by any chance related to Obama?

To address your idiocracy:

No Conservatives have said they are for complete anarchy. There is a proper role for government to provide for the national defense and general welfare. What progressive moonbats fail to grasp is that General Welfare means the things that benefit everyone (i.e. roads). It does not encompass transfer payment from one faction to another.

You also neglect that Corporations pass along All Of Their Taxes to their customers - and that the employees whose salaries they pay already pay an enormous amount of taxes.

 

[zeke]

I disagree with the OP. A tax break is a subsidy in that it does not treat all taxpayers equally. By providing a tax break to one taxpayer, a burden is shifted to another.

The fairest thing to do is a flat tax on all tax payers - same rate for everyone.

Period.

Not a fan of flat tax but agree with you on what a tax break is. If you or I had enough money to influence decisions by Congresspeople in our favor, of course any tax break we got for contributing to the congresspeople would be a subsidy for us. Corporations pay big bucks in campaign contributions to save bigger bucks by subsidies through Congress.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, you're wrong.

Money that a company earns belongs to them.

Not when they owe it in taxes.

They don't owe that money.

The government allowed them to keep that money (which was already theirs) via a tax break.

So they don't owe it to anybody.

When a tax is written into law by the representatives of 'the people' momey is owed.

Corporations and companies and people petition and lobby to get tax breaks...on taxes owed.

A break = a subsidy...unless of course you are a Reagan Republican and when Republicans raise taxes they aren't really raising taxes, they are raising revenue.

 

[boedicca]

I disagree with the OP. A tax break is a subsidy in that it does not treat all taxpayers equally. By providing a tax break to one taxpayer, a burden is shifted to another.

The fairest thing to do is a flat tax on all tax payers - same rate for everyone.

Period.

Not a fan of flat tax but agree with you on what a tax break is. If you or I had enough money to influence decisions by Congresspeople in our favor, of course any tax break we got for contributing to the congresspeople would be a subsidy for us. Corporations pay big bucks in campaign contributions to save bigger bucks by subsidies through Congress.

And that is why "Taxing The Rich" begins at the level of the Affluent Middle Class. The Truly Truly Rich (i.e., enough wealth to live off of one's investments without worry and with the ability to move tax jursidictions) have the wherewithal to lobby and receive tax indulgences. It's the affluent middle class that's stuck. And they are just the front line for the tax assault on the rest of the Small Folk.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yet a mother of 4 who gets her tax dollars back at the end of the year is classified as a leach.

No, the mother of 4 that pays 500 in taxes throughout the year and then gets 5000 back is a leach.
She uses the same roads, utilizes the schools that those paying for are not and has all the same protections that the rich guy does. The difference is that she expects them for free.

The point is that the effect of a million dollar tax break on the company and government finances is exactly the same as a million dollar subsidy.

Not really. When that tax break is less than the total tax burden, it amounts to the same. It does not, however, when the subsidy EXCEEDS the total tax burden. In that case, the government is actually paying the company or individual.

It does have a million less that it would if there was no tax break or subsidy.

See above

Those semantics, true or false, are irrelevant to the bottom line.

Again, it changes the bottom line when the total tax burden is not equal to the subsidy in question.

Money that a company earns belongs to them. Being able to keep more of it via tax breaks does not constitute as a gift for that company.

Money I earn is not all mine. I owe a debt to my country for providing me with the safety and security I enjoy, the public school education I received, the roads I drive on, the water coming out of my taps, and the rights and freedoms I enjoy. The quality of my life is enhanced because I live in a first world country, with all of the advantages in life which that provides to me and to my family.

Living in a first world country also provides me with certain economic opportunities to work and improve my economic situation, and I am well aware that the costs of maintaining such a social infrastructure are enormous. I therefore have no problem with paying that bill when it is presented to me.

Large, profitable corporations do not exist in backwater third world countries. Investment in businesses in those countries is seen as risky. Mega-corporations thrive in modern, first world nations, but it costs a lot of money to maintain that infrastructure, without which, the corporation could not exist. A corporation's tax bill is it's share of the costs which make it's existence possible.

Conservatives fail to see the roll that government has in providing businesses with the infrastructure and economic climate they need to survive and thrive. Taxes are our share of the costs of that infrastructure.

So what? That does not make it the governments money. A debt that is owed does not equate to outright ownership over another's work. In essence, that is the companies money. There is a debt that it owes the government in taxes. Lowering those taxes allows that company to keep more of its own money because said debt is lower.

I fail to see how this is complicated. You keep wanting to make it the governments money. It is not.

And that is why "Taxing The Rich" begins at the level of the Affluent Middle Class. The Truly Truly Rich (i.e., enough wealth to live off of one's investments without worry and with the ability to move tax jursidictions) have the wherewithal to lobby and receive tax indulgences. It's the affluent middle class that's stuck. And they are just the front line for the tax assault on the rest of the Small Folk.

And this is why the ONLY answer is a flat tax on all income earned. The liberals fail to understand that it is the very tax code they support that ensures people both stay poor and that the rich do not pay the 'fair share' that they keep wailing about.

 

[uscitizen]

The end result is the same more money in someones pocket.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bullshit. Money that a company owes in taxes isn't "already theirs" - by definition it belongs to the U.S. Treasury.

No, you're wrong.

Money that a company earns belongs to them. Being able to keep more of it via tax breaks does not constitute as a gift for that company.

The money is already theirs. The government isn't giving them money they didn't already have.

By definition, a subsidy would mean they're receiving money from the government. They aren't.

So no, tax breaks aren't subsidies.

Tax law gives the government a legitimate claim on that portion of a company's revenues to which the tax law applies. Therefore, no, it is not 'theirs'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, according to the OP's genius reasoning and conclusion,

all those people who've complained again and again about the subsidies going to solar companies are in fact full of shit,

because no such subsidies have ever gone to the solar energy companies.

Eh?

 

[tooAlive]

I disagree with the OP. A tax break is a subsidy in that it does not treat all taxpayers equally. By providing a tax break to one taxpayer, a burden is shifted to another.

The fairest thing to do is a flat tax on all tax payers - same rate for everyone.

Period.

Agree 100% on the flat tax.

And in regards to tax breaks being unfair? I don't know if I'd say that.. It's already unfair that higher earners have a progressively higher percentage.

 

[akelch]

I disagree with the OP. A tax break is a subsidy in that it does not treat all taxpayers equally. By providing a tax break to one taxpayer, a burden is shifted to another.

The fairest thing to do is a flat tax on all tax payers - same rate for everyone.

Period.

Agree 100% on the flat tax.

And in regards to tax breaks being unfair? I don't know if I'd say that.. It's already unfair that higher earners have a progressively higher percentage.

I understand the reason behind a flat tax..but again we are still taxing work and subsidizing non product behavior.
It is no wonder only 57% of the public work and earn a pay check.

We need to get rid of the income tax and all other taxes that are taken out of people's pay checks and institute a consumption tax. One rate across the board, no exemptions, no filing, and no evading.

The Fair Tax (HR 25)