Tax incentives are mandates

[Slade3200]

That's fine, you can have that opinion. Personally I think the less they take the better.

This is why it won't change. People can't see past the end of their noses and actually like being told how to live.

Then explain it for us simple folk, please.

I support lower taxes. I also support tax credits that the "people" aka our elected leaders decide promote initiatives that spur business growth, innovation and environmental safety... If my business can spend 20K less on taxes in return for developing a new product or installing some solar panels, then it is a win for my business. I win and my community wins.

So you think it's a good idea for the governemnt to take more in taxes than it needs so it can give incentive money to some people?

If all these government giveaways were gone the tax rates could be lowered for everyone

Well maybe Trump will get rid of all the credits and deductions when he drops the tax rates. Doubt it though.

Then explain it for us simple folk, please.

I support lower taxes. I also support tax credits that the "people" aka our elected leaders decide promote initiatives that spur business growth, innovation and environmental safety... If my business can spend 20K less on taxes in return for developing a new product or installing some solar panels, then it is a win for my business. I win and my community wins.

So you think it's a good idea for the governemnt to take more in taxes than it needs so it can give incentive money to some people?

If all these government giveaways were gone the tax rates could be lowered for everyone

I'd like to see the tax rate lowered for the poor, middle class and businesses and I also don't mind giving less in taxes for investing in my business or helping the community. I'd rather choose where to invest my money over giving it to the government.

Take Charity for example. If there wasn't a tax incentive for businesses and individuals to donate to charities, do you know how many charities would be out of business? Many of them... Given the choice to give to the government or invest in an individuals business or give to charity, most people choose the later options, which is a benefit to our communities. Why would you rather have the government collect more money and then waste it with their inefficient programs?

I disagree with you on charities so what if people give because they want to they shouldn't get an income tax break for it

get rid of all this crap and we'll be able to lower the tax rate across the board and people will have more of their own money to do with as they will

end result of your plan is a large percent of charities get shut down, innovation slows, start up businesses decline, and safety/environment initiatives go down... more money gets spent on consumer products resulting in china and the 1% getting even more richer.... our nation as a whole ends up being worse off.

when more people keep more of their own money it's always good for the country

why should we as taxpayers pay more than we have to subsidize anyone else with tax incentives

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

 

[danielpalos]

I'd just like to see a national consensus that the tax code shouldn't be used as a means of controlling people.

the right is Only right, twice a day on Any platform of "starving the Beast" by cutting Taxes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is why it won't change. People can't see past the end of their noses and actually like being told how to live.

Then explain it for us simple folk, please.

I support lower taxes. I also support tax credits that the "people" aka our elected leaders decide promote initiatives that spur business growth, innovation and environmental safety... If my business can spend 20K less on taxes in return for developing a new product or installing some solar panels, then it is a win for my business. I win and my community wins.

So you think it's a good idea for the governemnt to take more in taxes than it needs so it can give incentive money to some people?

If all these government giveaways were gone the tax rates could be lowered for everyone

Well maybe Trump will get rid of all the credits and deductions when he drops the tax rates. Doubt it though.

So you think it's a good idea for the governemnt to take more in taxes than it needs so it can give incentive money to some people?

If all these government giveaways were gone the tax rates could be lowered for everyone

I'd like to see the tax rate lowered for the poor, middle class and businesses and I also don't mind giving less in taxes for investing in my business or helping the community. I'd rather choose where to invest my money over giving it to the government.

Take Charity for example. If there wasn't a tax incentive for businesses and individuals to donate to charities, do you know how many charities would be out of business? Many of them... Given the choice to give to the government or invest in an individuals business or give to charity, most people choose the later options, which is a benefit to our communities. Why would you rather have the government collect more money and then waste it with their inefficient programs?

