- Thread starter
- #21
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]
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.
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
Last edited: