Why should government be kept smaller, and restricted to only certain tasks?

[bripat9643]

A deduction lowers tax liability which is unrealized tax revenues.

My properties, cars, 1/10th of a G5 (and maintenance), limos, car service, communication devices, golf club memberships, and on, are all business expenses thus a subsidized write-off.

Let me make this simple, there is no such thing as unrealized tax revenues. You really should learn the difference between cash and accrual accounting so you don't look like a complete idiot.

Anytime someone uses a subsidy to reduce their taxes, that lost (unrealized) revenue has to be made up. It's that simple.

A business expense is not a subsidy.

 

[dblack]

Let me make this simple, there is no such thing as unrealized tax revenues. You really should learn the difference between cash and accrual accounting so you don't look like a complete idiot.

Anytime someone uses a subsidy to reduce their taxes, that lost (unrealized) revenue has to be made up. It's that simple.

A business expense is not a subsidy.

Bri, the problem comes when supposed 'business expenses' are extended to include 'incentives' - special rewards to encourage people to do things the government wants. You can either view those as subsidies, to those who do as they're told, or penalties levied against those who don't - as with ACA's individual mandate. In both cases the government is using the tax code as back door legislation, to manipulate society in ways the constitution doesn't explicitly authorize.

 

[WillowTree]

Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.

Occasional events like wars might cause govt departments designed to deal with them, to grow to a size appropriate to do so. But afterward govt must reduce back to its smaller size.

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) Government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) Government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained.
(c) History grimly shows that when government is allowed more authority than necessary, the imperfect humans it's made of begin to abuse that power, virtually every time. And with time, that abuse only increases, often rising to disastrous levels.

For these reasons, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.

The answer is that only 50% of the people in the USA are required to pay for government the other 50% get a free ride. That's why.. Too many takers, not enough makers.

 

[bripat9643]

Anytime someone uses a subsidy to reduce their taxes, that lost (unrealized) revenue has to be made up. It's that simple.

A business expense is not a subsidy.

Bri, the problem comes when supposed 'business expenses' are extended to include 'incentives' - special rewards to encourage people to do things the government wants. You can either view those as subsidies, to those who do as they're told, or penalties levied against those who don't - as with ACA's individual mandate. In both cases the government is using the tax code as back door legislation, to manipulate society in ways the constitution doesn't explicitly authorize.

We aren't talking about anything like that in the case of infrastructure built by a developer, not even in an enterprise zone.

 

[dblack]

A business expense is not a subsidy.

Bri, the problem comes when supposed 'business expenses' are extended to include 'incentives' - special rewards to encourage people to do things the government wants. You can either view those as subsidies, to those who do as they're told, or penalties levied against those who don't - as with ACA's individual mandate. In both cases the government is using the tax code as back door legislation, to manipulate society in ways the constitution doesn't explicitly authorize.

We aren't talking about anything like that in the case of infrastructure built by a developer, not even in an enterprise zone.

Often we are. Companies like Wal-Mart are infamous for negotiating for special perks from local governments, perks that small local stores aren't afforded. This is blatant discrimination on the part of government and it's blatantly wrong. If the local tax authorities are going to grant deferments and abatements to Wal-Mart, then they should be required to grant them to all their competitors in equal portions. But they don't.

And yes, often extensive infrastructure is built, at taxpayer expense, to entice Wal-Mart or other large businesses to bring their operations to a community. This kind of 'law shopping' is, in my view, an obvious violation of equal protection. Law should apply to everyone equally and not used as a way to favor some at the expense of others.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bri, the problem comes when supposed 'business expenses' are extended to include 'incentives' - special rewards to encourage people to do things the government wants. You can either view those as subsidies, to those who do as they're told, or penalties levied against those who don't - as with ACA's individual mandate. In both cases the government is using the tax code as back door legislation, to manipulate society in ways the constitution doesn't explicitly authorize.

We aren't talking about anything like that in the case of infrastructure built by a developer, not even in an enterprise zone.

