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:
    43,495
    Thanks Received:
    5,550
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +22,633
    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.
     
  2. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,474
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +144
    Toddsterpatriot, Corporations do run ads with some political purposes. Candidates ads are not tax deductible items. Respectfully, Supposn
     
  3. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    43,495
    Thanks Received:
    5,550
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +22,633
    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.
     
  4. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,474
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +144
    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​

     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    43,495
    Thanks Received:
    5,550
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +22,633
    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.
     
  6. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    26,847
    Thanks Received:
    2,511
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +6,777
    Taking responsibility isn't the same thing as controlling people with coercive government. It's the opposite.
     
  7. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,474
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +144
    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
     
  8. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    43,495
    Thanks Received:
    5,550
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +22,633
    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.
     
  9. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,474
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +144
    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
     
  10. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    43,495
    Thanks Received:
    5,550
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +22,633
    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.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

azs

,

best cameras