Let's make commercials more expensive.

[Supposn]

QUOTE="Supposn, post: 20631147, member: 20145"]... This proposal does not increase the price of TV commercials; it denies reduction of taxable incomes based upon purchases of electronically transmitted message duration of times or of spaces within their consequential display screens. ...[/QUOTE]

If that case, since political campaigns don't pay income taxes, this would have zero impact on elections. ...
... Making them,[i.e.commercials], more expensive while not increasing the price, sneaky.
Are you a politician? ... Does the "reasonable purpose" also need a Constitutional basis?

I 'm not a professional politician and I've never been politically appointed or elected to a government office. I'm among those that believe enactment of the proposal would affect future elections. Direct contributors to political parties or campaigns do not now benefit by tax deductions and thus would not be affected.

Dependent upon how the regulations are drafted, contributors to tax-free charitable or public service organizations that pay for electronically transmitted advertisements will lose some portion of the tax deduction that's now currently available to them. I would suppose the portion of their lost tax deduction would be proportional to the proportion of the organizations' revenues spent for electronically transmitted advertisements.

The proposal makes all electronically transmitted advertisements more expensive to their purchasers if they would otherwise have been able to reduce their taxable incomes due to those purchases. Electronically transmitted advertisements are more commonly purchased by wealthier enterprises and some advertisements also have a political purpose. The proposal does not affect prices but does make electronically transmitted advertisements more costly to their purchasers.

Regardless of an act's purpose, it may not be contrary to the U.S. Constitution.​

Respectfully, Supposn​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If that case, since political campaigns don't pay income taxes, this would have zero impact on elections. ...
... Making them,[i.e.commercials], more expensive while not increasing the price, sneaky.
Are you a politician? ... Does the "reasonable purpose" also need a Constitutional basis?

I 'm not a professional politician and I've never been politically appointed or elected to a government office. I'm among those that believe enactment of the proposal would affect future elections. Direct contributors to political parties or campaigns do not now benefit by tax deductions and thus would not be affected.

Dependent upon how the regulations are drafted, contributors to tax-free charitable or public service organizations that pay for electronically transmitted advertisements will lose some portion of the tax deduction that's now currently available to them. I would suppose the portion of their lost tax deduction would be proportional to the proportion of the organizations' revenues spent for electronically transmitted advertisements.

The proposal makes all electronically transmitted advertisements more expensive to their purchasers if they would otherwise have been able to reduce their taxable incomes due to those purchases. Electronically transmitted advertisements are more commonly purchased by wealthier enterprises and some advertisements also have a political purpose. The proposal does not affect prices but does make electronically transmitted advertisements more costly to their purchasers.

Regardless of an act's purpose, it may not be contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
Respectfully, Supposn

I'm among those that believe enactment of the proposal would affect future elections.

Your intention is to make all commercials more expensive or only political commercials?

Dependent upon how the regulations are drafted, contributors to tax-free charitable or public service organizations that pay for electronically transmitted advertisements will lose some portion of the tax deduction that's now currently available to them.

If I donate to PETA and PETA "is denied reduction of taxable incomes based upon purchases of electronically transmitted messages" how does anything change for me? For PETA?

The proposal makes all electronically transmitted advertisements more expensive to their purchasers if they would otherwise have been able to reduce their taxable incomes due to those purchases.

Not all of them. "Trump 2020" ad buys wouldn't be more expensive due to loss of deductions.

Regardless of an act's purpose, it may not be contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Regardless of an act's purpose, it may not be allowed by the U.S. Constitution.​

 

[rightwinger]

Let’s get rid of them entirely

 

[Supposn]

DBlack, politics is how we reconcile our differences of opinions.
Respectfully, Supposn

What is that supposed to mean?

DBlack, equitably conducted elections determining the persons that govern us are critical to the political process of our democratic republic. They're the persons that must reconcile our differences of opinions.