I disagree with you on charities so what if people give because they want to they shouldn't get an income tax break for it

get rid of all this crap and we'll be able to lower the tax rate across the board and people will have more of their own money to do with as they will

end result of your plan is a large percent of charities get shut down, innovation slows, start up businesses decline, and safety/environment initiatives go down... more money gets spent on consumer products resulting in china and the 1% getting even more richer.... our nation as a whole ends up being worse off.

when more people keep more of their own money it's always good for the country

why should we as taxpayers pay more than we have to subsidize anyone else with tax incentives

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Republicans were elected to repeal ACA, most especially the 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to buy federally approved insurance or pay extra taxes. But Republicans in Congress aren't about to betray their lobbyists. They're planning to "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives to achieve the same purpose - pushing as many people as possible into the pens of the insurance companies.

And our idiot citizenry will fall for it. They'll think that, somehow, calling it something different makes it OK.

That's a good point. Both cost a person more not to have insurance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Republicans were elected to repeal ACA, most especially the 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to buy federally approved insurance or pay extra taxes. But Republicans in Congress aren't about to betray their lobbyists. They're planning to "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives to achieve the same purpose - pushing as many people as possible into the pens of the insurance companies.

And our idiot citizenry will fall for it. They'll think that, somehow, calling it something different makes it OK.

Chuck Schumer still has veto power by the filibuster, and with his other 48 senators he and they will make sure ACA does not change.

So don't fret your cookies over this, Cupcake, not to worry.

The GOP does not get dictatorial powers until the People elect 60 GOP senators.

The GOP is still 9 senators short of that.

High school civics. You should have paid attention.

Now this is person is funny, and uninformed. The Dems can't stop anything, and the repubs can pass anything for the next 2 years.

Oh wait, wait, yios is correct, under the CONSTITUTION we had UNTIL Obama got elected, and the Democrats controlled all 3 branches of government from 08 till 10. But Harry Reid, Chucky Shumer, and Nancy showed HOW TO GO AROUND the constitution after they lost Ted Kennedy's seat.

We conservatives told you libs, don't do it, don't do it........... and you laughed, believing you would hold the Presidency until you could get YOUR KINDA Supreme Court justices in there; and besides..........no way, no, way, no freakin way, would the Republicans EVER have all 3 branches of government again, especially with the "shift in demographics."

OOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPs, little miscalculation there far lefties, since now you control NOTHING! (how did that happen, hehehehehehe) And now, YOU far leftists are going to get hosed by those same rules YOU used to put your whole agenda in for the last 8 years; but oh, we learned something from you for sure------------> we learned to pass LAWS, and unlike you overly confident fools did.....NOT use EOs because the next President can wipe them away with a stroke of a pen. Oh yes! And we learned with the new laws, AND 1 or 2 more of our justices sitting on the Supreme Court, you people will be in deep doo-doo to ever pull off again, what you did in the last 8 years.

Watch the laws that will be coming out rather quickly, and I betcha at least 1/2 of them are to neuter your people in unelected positions, from EVER passing laws without having to get elected again! Your MMGW initiative for at least 20 years will be DOA!

Have fun lefties, we are-)

You think the filibuster is gone? lol

 

[dblack]

Republicans were elected to repeal ACA, most especially the 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to buy federally approved insurance or pay extra taxes. But Republicans in Congress aren't about to betray their lobbyists. They're planning to "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives to achieve the same purpose - pushing as many people as possible into the pens of the insurance companies.

And our idiot citizenry will fall for it. They'll think that, somehow, calling it something different makes it OK.

That's a good point. Both cost a person more not to have insurance.

And both are designed to funnel money to the insurance industry - to keep them entrenched as middlemen in every healthcare transaction. Insurance is the single biggest problem with the health care market and both Republicans and Democrats are determined to prop it up and keep all of us on the treadmill.

 

[danielpalos]

A capital gains Tax incentive is a mandate to create Jobs Booms.

 

[danielpalos]

Then explain it for us simple folk, please.

I support lower taxes. I also support tax credits that the "people" aka our elected leaders decide promote initiatives that spur business growth, innovation and environmental safety... If my business can spend 20K less on taxes in return for developing a new product or installing some solar panels, then it is a win for my business. I win and my community wins.

