Let's make commercials more expensive.

[Supposn]

Let's make commercials more expensive.

I'm a proponent for the tasks of selling, distributing, or purchasing electronic transmission time be “unbundled” from all other commercial tasks, and no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions.
[There's a precedent for such “unbundling”. U.S. Federal court required the International Business Machine Corporation to “unbundle” the sale or lease of their equipment from all of their other goods and service products].

This proposal would consequentially increase sales of print media's advertisements to the detriment of enterprises now selling advertisements transmitted electronically and to some extent may also increase TV cable and satellite prices.

Even wealthier shareholders will no longer appreciate their enterprises' electronic advertisements with substantially political purposes.
It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let's make commercials more expensive.

I'm a proponent for the tasks of selling, distributing, or purchasing electronic transmission time be “unbundled” from all other commercial tasks, and no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions.
[There's a precedent for such “unbundling”. U.S. Federal court required the International Business Machine Corporation to “unbundle” the sale or lease of their equipment from all of their other goods and service products].

This proposal would consequentially increase sales of print media's advertisements to the detriment of enterprises now selling advertisements transmitted electronically and to some extent may also increase TV cable and satellite prices.

Even wealthier shareholders will no longer appreciate their enterprises' electronic advertisements with substantially political purposes.
It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more.

Respectfully, Supposn

Reduce the wealthy's ability, and complete destroy the poor's chance of doing anything, ever. Bad idea.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's make commercials more expensive.

I'm a proponent for the tasks of selling, distributing, or purchasing electronic transmission time be “unbundled” from all other commercial tasks, and no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions.
[There's a precedent for such “unbundling”. U.S. Federal court required the International Business Machine Corporation to “unbundle” the sale or lease of their equipment from all of their other goods and service products].

This proposal would consequentially increase sales of print media's advertisements to the detriment of enterprises now selling advertisements transmitted electronically and to some extent may also increase TV cable and satellite prices.

Even wealthier shareholders will no longer appreciate their enterprises' electronic advertisements with substantially political purposes.
It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more.

Respectfully, Supposn

no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions.

Kind of like how Clinton made executive salary over $1,000,000 non-deductible?

How'd that work out?

It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less,

And why do we want to do that?

 

[dblack]

Let's make commercials more expensive.

I'm a proponent for the tasks of selling, distributing, or purchasing electronic transmission time be “unbundled” from all other commercial tasks, and no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions.
[There's a precedent for such “unbundling”. U.S. Federal court required the International Business Machine Corporation to “unbundle” the sale or lease of their equipment from all of their other goods and service products].

This proposal would consequentially increase sales of print media's advertisements to the detriment of enterprises now selling advertisements transmitted electronically and to some extent may also increase TV cable and satellite prices.

Even wealthier shareholders will no longer appreciate their enterprises' electronic advertisements with substantially political purposes.
It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more.

Respectfully, Supposn

Heil!

 

[Supposn]

Reduce the wealthy's ability, and complete destroy the poor's chance of doing anything, ever. Bad idea.

FrigidWeirdo, I suppose you could expand upon your post and better explain your point, or maybe you really couldn't. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[frigidweirdo]

Reduce the wealthy's ability, and complete destroy the poor's chance of doing anything, ever. Bad idea.

FrigidWeirdo, I suppose you could expand upon your post and better explain your point, or maybe you really couldn't. Respectfully, Supposn

I thought I wrote what I wrote clearly and concisely.

If you want it in more words, I can do that.

The rich have a lot of money. The poor don't have much money.

If you make a car and sell it for $10,000, poor people will be able to buy it, and rich people will be able to buy millions of these cars.

If you make a car and sell it for $1 million, poor people will not be able to afford this car, rich people will.

So, if you make advertising expensive, then the poor people won't be able to afford it, and the rich will.

 

[Supposn]

Reduce the wealthy's ability, and complete destroy the poor's chance of doing anything, ever. Bad idea.
////////
I thought I wrote what I wrote clearly and concisely.
If you want it in more words, I can do that.
The rich have a lot of money. The poor don't have much money.

If you make a car and sell it for $10,000, poor people will be able to buy it, and rich people will be able to buy millions of these cars.
If you make a car and sell it for $1 million, poor people will not be able to afford this car, rich people will.

So, if you make advertising expensive, then the poor people won't be able to afford it, and the rich will.

FrigidWeirdo, when was the last time you saw a Bodega commercial during the broadcast of a worlds series or a football regional championship game?

There's no general relationship between the unit prices of products and the reduction of taxable income due to purchasing electronically transmitted advertisements.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[frigidweirdo]

Reduce the wealthy's ability, and complete destroy the poor's chance of doing anything, ever. Bad idea.
////////
I thought I wrote what I wrote clearly and concisely.
If you want it in more words, I can do that.
The rich have a lot of money. The poor don't have much money.