To the extent that they haven't been doing that, (i.e. there's little compromising or reconciling of our different opinions), our government is less well functioning.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[dblack]

DBlack, politics is how we reconcile our differences of opinions.
Respectfully, Supposn

What is that supposed to mean?

DBlack, equitably conducted elections determining the persons that govern us are critical to the political process of our democratic republic. They're the persons that must reconcile our differences of opinions.

To the extent that they haven't been doing that, (i.e. there's little compromising or reconciling of our different opinions), our government is less well functioning.
Respectfully, Supposn

Uh... ok?

I assumed you were responding to my post. My bad.

 

[Supposn]

Your intention is to make all commercials more expensive or only political commercials?

If I donate to PETA and PETA "is denied reduction of taxable incomes based upon purchases of electronically transmitted messages" how does anything change for me? For PETA?

ToddsterPatriot, Only a portion of your donation would be ineligible as tax deduction item.
All electronically transmitted advertisements that can currently reduce direct or indirect purchasers' or donors' taxable incomes would (in effect) become more expensive to their purchasers or donors.

Government cannot objectively and effectively determine what portion of an electronic transmission is of political character or purpose. (There have been and still remain some effectively unsuccessful attempts to limit or regulate wealth's ability to purchase advertising time and space for political purposes).

I suppose that PETA must now report their revenues and how they spend those revenues. Currently, your receipts for donations indicate your name, the IRS registered “PETA” name, the date and amount of your donation. They also may inform you of what revenues they reported to the IRS and how they spent those revenues.
If this proposal were enacted, I would suppose they would also inform you of the amount of your donation that may be eligible as a tax deduction. I would suppose the proportion of PETA's reported expenditures that are not reported as spent for direct or indirect purchasing electronically transmission time or the consequential output of those transmissions, would be the proportion of your donation that may be eligible as a tax deduction item.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

The proposal makes all electronically transmitted advertisements more expensive to their purchasers if they would otherwise have been able to reduce their taxable incomes due to those purchases.

Not all of them. "Trump 2020" ad buys wouldn't be more expensive due to loss of deductions.

Regardless of an act's purpose, it may not be contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Regardless of an act's purpose, it may not be allowed by the U.S. Constitution.​

ToddsterPatriot, what has President Trump now done? Donations to "Trump 2020" are now tax deductible?

If we believed the U.S. Supreme Court would certainly consider such an act as unconstitutional, we wouldn't be discussing this topic.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your intention is to make all commercials more expensive or only political commercials?

If I donate to PETA and PETA "is denied reduction of taxable incomes based upon purchases of electronically transmitted messages" how does anything change for me? For PETA?

ToddsterPatriot, Only a portion of your donation would be ineligible as tax deduction item.
All electronically transmitted advertisements that can currently reduce direct or indirect purchasers' or donors' taxable incomes would (in effect) become more expensive to their purchasers or donors.

Government cannot objectively and effectively determine what portion of an electronic transmission is of political character or purpose. (There have been and still remain some effectively unsuccessful attempts to limit or regulate wealth's ability to purchase advertising time and space for political purposes).

I suppose that PETA must now report their revenues and how they spend those revenues. Currently, your receipts for donations indicate your name, the IRS registered “PETA” name, the date and amount of your donation. They also may inform you of what revenues they reported to the IRS and how they spent those revenues.
If this proposal were enacted, I would suppose they would also inform you of the amount of your donation that may be eligible as a tax deduction. I would suppose the proportion of PETA's reported expenditures that are not reported as spent for direct or indirect purchasing electronically transmission time or the consequential output of those transmissions, would be the proportion of your donation that may be eligible as a tax deduction item.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, Only a portion of your donation would be ineligible as tax deduction item.

Why? PETA is a 501(c)(3).

Exemption Requirements Section 501(c)(3) Organizations | Internal Revenue Service

All electronically transmitted advertisements that can currently reduce direct or indirect purchasers' or donors' taxable incomes would (in effect) become more expensive to their purchasers or donors.