So you think it's a good idea for the governemnt to take more in taxes than it needs so it can give incentive money to some people?

If all these government giveaways were gone the tax rates could be lowered for everyone

Well maybe Trump will get rid of all the credits and deductions when he drops the tax rates. Doubt it though.

I'd like to see the tax rate lowered for the poor, middle class and businesses and I also don't mind giving less in taxes for investing in my business or helping the community. I'd rather choose where to invest my money over giving it to the government.

Take Charity for example. If there wasn't a tax incentive for businesses and individuals to donate to charities, do you know how many charities would be out of business? Many of them... Given the choice to give to the government or invest in an individuals business or give to charity, most people choose the later options, which is a benefit to our communities. Why would you rather have the government collect more money and then waste it with their inefficient programs?

I disagree with you on charities so what if people give because they want to they shouldn't get an income tax break for it

get rid of all this crap and we'll be able to lower the tax rate across the board and people will have more of their own money to do with as they will

end result of your plan is a large percent of charities get shut down, innovation slows, start up businesses decline, and safety/environment initiatives go down... more money gets spent on consumer products resulting in china and the 1% getting even more richer.... our nation as a whole ends up being worse off.

when more people keep more of their own money it's always good for the country

why should we as taxpayers pay more than we have to subsidize anyone else with tax incentives

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

That is not the platform of the republicans.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you think it's a good idea for the governemnt to take more in taxes than it needs so it can give incentive money to some people?

If all these government giveaways were gone the tax rates could be lowered for everyone

Well maybe Trump will get rid of all the credits and deductions when he drops the tax rates. Doubt it though.

I disagree with you on charities so what if people give because they want to they shouldn't get an income tax break for it

get rid of all this crap and we'll be able to lower the tax rate across the board and people will have more of their own money to do with as they will

end result of your plan is a large percent of charities get shut down, innovation slows, start up businesses decline, and safety/environment initiatives go down... more money gets spent on consumer products resulting in china and the 1% getting even more richer.... our nation as a whole ends up being worse off.

when more people keep more of their own money it's always good for the country

why should we as taxpayers pay more than we have to subsidize anyone else with tax incentives

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

That is not the platform of the republicans.

I don't give a **** what the republican platform is since I am not a republican

 

[BluesLegend]

Republicans were elected to repeal ACA, most especially the 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to buy federally approved insurance or pay extra taxes. But Republicans in Congress aren't about to betray their lobbyists. They're planning to "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives to achieve the same purpose - pushing as many people as possible into the pens of the insurance companies.

And our idiot citizenry will fall for it. They'll think that, somehow, calling it something different makes it OK.

Chuck Schumer still has veto power by the filibuster, and with his other 48 senators he and they will make sure ACA does not change.

So don't fret your cookies over this, Cupcake, not to worry.

The GOP does not get dictatorial powers until the People elect 60 GOP senators.

The GOP is still 9 senators short of that.

High school civics. You should have paid attention.

Many votes in the senate only require a simple 51 vote majority, ACA can be strangled to death without a single Dem vote sorry.

 

[Slade3200]

Then explain it for us simple folk, please.

I support lower taxes. I also support tax credits that the "people" aka our elected leaders decide promote initiatives that spur business growth, innovation and environmental safety... If my business can spend 20K less on taxes in return for developing a new product or installing some solar panels, then it is a win for my business. I win and my community wins.

So you think it's a good idea for the governemnt to take more in taxes than it needs so it can give incentive money to some people?

If all these government giveaways were gone the tax rates could be lowered for everyone

Well maybe Trump will get rid of all the credits and deductions when he drops the tax rates. Doubt it though.

I'd like to see the tax rate lowered for the poor, middle class and businesses and I also don't mind giving less in taxes for investing in my business or helping the community. I'd rather choose where to invest my money over giving it to the government.

Take Charity for example. If there wasn't a tax incentive for businesses and individuals to donate to charities, do you know how many charities would be out of business? Many of them... Given the choice to give to the government or invest in an individuals business or give to charity, most people choose the later options, which is a benefit to our communities. Why would you rather have the government collect more money and then waste it with their inefficient programs?

