Let's make commercials more expensive.

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more.

1) Is this a Constitutional principle/objective?
2) if a govt can concern itself with such utter trivial manipulation it would indeed be a totalitarian Commie govt empowerd to do whatever it wanted!
3) this is just one of 1001 Naziliberal schemes you support isn't it?

 

[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. ...

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

ToddsterPatriot, I admire your efforts to rewrite the English dictionary. If your successful, will you also go on to restructure the grammar of our language?
What word have you designated or created to replace “subsidy” as a description of our U.S. Department of Agriculture's supporting commodity prices?
Within current practices of our English language, recognition of an expense as eligible to be a tax-deduction item can be properly described as a government subsidy of that expense.

The subsidy we're discussing is not granted to every commercial. The qualifications for acceptance of an advertising expense are quite broad, but there are qualifying limits. As you pointed out, there are specific reasons for denying some commercials' eligibilities as tax-deduction items. Those reasons are extremely narrow, and thus very easily avoided. Deducting an expense from taxable income is certainly a government subsidy of that expense.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more.

1) Is this a Constitutional principle/objective?
2) if a govt can concern itself with such utter trivial manipulation it would indeed be a totalitarian Commie govt empowerd to do whatever it wanted!
3) this is just one of 1001 Naziliberal schemes you support isn't it?

it's a populist proposal and is constitutional. Responding to your offensive post of contradictions, I state the proposal fully supports both the principals and the explicitly written concepts of our democratic republic's constitution and its effect would contribute to the better retention of our constitution's purposes and concepts.

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. ...

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

ToddsterPatriot, I admire your efforts to rewrite the English dictionary. If your successful, will you also go on to restructure the grammar of our language?
What word have you designated or created to replace “subsidy” as a description of our U.S. Department of Agriculture's supporting commodity prices?
Within current practices of our English language, recognition of an expense as eligible to be a tax-deduction item can be properly described as a government subsidy of that expense.

The subsidy we're discussing is not granted to every commercial. The qualifications for acceptance of an advertising expense are quite broad, but there are qualifying limits. As you pointed out, there are specific reasons for denying some commercials' eligibilities as tax-deduction items. Those reasons are extremely narrow, and thus very easily avoided. Deducting an expense from taxable income is certainly a government subsidy of that expense.

Respectfully, Supposn

I admire your efforts to rewrite the English dictionary.

Pointing out your confusion doesn't require rewriting anything.

What word have you designated or created to replace “subsidy” as a description of our U.S. Department of Agriculture's supporting commodity prices?

Why would I replace subsidy when discussing an actual subsidy?

Within current practices of our English language, recognition of an expense as eligible to be a tax-deduction item can be properly described as a government subsidy of that expense.

You're wrong. Kellogg is not subsidized because they can deduct a legitimate expense.
Every cereal company is allowed to deduct the expense of their ingredient purchases, as well as their advertising purchases. Because everyone can do it, it's not a subsidy. If only cereal companies could deduct those expenses, then you could claim cereal companies were subsidized. If only Kellogg could deduct those expenses, then you could claim Kellogg was subsidized.

As you pointed out, there are specific reasons for denying some commercials' eligibilities as tax-deduction items.

Where did I point that out?

Deducting an expense from taxable income is certainly a government subsidy of that expense.

Read this again.....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.
​

Properly calculating profit is not a privilege or a concession. Those expenses have always been deductible.​

​

​

concession: a grant of land or property especially by a government in return for services or for a particular use​

​

Definition of CONCESSION​

​

privilege: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor​

​

Definition of PRIVILEGE​

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more.

1) Is this a Constitutional principle/objective?
2) if a govt can concern itself with such utter trivial manipulation it would indeed be a totalitarian Commie govt empowerd to do whatever it wanted!
3) this is just one of 1001 Naziliberal schemes you support isn't it?

it's a populist proposal and is constitutional. Responding to your offensive post of contradictions, I state the proposal fully supports both the principals and the explicitly written concepts of our democratic republic's constitution and its effect would contribute to the better retention of our constitution's purposes and concepts.

Supposn

It's a silly proposal to limit speech.
Rich people/rich corporations can spend more money on ads.
Resign yourself to that fact.