Thanks for admitting your "idea" would have zero impact on political ads.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The proposal makes all electronically transmitted advertisements more expensive to their purchasers if they would otherwise have been able to reduce their taxable incomes due to those purchases.

Not all of them. "Trump 2020" ad buys wouldn't be more expensive due to loss of deductions.

Regardless of an act's purpose, it may not be contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Regardless of an act's purpose, it may not be allowed by the U.S. Constitution.​

ToddsterPatriot, what has President Trump now done? Donations to "Trump 2020" are now tax deductible?

If we believed the U.S. Supreme Court would certainly consider such an act as unconstitutional, we wouldn't be discussing this topic.
Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, what has President Trump now done? Donations to "Trump 2020" are now tax deductible?

Nope. That's why your idea, " if they would otherwise have been able to reduce their taxable incomes due to those purchases" has no effect.

 

[Supposn]

... Government cannot objectively and effectively determine what portion of an electronic transmission is of political character or purpose. (There have been and still remain some effectively unsuccessful attempts to limit or regulate wealth's ability to purchase advertising time and space for political purposes). ...

... Thanks for admitting your "idea" would have zero impact on political ads. ...

ToddsterPatriot, if the proposal were enacted, the many electronically well-distributed transmissions of commercial advertisements which are also of some political purpose, would be among the commercial advertisements that (under current regulations) are now in practice being government subsidized.

The proposal will not prevent efforts to influence public opinion, but it does prevent government subsidizing the cost of purchasing the services to electronically transmit those messages.

Government's attempts to determine and "weed out" commercial messages which also have some political purpose have failed. Government cannot and/or will not effectively accomplish that task and they've been subsidizing those electronically transmitted advertisements.
Governments subsidizing the purchases of those comparatively expensive advertising transmitting services that are effectively influential and are more affordable to wealthier entities, affect our elections and the governing of our democratic republic.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Government cannot objectively and effectively determine what portion of an electronic transmission is of political character or purpose. (There have been and still remain some effectively unsuccessful attempts to limit or regulate wealth's ability to purchase advertising time and space for political purposes). ...

... Thanks for admitting your "idea" would have zero impact on political ads. ...

ToddsterPatriot, if the proposal were enacted, the many electronically well-distributed transmissions of commercial advertisements which are also of some political purpose, would be among the commercial advertisements that (under current regulations) are now in practice being government subsidized.

The proposal will not prevent efforts to influence public opinion, but it does prevent government subsidizing the cost of purchasing the services to electronically transmit those messages.

Government's attempts to determine and "weed out" commercial messages which also have some political purpose have failed. Government cannot and/or will not effectively accomplish that task and they've been subsidizing those electronically transmitted advertisements.
Governments subsidizing the purchases of those comparatively expensive advertising transmitting services that are effectively influential and are more affordable to wealthier entities, affect our elections and the governing of our democratic republic.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, if the proposal were enacted, the many electronically well-distributed transmissions of commercial advertisements which are also of some political purpose, would be among the commercial advertisements that (under current regulations) are now in practice being government subsidized.

Which categories of TV commercials would lose deductibility under your plan?

Be specific.

Government's attempts to determine and "weed out" commercial messages which also have some political purpose have failed.

Which ones should be "weeded out" that haven't been?

Why should the government "weed" them out? Under what Constitutional authority?

advertising transmitting services that are effectively influential and are more affordable to wealthier entities, affect our elections and the governing of our democratic republic.

Oh heavens! Rich people affect our elections.
Why are they allowed to do that? The Constitution clearly says they shouldn't.
Right?

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, if the proposal were enacted, the many electronically well-distributed transmissions of commercial advertisements which are also of some political purpose, would be among the commercial advertisements that (under current regulations) are now in practice being government subsidized.

Which categories of TV commercials would lose deductibility under your plan? Be specific. Which ones should be "weeded out" that haven't been? ...