Often we are. Companies like Wal-Mart are infamous for negotiating for special perks from local governments, perks that small local stores aren't afforded. This is blatant discrimination on the part of government and it's blatantly wrong. If the local tax authorities are going to grant deferments and abatements to Wal-Mart, then they should be required to grant them to all their competitors in equal portions. But they don't.

And yes, often extensive infrastructure is built, at taxpayer expense, to entice Wal-Mart or other large businesses to bring their operations to a community. This kind of 'law shopping' is, in my view, an obvious violation of equal protection. Law should apply to everyone equally and not used as a way to favor some at the expense of others.

There is a broader issue though. Giving a tax break to a sole proprietor who will at most hire a half dozen employees is not a judicious use of the people's funds--the return to the overall economy does not justify it.

But a large anchor store is a different matter. It not only provides enough jobs to be an economic boost to the entire community, but the whole idea of an 'anchor' store is to provide a customer base for the smaller stores by drawing more customers into a given area. Large shopping malls cannot survive without those anchor stores, nor will a shopping center do anywhere nearly as well without one or two in its midst. So there can be a prudent justification in the interest of the common good to provide incentive for those anchor stores to move in.

 

[dblack]

We aren't talking about anything like that in the case of infrastructure built by a developer, not even in an enterprise zone.

Often we are. Companies like Wal-Mart are infamous for negotiating for special perks from local governments, perks that small local stores aren't afforded. This is blatant discrimination on the part of government and it's blatantly wrong. If the local tax authorities are going to grant deferments and abatements to Wal-Mart, then they should be required to grant them to all their competitors in equal portions. But they don't.

And yes, often extensive infrastructure is built, at taxpayer expense, to entice Wal-Mart or other large businesses to bring their operations to a community. This kind of 'law shopping' is, in my view, an obvious violation of equal protection. Law should apply to everyone equally and not used as a way to favor some at the expense of others.

There is a broader issue though. Giving a tax break to a sole proprietor who will at most hire a half dozen employees is not a judicious use of the people's funds--the return to the overall economy does not justify it.

But a large anchor store is a different matter. It not only provides enough jobs to be an economic boost to the entire community, but the whole idea of an 'anchor' store is to provide a customer base for the smaller stores by drawing more customers into a given area. Large shopping malls cannot survive without those anchor stores, nor will a shopping center do anywhere nearly as well without one or two in its midst. So there can be a prudent justification in the interest of the common good to provide incentive for those anchor stores to move in.

Well, that's where I simply think it's not a proper application of government power. Government isn't there to enhance our economic fortunes. Indeed, it should be prevented from interfering in that realm entirely in my opinion. Government should provide a consistent body of laws that make it possible to pursue our own economic goals voluntarily, and shoudn't be involved in deciding what those goals should be.

 

[Foxfyre]

Often we are. Companies like Wal-Mart are infamous for negotiating for special perks from local governments, perks that small local stores aren't afforded. This is blatant discrimination on the part of government and it's blatantly wrong. If the local tax authorities are going to grant deferments and abatements to Wal-Mart, then they should be required to grant them to all their competitors in equal portions. But they don't.

And yes, often extensive infrastructure is built, at taxpayer expense, to entice Wal-Mart or other large businesses to bring their operations to a community. This kind of 'law shopping' is, in my view, an obvious violation of equal protection. Law should apply to everyone equally and not used as a way to favor some at the expense of others.

There is a broader issue though. Giving a tax break to a sole proprietor who will at most hire a half dozen employees is not a judicious use of the people's funds--the return to the overall economy does not justify it.

But a large anchor store is a different matter. It not only provides enough jobs to be an economic boost to the entire community, but the whole idea of an 'anchor' store is to provide a customer base for the smaller stores by drawing more customers into a given area. Large shopping malls cannot survive without those anchor stores, nor will a shopping center do anywhere nearly as well without one or two in its midst. So there can be a prudent justification in the interest of the common good to provide incentive for those anchor stores to move in.