I disagree with you on charities so what if people give because they want to they shouldn't get an income tax break for it

get rid of all this crap and we'll be able to lower the tax rate across the board and people will have more of their own money to do with as they will

end result of your plan is a large percent of charities get shut down, innovation slows, start up businesses decline, and safety/environment initiatives go down... more money gets spent on consumer products resulting in china and the 1% getting even more richer.... our nation as a whole ends up being worse off.

when more people keep more of their own money it's always good for the country

why should we as taxpayers pay more than we have to subsidize anyone else with tax incentives

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

Of course it is... how do you think we ended up on the moon? I'm not saying it's up to the government to dictate all economic activity... but it is their responsibility to keep private corporations in check and our economy working for the people. Business has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits, government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare of the people. Regulating business and supporting efforts that better our communities through grants and funding like tax incentives is fully within their duty.

 

[dblack]

So you think it's a good idea for the governemnt to take more in taxes than it needs so it can give incentive money to some people?

If all these government giveaways were gone the tax rates could be lowered for everyone

Well maybe Trump will get rid of all the credits and deductions when he drops the tax rates. Doubt it though.

I disagree with you on charities so what if people give because they want to they shouldn't get an income tax break for it

get rid of all this crap and we'll be able to lower the tax rate across the board and people will have more of their own money to do with as they will

end result of your plan is a large percent of charities get shut down, innovation slows, start up businesses decline, and safety/environment initiatives go down... more money gets spent on consumer products resulting in china and the 1% getting even more richer.... our nation as a whole ends up being worse off.

when more people keep more of their own money it's always good for the country

why should we as taxpayers pay more than we have to subsidize anyone else with tax incentives

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

Of course it is... how do you think we ended up on the moon? I'm not saying it's up to the government to dictate all economic activity... but it is their responsibility to keep private corporations in check and our economy working for the people. Business has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits, government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare of the people. Regulating business and supporting efforts that better our communities through grants and funding like tax incentives is fully within their duty.

I couldn't disagree more.The worst problem we face is the growing collusion between political and economic power.

 

[Slade3200]

Well maybe Trump will get rid of all the credits and deductions when he drops the tax rates. Doubt it though.
end result of your plan is a large percent of charities get shut down, innovation slows, start up businesses decline, and safety/environment initiatives go down... more money gets spent on consumer products resulting in china and the 1% getting even more richer.... our nation as a whole ends up being worse off.

when more people keep more of their own money it's always good for the country

why should we as taxpayers pay more than we have to subsidize anyone else with tax incentives

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

Of course it is... how do you think we ended up on the moon? I'm not saying it's up to the government to dictate all economic activity... but it is their responsibility to keep private corporations in check and our economy working for the people. Business has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits, government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare of the people. Regulating business and supporting efforts that better our communities through grants and funding like tax incentives is fully within their duty.

I couldn't disagree more.The worst problem we face is the growing collusion between political and economic power.

You are right, there are many problems and corruption that has resulted from the power brokers in Washington mixing with big money lobbyists. I dont condone or promote any of that bs. But I also see the intent and purpose for our government to promote what is in the best interest of our people, as I stated above. These efforts are good and Nobel and should be performed and supported. But not without oversight and checks.

Without the government working for the people, Americas wealth takes an even faster track up to the 1 percenters and the poor get poorer, while the condition of our environment goes to shit. The only way to slow or stop it is is from the power that the people hold

 

[dblack]

when more people keep more of their own money it's always good for the country

why should we as taxpayers pay more than we have to subsidize anyone else with tax incentives

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

Of course it is... how do you think we ended up on the moon? I'm not saying it's up to the government to dictate all economic activity... but it is their responsibility to keep private corporations in check and our economy working for the people. Business has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits, government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare of the people. Regulating business and supporting efforts that better our communities through grants and funding like tax incentives is fully within their duty.

