Let's make commercials more expensive.

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

Did you misread my post?

So that would make cereal and beer commercials more expensive.

It would somewhat decrease the portion of donations to non-profit public services and charity organizations that are eligible as tax-deduction items.

Right. Because you feel some charity commercials are political.....or something.

It would reduce corporations' political influences

How?

 

[Supposn]

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

Did you misread my post?
So that would make cereal and beer commercials more expensive. ...

ToddsterPatriot, the proposal wouldn't cause increases of products' prices. It wouldn't cause increased prices for electronic transmission services, but because it's not tax deductible, it's more expensive per minute to the commercial purchaser. How individual commercial enterprises choose to react to the change in their commercial environment, is determined by them.

If the aggregate independent decisions among those competing vendors of similar products would be to reduce their prior volumes of electronic advertisement, and they didn't choose to increase spending for other media's, it would reduce their enterprises' expenses. If the volume of such expenditures were more due to competitive pressures rather than actually realizing of additional sales, that industry would enjoy aggregate expense reductions with no comparable loss of sales.
If within the same conditions, their aggregate decisions instead were to retain their advertising budgets, but shift their media "mix", their aggregate expenses and sales volumes would likely remain the same.

If due to competitive pressures, their aggregate advertising budget would be increased, it's not unlikely that increased sales and economies of production, (i.e. lesser per unit costs due to mass goods or service productions), may not justify the increased aggregate advertisement budgets driven only due to competition. In that case, they'd have to make do with aggregate lesser profit margins. That same competition would restrain their products price increases.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

It would somewhat decrease the portion of donations to non-profit public services and charity organizations that are eligible as tax-deduction items.

Right. Because you feel some charity commercials are political.....or something. ...

Toddsterpatriot, no, because a democratic republic tries as best we can, to keep our government policies equitable.
As in the PETA example, non-profit public service, or religious, or charity advertisements can be no less political.

The purpose of all advertising is to exert influence upon the audience, and any advertisement may (in someone's opinion) be undesirable and/or political, and/or inequitable.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

It would reduce corporations' political influences.
How?

Toddsterpatriot, because shareholders would be much less tolerant of their enterprises' political advertisements, (even when they agree with the statements), if the advertisements are paid for with post taxed dollars.

If that's the case, there'd be much less spent for electronically transmitting such advertisements.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Did you misread my post?
So that would make cereal and beer commercials more expensive. ...

ToddsterPatriot, the proposal wouldn't cause increases of products' prices. It wouldn't cause increased prices for electronic transmission services, but because it's not tax deductible, it's more expensive per minute to the commercial purchaser. How individual commercial enterprises choose to react to the change in their commercial environment, is determined by them.

If the aggregate independent decisions among those competing vendors of similar products would be to reduce their prior volumes of electronic advertisement, and they didn't choose to increase spending for other media's, it would reduce their enterprises' expenses. If the volume of such expenditures were more due to competitive pressures rather than actually realizing of additional sales, that industry would enjoy aggregate expense reductions with no comparable loss of sales.
If within the same conditions, their aggregate decisions instead were to retain their advertising budgets, but shift their media "mix", their aggregate expenses and sales volumes would likely remain the same.

If due to competitive pressures, their aggregate advertising budget would be increased, it's not unlikely that increased sales and economies of production, (i.e. lesser per unit costs due to mass goods or service productions), may not justify the increased aggregate advertisement budgets driven only due to competition. In that case, they'd have to make do with aggregate lesser profit margins. That same competition would restrain their products price increases.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, the proposal wouldn't cause increases of products' prices.

Is English your second language?
Where did I say it would?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It would reduce corporations' political influences.
How?

Toddsterpatriot, because shareholders would be much less tolerant of their enterprises' political advertisements, (even when they agree with the statements), if the advertisements are paid for with post taxed dollars.

If that's the case, there'd be much less spent for electronically transmitting such advertisements.
Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterpatriot, because shareholders would be much less tolerant of their enterprises' political advertisements, (even when they agree with the statements), if the advertisements are paid for with post taxed dollars.

Corporations can't run political ads.
Candidates ads would be unaffected.