Well, that's where I simply think it's not a proper application of government power. Government isn't there to enhance our economic fortunes. Indeed, it should be prevented from interfering in that realm entirely in my opinion. Government should provide a consistent body of laws that make it possible to pursue our own economic goals voluntarily, and shoudn't be involved in deciding what those goals should be.

It is a somewhat arbitrary gray area for sure. But when the people, whether small business owners or customers, have no objection to it because they will all benefit from it and perhaps even vote for the initiative, it could definitely also fall into the realm of promoting the general welfare. More commerce and industry is better than little commerce and industry. The argument could be made that attracting big business that helps everybody is making it possible to better pursue our individual economic goals. It takes money out of the pockets of nobody and helps put money into the pockets of everybody. So I have to see that as sometimes good policy.

Mind you this is effective at the local level only, and I do not see it as prudent for a state government and absolutely wrong for the federal government to do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Bri, the problem comes when supposed 'business expenses' are extended to include 'incentives' - special rewards to encourage people to do things the government wants. You can either view those as subsidies, to those who do as they're told, or penalties levied against those who don't - as with ACA's individual mandate. In both cases the government is using the tax code as back door legislation, to manipulate society in ways the constitution doesn't explicitly authorize.

We aren't talking about anything like that in the case of infrastructure built by a developer, not even in an enterprise zone.

Often we are. Companies like Wal-Mart are infamous for negotiating for special perks from local governments, perks that small local stores aren't afforded. This is blatant discrimination on the part of government and it's blatantly wrong. If the local tax authorities are going to grant deferments and abatements to Wal-Mart, then they should be required to grant them to all their competitors in equal portions. But they don't.

And yes, often extensive infrastructure is built, at taxpayer expense, to entice Wal-Mart or other large businesses to bring their operations to a community. This kind of 'law shopping' is, in my view, an obvious violation of equal protection. Law should apply to everyone equally and not used as a way to favor some at the expense of others.

I'm sorry, but I looked in vain for a connection from this word vomit to "infrastructure built by a developer", and didn't see one. Either produce one, or kindly take your "Ohmigod, we're talking about business, I must spew my hatred of Walmart" diatribe on the road, okay? It's irrelevant and annoying.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is a broader issue though. Giving a tax break to a sole proprietor who will at most hire a half dozen employees is not a judicious use of the people's funds--the return to the overall economy does not justify it.

But a large anchor store is a different matter. It not only provides enough jobs to be an economic boost to the entire community, but the whole idea of an 'anchor' store is to provide a customer base for the smaller stores by drawing more customers into a given area. Large shopping malls cannot survive without those anchor stores, nor will a shopping center do anywhere nearly as well without one or two in its midst. So there can be a prudent justification in the interest of the common good to provide incentive for those anchor stores to move in.

No, it’s not a different matter and the justification of such is exactly the same justifications that are used in any number of relative morality arguments that I know you would immediately recognize as false.

Here is the problem, you are advocating that it is proper for the people to use the force of law to assist one person over another for the immediate ‘benefit’ (in this case jobs or money) that the group receives. That relativistic way of applying the law sure sounds good now but its corrosive and destructive nature is absolutely unacceptable. Those ‘anchor’ businesses exist without government and will continue to do so. They neither need government nor will provide better benefits by having government support them. The only effect that you get in doing this is enriching the business more than it deserves by fleecing the people.

Simply put – law should apply to ALL equally. Every single entity that it governs. In the same manner that it is not proper for me to steal from you even if I am giving it to the Jones family down the street for all our betterment, it is not proper for me to give a large entity a tax break that I am not offering to another business venture. To do so undermines the entire concept of a nation of laws rather than men.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, that's where I simply think it's not a proper application of government power. Government isn't there to enhance our economic fortunes. Indeed, it should be prevented from interfering in that realm entirely in my opinion. Government should provide a consistent body of laws that make it possible to pursue our own economic goals voluntarily, and shoudn't be involved in deciding what those goals should be.

BAM.

This is spot on.

 

[OnePercenter]

Let me make this simple, there is no such thing as unrealized tax revenues. You really should learn the difference between cash and accrual accounting so you don't look like a complete idiot.