... I'm a proponent for the tasks of selling, distributing, or purchasing electronic transmission time be “unbundled” from all other commercial tasks, and no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions.
[There's a precedent for such “unbundling”. U.S. Federal court required the International Business Machine Corporation to “unbundle” the sale or lease of their equipment from all of their other goods and service products]. ...

Toddsterpatriot, you mentioned that you are a PETA donor. To you and I, PETA may be a worthwhile charity, but to a furrier, or a mink rancher, or to many others, an advertisement promoting PETA is a political statement they're particularly opposed to.

I was particularly opposed to many Exxon and General Electric advertisements which I perceived as mostly political opinions. No one should have the power to determine to what extent an advertisement is or is not a political statement. But our government currently does attempt and fails to determine which advertisements based upon their content, are not eligible to be applied as commercial advertising time eligible as a tax reduction item.
This proposal is not related to expenses for signals contents, (i.e. writers, directors, artwork, actors), but the expenses of ALL directly or indirectly purchasing time durations of electronically transmitted signals, or those signals outputs that may be consequentially perceived, would not serve as tax-deduction items.
Under this proposal, the purposes of any electronically transmitted signals are inconsequential.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Oh heavens! Rich people affect our elections.
Why are they allowed to do that? The Constitution clearly says they shouldn't.
Right?

ToddsterPatriot, electronic transmissions through public airways or right-of-ways can be subject to federal jurisdiction.
Governments subsidizing the purchases of those comparatively expensive advertising transmitting services that are effectively influential and are more affordable to wealthier entities, affect our elections and the governing of our democratic republic.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, if the proposal were enacted, the many electronically well-distributed transmissions of commercial advertisements which are also of some political purpose, would be among the commercial advertisements that (under current regulations) are now in practice being government subsidized.

Which categories of TV commercials would lose deductibility under your plan? Be specific. Which ones should be "weeded out" that haven't been? ...

... I'm a proponent for the tasks of selling, distributing, or purchasing electronic transmission time be “unbundled” from all other commercial tasks, and no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions.
[There's a precedent for such “unbundling”. U.S. Federal court required the International Business Machine Corporation to “unbundle” the sale or lease of their equipment from all of their other goods and service products]. ...

Toddsterpatriot, you mentioned that you are a PETA donor. To you and I, PETA may be a worthwhile charity, but to a furrier, or a mink rancher, or to many others, an advertisement promoting PETA is a political statement they're particularly opposed to.

I was particularly opposed to many Exxon and General Electric advertisements which I perceived as mostly political opinions. No one should have the power to determine to what extent an advertisement is or is not a political statement. But our government currently does attempt and fails to determine which advertisements based upon their content, are not eligible to be applied as commercial advertising time eligible as a tax reduction item.
This proposal is not related to expenses for signals contents, (i.e. writers, directors, artwork, actors), but the expenses of ALL directly or indirectly purchasing time durations of electronically transmitted signals, or those signals outputs that may be consequentially perceived, would not serve as tax-deduction items.
Under this proposal, the purposes of any electronically transmitted signals are inconsequential.

Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterpatriot, you mentioned that you are a PETA donor. To you and I, PETA may be a worthwhile charity, but to a furrier, or a mink rancher, or to many others, an advertisement promoting PETA is a political statement they're particularly opposed to.

So if you feel a commercial is political I suddenly don't get to deduct my entire donation?

I was particularly opposed to many Exxon and General Electric advertisements which I perceived as mostly political opinions. No one should have the power to determine to what extent an advertisement is or is not a political statement.

But you're still determined to try.

But our government currently does attempt and fails to determine which advertisements based upon their content, are not eligible to be applied as commercial advertising time eligible as a tax reduction item.

Which ads does the government currently say are ineligible to write-off on a tax return?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh heavens! Rich people affect our elections.
Why are they allowed to do that? The Constitution clearly says they shouldn't.
Right?