Your idea is silly. It's a solution to fix a non-existent problem.
It's none of the government's business that corporations run ads.
Stop trying to limit speech.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It would somewhat decrease the portion of donations to non-profit public services and charity organizations that are eligible as tax-deduction items.

Right. Because you feel some charity commercials are political.....or something. ...

Toddsterpatriot, no, because a democratic republic tries as best we can, to keep our government policies equitable.
As in the PETA example, non-profit public service, or religious, or charity advertisements can be no less political.

The purpose of all advertising is to exert influence upon the audience, and any advertisement may (in someone's opinion) be undesirable and/or political, and/or inequitable.

Respectfully, Supposn

The purpose of all advertising is to exert influence upon the audience, and any advertisement may (in someone's opinion) be undesirable and/or political, and/or inequitable.

You know what they say about opinions.

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, because shareholders would be much less tolerant of their enterprises' political advertisements, (even when they agree with the statements), if the advertisements are paid for with post taxed dollars.

... Corporations can't run political ads. ...

ToddsterPatriot, I clearly remember General Electric's adds when Ronald Reagan was their spokesman. They were then preaching political concepts. I remember many similar adds by the Exxon corporation. They were substantially political advertisement for which their purchasers receive the benefits of reducing the portions of their incomes subject to taxes. They were effectively government subsidy of political advertisements.

I seldom now watch television or listen to the radio, but I have good reason to believe such advertisements are not less common today. I don't believe you can devise a legal, and objective, and effective law to actually prevent such partisan concepts from being propagated. The most grievous, (and the most effective) of such advertisements are electronically transmitted.
Fortunately, they're transmitted through a media that's subject to federal regulation. Since it's impractical to parse and outlaw partisan transmissions, the best we can do is to “unbundle" the prices for electronic transmissions of signals from all other commercial charges and deny tax-deductions for purchasing any electronic transmission service.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, because shareholders would be much less tolerant of their enterprises' political advertisements, (even when they agree with the statements), if the advertisements are paid for with post taxed dollars.

... Corporations can't run political ads. ...

ToddsterPatriot, I clearly remember General Electric's adds when Ronald Reagan was their spokesman. They were then preaching political concepts. I remember many similar adds by the Exxon corporation. They were substantially political advertisement for which their purchasers receive the benefits of reducing the portions of their incomes subject to taxes. They were effectively government subsidy of political advertisements.

I seldom now watch television or listen to the radio, but I have good reason to believe such advertisements are not less common today. I don't believe you can devise a legal, and objective, and effective law to actually prevent such partisan concepts from being propagated. The most grievous, (and the most effective) of such advertisements are electronically transmitted.
Fortunately, they're transmitted through a media that's subject to federal regulation. Since it's impractical to parse and outlaw partisan transmissions, the best we can do is to “unbundle" the prices for electronic transmissions of signals from all other commercial charges and deny tax-deductions for purchasing any electronic transmission service.

Respectfully, Supposn

I clearly remember General Electric's adds when Ronald Reagan was their spokesman. They were then preaching political concepts. I remember many similar adds by the Exxon corporation

Oh my goodness, free speech!
There oughta be a law, eh comrade?

They were effectively government subsidy of political advertisements

Sorry, the government doesn't subsidize ads.

I don't believe you can devise a legal, and objective, and effective law to actually prevent such partisan concepts from being propagated.

Can't stop freedom, and it eats you up.

 

[Supposn]

Sorry, the government doesn't subsidize ads.
Can't stop freedom, and it eats you up.

Toddsterpatriot, I no less than you am a proponent of free speech, but individual's free speech shouldn't be at financial cost to us all. Individual sponsors can say pretty much whatever they please over electronic messages transmitted through public spaces; (they're prohibited from inciting a riot). The costs of message transmission should where feasible, be borne by those sponsoring the speech, rather than at cost to all of us.
I'm opposed to government subsidized electronically transmitted free speech that we all must pay for. It's not necessary for us all to subsidize the price of transmitting individual sponsors' electronically transmitted speeches.
.
Regardless of your opinion, commercial advertisements are subsidized. Reduction of sponsors' taxable-incomes are subsidies of those advertisements. There's no feasible method to parse messages of some political purpose, from all messages.

Government subsidizing political messages are less a promotion of free speech, and more a threat to the concept of a democratic republic form of government.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, the government doesn't subsidize ads.
Can't stop freedom, and it eats you up.

Toddsterpatriot, I no less than you am a proponent of free speech, but individual's free speech shouldn't be at financial cost to us all. Individual sponsors can say pretty much whatever they please over electronic messages transmitted through public spaces; (they're prohibited from inciting a riot). The costs of message transmission should where feasible, be borne by those sponsoring the speech, rather than at cost to all of us.
I'm opposed to government subsidized electronically transmitted free speech that we all must pay for. It's not necessary for us all to subsidize the price of transmitting individual sponsors' electronically transmitted speeches.
.
Regardless of your opinion, commercial advertisements are subsidized. Reduction of sponsors' taxable-incomes are subsidies of those advertisements. There's no feasible method to parse messages of some political purpose, from all messages.

Government subsidized political messages are less a promotion of free speech, and more a threat to the concept of a democratic republic form of government.

Respectfully, Supposn

I no less than you am a proponent of free speech,

Baloney.

but individual's free speech shouldn't be at financial cost to us all

Commercials don't cost you a thing.

I'm opposed to government subsidized electronically transmitted free speech that we all must pay for.

If you have any examples of the government writing checks to pay for commercials, post them.

It's not necessary for us all to subsidize the price of transmitting individual sponsors' electronically transmitted speeches.​

That's good, because we're not.​

​

Reduction of sponsors' taxable-incomes are subsidies of those advertisements.​

Baloney.​

​

There's no feasible method to parse messages of some political purpose, from all messages.​

You're the grumpy old man, shaking your cane at the TV every time a commercial comes on.
​

Government subsidized political messages are less a promotion of free speech, and more a threat to the concept of a democratic republic form of government.​

I get it, you don't like free speech. Too bad.​

 

[Supposn]

Corporations can't run political ads.
Candidates ads would be unaffected. ...

Toddsterpatriot, Corporations do run ads with some political purposes. Candidates ads are not tax deductible items. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporations can't run political ads.
Candidates ads would be unaffected. ...

Toddsterpatriot, Corporations do run ads with some political purposes. Candidates ads are not tax deductible items. Respectfully, Supposn

Corporations do run ads with some political purposes

Corporations do not run ads to vote for or against a candidate.
Anything else is just free speech.

Candidates ads are not tax deductible items.

Which is why your "idea" doesn't impact candidate ads.

Wealth's ability to buy elections is a problem.

People's ability to do what they want is a problem.

 

[Supposn]

I no less than you am a proponent of free speech,

Baloney.

but individual's free speech shouldn't be at financial cost to us all

Commercials don't cost you a thing.

I'm opposed to government subsidized electronically transmitted free speech that we all must pay for.

If you have any examples of the government writing checks to pay for commercials, post them.

It's not necessary for us all to subsidize the price of transmitting individual sponsors' electronically transmitted speeches.

That's good, because we're not.
Reduction of sponsors' taxable-incomes are subsidies of those advertisements.

Baloney.
There's no feasible method to parse messages of some political purpose, from all messages.

You're the grumpy old man, shaking your cane at the TV every time a commercial comes on.

Government subsidized political messages are less a promotion of free speech, and more a threat to the concept of a democratic republic form of government.

I get it, you don't like free speech. Too bad.​

We get it. Right wingers always preach individual's should take financial responsibility for their decisions … until we want right wingers to take financial responsibility for their decisions.
Respectfully, Supposn​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I no less than you am a proponent of free speech,

Baloney.

but individual's free speech shouldn't be at financial cost to us all

Commercials don't cost you a thing.

I'm opposed to government subsidized electronically transmitted free speech that we all must pay for.

If you have any examples of the government writing checks to pay for commercials, post them.

It's not necessary for us all to subsidize the price of transmitting individual sponsors' electronically transmitted speeches.

That's good, because we're not.
Reduction of sponsors' taxable-incomes are subsidies of those advertisements.

Baloney.
There's no feasible method to parse messages of some political purpose, from all messages.

You're the grumpy old man, shaking your cane at the TV every time a commercial comes on.

Government subsidized political messages are less a promotion of free speech, and more a threat to the concept of a democratic republic form of government.