If you make a car and sell it for $10,000, poor people will be able to buy it, and rich people will be able to buy millions of these cars.
If you make a car and sell it for $1 million, poor people will not be able to afford this car, rich people will.

So, if you make advertising expensive, then the poor people won't be able to afford it, and the rich will.

FrigidWeirdo, when was the last time you saw a Bodega commercial during the broadcast of a worlds series or a football regional championship game?

There's no general relationship between the unit prices of products and the reduction of taxable income due to purchasing electronically transmitted advertisements.
Respectfully, Supposn

Well, seeing as I don't watch TV, let alone baseball or football, I'd say never, but that doesn't mean anything.

Does it matter if there's no general relationship between unit price and product and anything else?

 

[Supposn]

... no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions. ... Even wealthier shareholders will no longer appreciate their enterprises' electronic advertisements with substantially political purposes.
It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more. ...

... Kind of like how Clinton made executive salary over $1,000,000 non-deductible? How'd that work out?

Toddsterpatriot, the cap of tax-deductible salary, which Bill Clinton proposed as a $1 million per year, was passed with the loop holes of not being applicable to performance incentives or exceeding specified goals. Surprise! Executive can exceed their company's friendly board of directors set goals or expected performance standards. Why would we expect otherwise?

I'm not particularly troubled by disparity of incomes. My concern is USA's federal minimum and median wages' purchasing powers lack of real improvements over the decades, and our chronic great annual trade deficits of goods in the last half-century.
We don't know how the deductible cap of a million dollar would have performed if it had been simply passed with no loopholes. I don't see how it would have made much difference, but it would not have harmed us. I never believed that income disparity was a problem.
Wealth's ability to buy elections is a problem.

It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less,

And why do we want to do that?

Why wouldn't we want to do that?
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions. ... Even wealthier shareholders will no longer appreciate their enterprises' electronic advertisements with substantially political purposes.
It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more. ...

... Kind of like how Clinton made executive salary over $1,000,000 non-deductible? How'd that work out?

Toddsterpatriot, the cap of tax-deductible salary, which Bill Clinton proposed as a $1 million per year, was passed with the loop holes of not being applicable to performance incentives or exceeding specified goals. Surprise! Executive can exceed their company's friendly board of directors set goals or expected performance standards. Why would we expect otherwise?

I'm not particularly troubled by disparity of incomes. My concern is USA's federal minimum and median wages' purchasing powers lack of real improvements over the decades, and our chronic great annual trade deficits of goods in the last half-century.
We don't know how the deductible cap of a million dollar would have performed if it had been simply passed with no loopholes. I don't see how it would have made much difference, but it would not have harmed us. I never believed that income disparity was a problem.
Wealth's ability to buy elections is a problem.

It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less,

And why do we want to do that?

Why wouldn't we want to do that?
Respectfully, Supposn

Wealth's ability to buy elections is a problem.

Too much freedom going on around here.

Why wouldn't we want to do that?

Because government interference in things that it shouldn't touch never has negative consequences. Durr.

 

[dblack]

Wealth's ability to buy elections is a problem.

Too much freedom going on around here.

Why wouldn't we want to do that?

Because government interference in things that it shouldn't touch never has negative consequences. Durr.

Todd, Supposn is representing the socialist point of view faithfully here. Their main beef with a free market is that wealthy people have more influence over society than government does.

 

[Supposn]

... This proposal would consequentially increase sales of print media's advertisements to the detriment of enterprises now selling advertisements transmitted electronically and to some extent may also increase TV cable and satellite prices. …

Even wealthier shareholders will no longer appreciate their enterprises' electronic advertisements with substantially political purposes.
It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more.

It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less; and why do we want to do that? …
… Because government interference in things that it shouldn't touch never has negative consequences. Durr.

ToddsterPatriot, it's worthwhile because wealth greater political advantage, (i.e. ability to purchase elections), would be somewhat reduced.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Todd, Supposn is representing the socialist point of view faithfully here. Their main beef with a free market is that wealthy people have more influence over society than government does.

Dblack, I no less and possibly more than you, am a proponent of independent participants within competitive equitable marketplaces. You're upset because we may differ as to how best achieve those goals.

But I don't accuse you of being opposed to democracy or proposing fascism.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... This proposal would consequentially increase sales of print media's advertisements to the detriment of enterprises now selling advertisements transmitted electronically and to some extent may also increase TV cable and satellite prices. …

Even wealthier shareholders will no longer appreciate their enterprises' electronic advertisements with substantially political purposes.
It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more.

It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less; and why do we want to do that? …
… Because government interference in things that it shouldn't touch never has negative consequences. Durr.

ToddsterPatriot, it's worthwhile because wealth greater political advantage, (i.e. ability to purchase elections), would be somewhat reduced.
Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, it's worthwhile because wealth greater political advantage, (i.e. ability to purchase elections), would be somewhat reduced.

