Let's make commercials more expensive.

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Supposn, Aug 20, 2018.

  1. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    42,402
    Thanks Received:
    5,353
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +21,609
    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?
     
  2. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,409
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +109
    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
     
  3. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,409
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +109
    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
     
  4. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,409
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +109
    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
     
  5. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    42,402
    Thanks Received:
    5,353
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +21,609
    ToddsterPatriot, the proposal wouldn't cause increases of products' prices.

    Is English your second language?
    Where did I say it would?
     
  6. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    42,402
    Thanks Received:
    5,353
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +21,609
    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.
     
  7. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    42,402
    Thanks Received:
    5,353
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +21,609
    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.
     
  8. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,409
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +109
    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
     
  9. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    42,402
    Thanks Received:
    5,353
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +21,609
    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.
     
  10. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,409
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +109
    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
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

azs

,

best cameras