I get it, you don't like free speech. Too bad.​

We get it. Right wingers always preach individual's should take financial responsibility for their decisions … until we want right wingers to take financial responsibility for their decisions.
Respectfully, Supposn​

Stop trying to limit free speech.
Nobody is asking the government to pay for their commercial.
You don't like one, turn it off or buy one taking the position you support.

The government isn't subsidizing Kellogg when a cereal commercial is broadcast.
Get a clue.

 

[dblack]

We get it. Right wingers always preach individual's should take financial responsibility for their decisions … until we want right wingers to take financial responsibility for their decisions.

Taking responsibility isn't the same thing as controlling people with coercive government. It's the opposite.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, commercial entities which directly or indirectly sponsored electronically transmitted advertisements in the USA, itemized their expenditures as items to reduce their enterprises' taxable incomes. Thus, such items reduce our governments' revenues. That's in effect government subsidy of those commercial expenditures.

Advertisements' purposes are to influence their audiences. Commercials with no mention of political persons or organizations' names can and sometimes do serve political purposes. Many commercial expenditures for electronically transmitted commercials also had some more or less political purposes, but they were deemed eligible and treated as tax-deductible items.

Your contending no electronically transmitted corporate advertisements can have some political purpose, is nonsensical.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, commercial entities which directly or indirectly sponsored electronically transmitted advertisements in the USA, itemized their expenditures as items to reduce their enterprises' taxable incomes. Thus, such items reduce our governments' revenues. That's in effect government subsidy of those commercial expenditures.

Advertisements' purposes are to influence their audiences. Commercials with no mention of political persons or organizations' names can and sometimes do serve political purposes. Many commercial expenditures for electronically transmitted commercials also had some more or less political purposes, but they were deemed eligible and treated as tax-deductible items.

Your contending no electronically transmitted corporate advertisements can have some political purpose, is nonsensical.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, commercial entities which directly or indirectly sponsored electronically transmitted advertisements in the USA, itemized their expenditures as items to reduce their enterprises' taxable incomes.

Are you saying that corporations deduct expenses from revenues in order to calculate profit?
I'll alert the media.

Thus, such items reduce our governments' revenues. That's in effect government subsidy of those commercial expenditures.​

Nope. Deducting an expense is not a subsidy.
​

A subsidy takes the form of a payment, provided directly or indirectly, which provides a concession to the receiving individual or business entity. Subsidies are generally seen as a privileged type of financial aid, as they lessen an associated burden that was previously levied against the receiver, or promote a particular action by providing financial support.

A subsidy typically supports particular sectors of a nation’s economy. It can assist struggling industries by lowering the burdens placed on them, or encourage new developments by providing financial support for the endeavors. Often, these areas are not being effectively supported through the actions of the general economy, or may be undercut by activities in rival economies.

Subsidy

Advertisements' purposes are to influence their audiences.

Damn right.

Commercials with no mention of political persons or organizations' names can and sometimes do serve political purposes.

Darn First Amendment.

Your contending no electronically transmitted corporate advertisements can have some political purpose, is nonsensical.

Your contention that commercials should be taxable is nonsensical.

 

[Supposn]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp
A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ToddsterPatriot, deducting an expense from taxable income is certainly a government subsidy.

I'm among those objecting to government's subsidizing electronically transmitted commercials for political purposes. Since it's not feasible to parse political from those of all other advertisements' purposes, we propose government not subsidize any electronically transmitted advertisements.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp
A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ToddsterPatriot, deducting an expense from taxable income is certainly a government subsidy.

I'm among those objecting to government's subsidizing electronically transmitted commercials for political purposes. Since it's not feasible to parse political from those of all other advertisements' purposes, we propose government not subsidize any electronically transmitted advertisements.

Respectfully, Supposn

A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction.

And something "given" to every business....isn't a subsidy.

ToddsterPatriot, deducting an expense from taxable income is certainly a government subsidy.

So, Kellogg gets to deduct the cost their corn purchases before determining their cereal profit...…

and that means the government is subsidizing the cereal business?

It's nice to see your ignorance of economics isn't limited to suggestions about trade.

Since it's not feasible to parse political from those of all other advertisements' purposes, we propose government not subsidize any electronically transmitted advertisements.​

Yes, your idea to limit free speech was examined and found wanting. ​