Where does the Constitution say that the Federal government has the power to reduce the political advantage of wealth? Do you seriously think that raising the prices of TV commercials will reduce the ability of wealth to "purchase elections"?

Hillary spent twice what Trump spent and still lost.

Here in Illinois, Jim Oberweis wasted millions and millions of his own dollars and lost two primary races for the US Senate and one primary race for governor. He finally won a US House primary and lost in the general election, twice.
Couldn't purchase a single election.

 

[dblack]

ToddsterPatriot, it's worthwhile because wealth greater political advantage, (i.e. ability to purchase elections), would be somewhat reduced.

What do you mean by the ability to "purchase elections"? If you're talking about bribery and corruption, I'm down with fighting that. But it sounds like you're talking about people using their wealth to promote their values. You may think that's wrong, I don't.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, it's worthwhile because wealth greater political advantage, (i.e. ability to purchase elections), would be somewhat reduced. ...

Where does the Constitution say that the Federal government has the power to reduce the political advantage of wealth? Do you seriously think that raising the prices of TV commercials will reduce the ability of wealth to "purchase elections"?

Hillary spent twice what Trump spent and still lost.

Here in Illinois, Jim Oberweis wasted millions and millions of his own dollars and lost two primary races for the US Senate and one primary race for governor. He finally won a US House primary and lost in the general election, twice. Couldn't purchase a single election.

ToddsterPatriot, you're introducing three separate questions.

The Constitution also doesn't explicitly state that the government cannot require general political elections to be done by secret ballot, but our federal election laws and regulations purposes are to better assure our general elections are conducted in more democratically equitably manners.
/////

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.

The government has a right to do that providing the regulation has some reasonable purpose. Even a conservative composed Supreme Court would not likely strike down such a law passed by the U.S. Congress.
/////

The purchase of more electronically transmitted advertisement is not an advantage that guarantees success; but among otherwise similarly qualified candidates, the wealth to purchase more such advertisements is to a candidate's advantage. It's of some value to an otherwise less qualified candidate.
/////
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, it's worthwhile because wealth greater political advantage, (i.e. ability to purchase elections), would be somewhat reduced.

What do you mean by the ability to "purchase elections"? If you're talking about bribery and corruption, I'm down with fighting that. But it sounds like you're talking about people using their wealth to promote their values. You may think that's wrong, I don't.

DBlack, politics is how we reconcile our differences of opinions.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[dblack]

ToddsterPatriot, it's worthwhile because wealth greater political advantage, (i.e. ability to purchase elections), would be somewhat reduced.

What do you mean by the ability to "purchase elections"? If you're talking about bribery and corruption, I'm down with fighting that. But it sounds like you're talking about people using their wealth to promote their values. You may think that's wrong, I don't.

DBlack, politics is how we reconcile our differences of opinions.
Respectfully, Supposn

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, it's worthwhile because wealth greater political advantage, (i.e. ability to purchase elections), would be somewhat reduced. ...

Where does the Constitution say that the Federal government has the power to reduce the political advantage of wealth? Do you seriously think that raising the prices of TV commercials will reduce the ability of wealth to "purchase elections"?

Hillary spent twice what Trump spent and still lost.

Here in Illinois, Jim Oberweis wasted millions and millions of his own dollars and lost two primary races for the US Senate and one primary race for governor. He finally won a US House primary and lost in the general election, twice. Couldn't purchase a single election.

ToddsterPatriot, you're introducing three separate questions.

The Constitution also doesn't explicitly state that the government cannot require general political elections to be done by secret ballot, but our federal election laws and regulations purposes are to better assure our general elections are conducted in more democratically equitably manners.
/////

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.

The government has a right to do that providing the regulation has some reasonable purpose. Even a conservative composed Supreme Court would not likely strike down such a law passed by the U.S. Congress.
/////

The purchase of more electronically transmitted advertisement is not an advantage that guarantees success; but among otherwise similarly qualified candidates, the wealth to purchase more such advertisements is to a candidate's advantage. It's of some value to an otherwise less qualified candidate.
/////
Respectfully, Supposn

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.

If that case, since political campaigns don't pay income taxes, this would have zero impact on elections.

Let's make commercials more expensive.

Making them more expensive while not increasing the price, sneaky.
Are you a politician?

The government has a right to do that providing the regulation has some reasonable purpose.

Does the "reasonable purpose" also need a Constitutional basis?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, it's worthwhile because wealth greater political advantage, (i.e. ability to purchase elections), would be somewhat reduced.

What do you mean by the ability to "purchase elections"? If you're talking about bribery and corruption, I'm down with fighting that. But it sounds like you're talking about people using their wealth to promote their values. You may think that's wrong, I don't.

DBlack, politics is how we reconcile our differences of opinions.
Respectfully, Supposn

What is that supposed to mean?

I think it means you shouldn't criticize his silly idea.