Anytime someone uses a subsidy to reduce their taxes, that lost (unrealized) revenue has to be made up. It's that simple.

A business expense is not a subsidy.

In finance, a subsidy is aid. A tax deduction is a form of indirect aid.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a broader issue though. Giving a tax break to a sole proprietor who will at most hire a half dozen employees is not a judicious use of the people's funds--the return to the overall economy does not justify it.

But a large anchor store is a different matter. It not only provides enough jobs to be an economic boost to the entire community, but the whole idea of an 'anchor' store is to provide a customer base for the smaller stores by drawing more customers into a given area. Large shopping malls cannot survive without those anchor stores, nor will a shopping center do anywhere nearly as well without one or two in its midst. So there can be a prudent justification in the interest of the common good to provide incentive for those anchor stores to move in.

No, it’s not a different matter and the justification of such is exactly the same justifications that are used in any number of relative morality arguments that I know you would immediately recognize as false.

Here is the problem, you are advocating that it is proper for the people to use the force of law to assist one person over another for the immediate ‘benefit’ (in this case jobs or money) that the group receives. That relativistic way of applying the law sure sounds good now but its corrosive and destructive nature is absolutely unacceptable. Those ‘anchor’ businesses exist without government and will continue to do so. They neither need government nor will provide better benefits by having government support them. The only effect that you get in doing this is enriching the business more than it deserves by fleecing the people.

Simply put – law should apply to ALL equally. Every single entity that it governs. In the same manner that it is not proper for me to steal from you even if I am giving it to the Jones family down the street for all our betterment, it is not proper for me to give a large entity a tax break that I am not offering to another business venture. To do so undermines the entire concept of a nation of laws rather than men.

Not all that many years ago, the state of New Mexico and a barely incorporated Village of Rio Rancho put together a tax break for an Intel plant to establish itself there. Again it didn't take a penny out of anybody's pocket or put a penny into Intel's pocket. It was bait dangled out there to get a very large employer to locate on the high desert with few amenities when it could have chosen a more attractive location. Intel is now New Mexico's largest single private sector employer, pays massive taxes to the State of New Mexico and the city, has donated many wonderful things for the community, and the good jobs it has created have provided a market base for hundreds of other businesses providing a good living for tens of thousands that wouldn't exist without Intel. Rio Rancho is the fastest growing city in New Mexico, and the odds are good that it will be the largest in a few years.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks that initial tax break was not a good investment and was not a huge benefit to all, i.e. promoted the general welfare.

A government initiative that benefits only one entity is of course immoral. But one that creates private sector jobs for many hundreds or thousands including providing a market base for many other private sector enterprises is a solid investment.

It costs nobody anything. And the benefits are huge.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anytime someone uses a subsidy to reduce their taxes, that lost (unrealized) revenue has to be made up. It's that simple.

A business expense is not a subsidy.

In finance, a subsidy is aid. A tax deduction is a form of indirect aid.

In that case, it is a subsidy to everyone who pays taxes because everyone gets to deduct expenses from their taxes. I guess that means that, in the big picture, you get to subsidize yourself.

Except we all know the real world doesn't work that way, which is why you sound so stupid for trying to argue unrealized tax revenues like it is a real thing.

 

[Londoner]

(a) Government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;

This is the same old rightwing propaganda. It's a half truth. Government defeated the Nazis, put a man on the moon, built the most technologically advanced modern industrial infrastructure in history. Runs a Patent system. Provides subsidies and bailouts to corporations. Study the technology that came out of Cold War Pentagon and NASA programs - and specifically how that technology was largely responsible for the 80s consumer electronics boom. Do you know how much private sector profit comes from the satellite system? Did you know that Boeing and commercial aviation came out of the Defense budget and government lead research? [You do know how much the military depends on state of the art aviation right? Study the history of Boeing and who funded it and the parasitic private sector that absconded with profits made possible by MASSIVE government subsidies, i.e., socialize the costs, privatize the profits.] Study the Hoover Dam and the Colorado River Drainage - specifically who developed and funded the technology that allowed us to settle and create profits within huge portions of the southwest.