I couldn't disagree more.The worst problem we face is the growing collusion between political and economic power.

You are right, there are many problems and corruption that has resulted from the power brokers in Washington mixing with big money lobbyists. I dont condone or promote any of that bs. But I also see the intent and purpose for our government to promote what is in the best interest of our people, as I stated above. These efforts are good and Nobel and should be performed and supported. But not without oversight and checks.

Without the government working for the people, Americas wealth takes an even faster track up to the 1 percenters and the poor get poorer, while the condition of our environment goes to shit. The only way to slow or stop it is is from the power that the people hold

Again, I couldn't disagree more. The "power of the people" is what's driving the collusion.

I think that the justification you offer for government - to promote what is in the best interest of our people - is dangerous. Government should protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want voluntarily, and not offer its services as a tool for some to force their values on others.

 

[Slade3200]

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

Of course it is... how do you think we ended up on the moon? I'm not saying it's up to the government to dictate all economic activity... but it is their responsibility to keep private corporations in check and our economy working for the people. Business has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits, government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare of the people. Regulating business and supporting efforts that better our communities through grants and funding like tax incentives is fully within their duty.

I couldn't disagree more.The worst problem we face is the growing collusion between political and economic power.

You are right, there are many problems and corruption that has resulted from the power brokers in Washington mixing with big money lobbyists. I dont condone or promote any of that bs. But I also see the intent and purpose for our government to promote what is in the best interest of our people, as I stated above. These efforts are good and Nobel and should be performed and supported. But not without oversight and checks.

Without the government working for the people, Americas wealth takes an even faster track up to the 1 percenters and the poor get poorer, while the condition of our environment goes to shit. The only way to slow or stop it is is from the power that the people hold

Again, I couldn't disagree more. The "power of the people" is what's driving the collusion.

I think that the justification you offer for government - to promote what is in the best interest of our people - is dangerous. Government should protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want voluntarily, and not offer its services as a tool for some to force their values on others.

The power that the individual, people like you and I, have to create the kind of society we want is dictated by both the government and by big business. The Exxons, the Walmarts, the Lenders, the Goldmans Saches, the Monsantos, the water companies, the electric companies etc, etc. etc.

Without oversight the big businesses control the price of goods, the quality of our environment, the wages we earn, and the opportunities we have to achieve success in the marketplace. The power that these corporations have gives them the ability to dominate industry's and starve out the little guys. They have the ability to create an environment that limits or even eliminates opportunity for people like us to achieve success or control the condition of our land and community.

Without a body in place like our government that is comprised of elected representatives of "we the people" our country would be going faster down the path of disaster. This body, the government, is not perfect, it is not without flaws and corruption... We the people should be standing up to this corruption and working towards a more perfect system. We also need to remember the purpose of this government and support the check they put on our corporations... Also to promote our collective ability to support the measures that help provide a cleaner, safer, more opportunistic playing field for all of us.

 

[danielpalos]

Well maybe Trump will get rid of all the credits and deductions when he drops the tax rates. Doubt it though.
end result of your plan is a large percent of charities get shut down, innovation slows, start up businesses decline, and safety/environment initiatives go down... more money gets spent on consumer products resulting in china and the 1% getting even more richer.... our nation as a whole ends up being worse off.

when more people keep more of their own money it's always good for the country

why should we as taxpayers pay more than we have to subsidize anyone else with tax incentives

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

That is not the platform of the republicans.

I don't give a **** what the republican platform is since I am not a republican

you don't have a political argument, either.

 

[dblack]

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

Of course it is... how do you think we ended up on the moon? I'm not saying it's up to the government to dictate all economic activity... but it is their responsibility to keep private corporations in check and our economy working for the people. Business has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits, government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare of the people. Regulating business and supporting efforts that better our communities through grants and funding like tax incentives is fully within their duty.

I couldn't disagree more.The worst problem we face is the growing collusion between political and economic power.