ToddsterPatriot, electronic transmissions through public airways or right-of-ways can be subject to federal jurisdiction.
Governments subsidizing the purchases of those comparatively expensive advertising transmitting services that are effectively influential and are more affordable to wealthier entities, affect our elections and the governing of our democratic republic.
Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, electronic transmissions through public airways or right-of-ways can be subject to federal jurisdiction.

So cable commercials aren't impacted?

Governments subsidizing the purchases

But government doesn't subsidize the purchases.

are more affordable to wealthier entities, affect our elections and the governing of our democratic republic.

Yup. Freedom does that.

 

[Supposn]

So if you feel a commercial is political I suddenly don't get to deduct my entire donation?

But you're still determined to try [i.e. to determine to what extent an advertisement is or is not a political statement].

Which ads does the government currently say are ineligible to write-off on a tax return?

ToddsterPatriot, you continue to make this proposed government policy personal. Personal opinions, government official's opinions with regard to any particular electronically transmitted message is inconsequential with regard to this proposal.
The purchase of electronically transmitted service would not be a tax-deductible item and if such services are commingled with any other services as a single price, or if the price of the transmission service is dependent upon also purchasing anything else, no portion of those entire “bundles” would be tax-deductible.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So if you feel a commercial is political I suddenly don't get to deduct my entire donation?

But you're still determined to try [i.e. to determine to what extent an advertisement is or is not a political statement].

Which ads does the government currently say are ineligible to write-off on a tax return?

ToddsterPatriot, you continue to make this proposed government policy personal. Personal opinions, government official's opinions with regard to any particular electronically transmitted message is inconsequential with regard to this proposal.
The purchase of electronically transmitted service would not be a tax-deductible item and if such services are commingled with any other services as a single price, or if the price of the transmission service is dependent upon also purchasing anything else, no portion of those entire “bundles” would be tax-deductible.

Respectfully, Supposn

The purchase of electronically transmitted service would not be a tax-deductible item

Right. So that would make cereal and beer commercials more expensive.
It would make some charitable donations non-deductible.

It wouldn't do a thing to change political campaigns.

Now that you've had the flaws pointed out to you, do you still like your "plan"?

 

[Supposn]

[QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 20640589, member: 29707"
So cable commercials aren't impacted?

But government doesn't subsidize the purchases.

are more affordable to wealthier entities, affect our elections and the governing of our democratic republic.

Yup. Freedom does that.[/QUOTE]

ToddsterPatriot, cable commercials aren't impacted if the cable enterprise is not operating with a government franchise, or government provided right-of-way, and the cables are not passing over, under, or through public space, and the cable enterprise is not charging or passing through charges from another signal provider that is subject to these regulations. Lots of luck finding a loophole through all of that.

A deduction of taxable income based upon the price to the purchaser, effectively reduces the prices to the enterprises or persons benefitting from the reductions of their portions of incomes subject to the tax.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A deduction of taxable income based upon the price to the purchaser, effectively reduces the prices to the enterprises or persons benefitting from the reductions of their portions of incomes subject to the tax.

It would have been easier if you had simply admitted the government doesn't subsidize the purchases.

And stop messing up the quote function.

 

[Supposn]

Right. So that would make cereal and beer commercials more expensive.
It would make some charitable donations non-deductible.

It wouldn't do a thing to change political campaigns.

Now that you've had the flaws pointed out to you, do you still like your "plan"?

ToddsterPatriot, the proposal wouldn't cause an increase of any product's price.

It would somewhat decrease the portion of donations to non-profit public services and charity organizations that are eligible as tax-deduction items. The proportional reduction of each donor's contribution that may be eligible as a tax-deductible item, would be dependent upon the organization's proportional spending for electronically transmitting their advertisements.

It would reduce corporations' political influences, which in effect also somewhat reduces wealth's political influence.

Respectfully, Supposn