Before you tell us how government is inefficient and corrupt (which I agree with), please give us a comprehensive list of the things government does for citizens and business. And before you tell us about the marvels of the free market, explain why John Galt begs for massive state sector intervention in the form of the patent system, to name just one area where the nanny state protects the capitalist. (Why don't you know stuff like this?)

As it stands, your posts read like the same old repetitive garbage we've heard since the rise of the New Right under Reagan and the Chicago School. Much of what Friedman and Reagan said is true, but it's old. You're just repeating garbage without adding anything or coming up with a novel defense of its central claims.

(b) Government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained.

(c) History grimly shows that when government is allowed more authority than necessary, the imperfect humans it's made of begin to abuse that power, virtually every time. And with time, that abuse only increases, often rising to disastrous levels.

The Patriot Act represents the biggest abuse of power in the last 50 years. Your party exploited the terrorist threat to build a massive surveillance bureaucracy. And ... you know what happens once you create a government agency, right? It only gets larger. This is exactly what the Soviet Union did. They used national security threats to create a powerful military, intelligence, surveillance apparatus which was used to by government to protect itself from domestic political opposition. This is why the Bush Fed used the Patriot Act to track Eliot Spitzer's finances . . . so that they could get rid of one of a man who had been critical of their role in the Housing Crisis. Where were you when Bush was abusing his power. Your total loyalty to your party is what makes it easier for them to abuse power.

But yes, I emphatically agree with your points. I opposed both parties when they use the "War on Terrorism" to destroy privacy and freedom. You only oppose Obama, but you trust your party when it holds the White House. This is the problem with the Right. They trust their Big Government leaders completely. The Left destroyed LBJ over Vietnam, whereas the Right rolled over for Bush on Iraq. Please don't be a cheerleader . . . help us solve these problems.

 

[dblack]

Not all that many years ago, the state of New Mexico and a barely incorporated Village of Rio Rancho put together a tax break for an Intel plant to establish itself there. Again it didn't take a penny out of anybody's pocket or put a penny into Intel's pocket. It was bait dangled out there to get a very large employer to locate on the high desert with few amenities when it could have chosen a more attractive location. Intel is now New Mexico's largest single private sector employer, pays massive taxes to the State of New Mexico and the city, has donated many wonderful things for the community, and the good jobs it has created have provided a market base for hundreds of other businesses providing a good living for tens of thousands that wouldn't exist without Intel. Rio Rancho is the fastest growing city in New Mexico, and the odds are good that it will be the largest in a few years.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks that initial tax break was not a good investment and was not a huge benefit to all, i.e. promoted the general welfare.

A government initiative that benefits only one entity is of course immoral. But one that creates private sector jobs for many hundreds or thousands including providing a market base for many other private sector enterprises is a solid investment.

It costs nobody anything. And the benefits are huge.

See, I think this is actually a really insidious problem with the way we've implemented federalism. I'd like to see the concept of equal protection expanded to include all levels of government and elevated to something of a 'prime directive' in our Constitution. This sort of governance radically undermines the rule of law. No one, no business, no special interest group, should be able to bargain for special treatment.

 

[Redfish]

To the OP

Because our constitution says so.

 

[rightwinger]

To the OP

Because our constitution says so.

The Constitution says nothing about the required size of our government

 

[Redfish]

To the OP

Because our constitution says so.

The Constitution says nothing about the required size of our government

It defines the roles of the central government and the governments of the states.

Changing those roles requires a constitutional amendment, not a presidents signature.

 

[rightwinger]

To the OP

Because our constitution says so.

The Constitution says nothing about the required size of our government

It defines the roles of the central government and the governments of the states.

Changing those roles requires a constitutional amendment, not a presidents signature.

Yup........And our Constitutionally enacted government remains the same

We vote for the programs and size of government that we need. If you think it is in some way unconstitutional.......that is why we have courts

Go for it