You are right, there are many problems and corruption that has resulted from the power brokers in Washington mixing with big money lobbyists. I dont condone or promote any of that bs. But I also see the intent and purpose for our government to promote what is in the best interest of our people, as I stated above. These efforts are good and Nobel and should be performed and supported. But not without oversight and checks.

Without the government working for the people, Americas wealth takes an even faster track up to the 1 percenters and the poor get poorer, while the condition of our environment goes to shit. The only way to slow or stop it is is from the power that the people hold

Again, I couldn't disagree more. The "power of the people" is what's driving the collusion.

I think that the justification you offer for government - to promote what is in the best interest of our people - is dangerous. Government should protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want voluntarily, and not offer its services as a tool for some to force their values on others.

The power that the individual, people like you and I, have to create the kind of society we want is dictated by both the government and by big business. The Exxons, the Walmarts, the Lenders, the Goldmans Saches, the Monsantos, the water companies, the electric companies etc, etc. etc.

Without oversight the big businesses control the price of goods, the quality of our environment, the wages we earn, and the opportunities we have to achieve success in the marketplace. The power that these corporations have gives them the ability to dominate industry's and starve out the little guys. They have the ability to create an environment that limits or even eliminates opportunity for people like us to achieve success or control the condition of our land and community.

Without a body in place like our government that is comprised of elected representatives of "we the people" our country would be going faster down the path of disaster. This body, the government, is not perfect, it is not without flaws and corruption... We the people should be standing up to this corruption and working towards a more perfect system. We also need to remember the purpose of this government and support the check they put on our corporations... Also to promote our collective ability to support the measures that help provide a cleaner, safer, more opportunistic playing field for all of us.

Well, I'm certainly not suggesting we have no government. I just think it should be the referee for society, rather than the coach.

Regarding the 'We the People' sloganeering, I find it ironic the way it's used today - ie usually as an excuse for government forcing the will of the majority on everyone else. By my reading, it was used by the founders as a rallying cry against, rather than a justification for, overbearing government.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you think it's a good idea for the governemnt to take more in taxes than it needs so it can give incentive money to some people?

If all these government giveaways were gone the tax rates could be lowered for everyone

Well maybe Trump will get rid of all the credits and deductions when he drops the tax rates. Doubt it though.

I disagree with you on charities so what if people give because they want to they shouldn't get an income tax break for it

get rid of all this crap and we'll be able to lower the tax rate across the board and people will have more of their own money to do with as they will

end result of your plan is a large percent of charities get shut down, innovation slows, start up businesses decline, and safety/environment initiatives go down... more money gets spent on consumer products resulting in china and the 1% getting even more richer.... our nation as a whole ends up being worse off.

when more people keep more of their own money it's always good for the country

why should we as taxpayers pay more than we have to subsidize anyone else with tax incentives

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

Of course it is... how do you think we ended up on the moon? I'm not saying it's up to the government to dictate all economic activity... but it is their responsibility to keep private corporations in check and our economy working for the people. Business has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits, government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare of the people. Regulating business and supporting efforts that better our communities through grants and funding like tax incentives is fully within their duty.

we ended up on the moon as a show of strength during the cold war
it wasn't anything more than that
and regulation and tax giveaways are not the same thing never were never will be

 

[Skull Pilot]

when more people keep more of their own money it's always good for the country

why should we as taxpayers pay more than we have to subsidize anyone else with tax incentives

The economy is a game of numbers. Our elected leaders pass budgets and decide what sectors of industry need funding and investment. This is going to be done in one of two ways, through taxation and government spending or by private spending. You can drop all tax credits and incentives but you'd be a fool if you think the end result is going to be lower taxes for everybody and the suffering industries that i mentioned in my previous post will be allowed to die out. Taxes would stay the same and government investments in those areas would increase. Charity/biz grants, environment and safety, tech R&D etc. I personally would rather have the individuals making these investments rather than an ineffficient government.

it is not up to the government to decide what business sectors need funding
what do you not understand about that?

That is not the platform of the republicans.

I don't give a **** what the republican platform is since I am not a republican

you don't have a political argument, either.

no I have a commonsense argument