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

[Quantum Windbag]

So the money that the checker puts in the cash register isn't INCOME?

Okay, seriously. Are you REALLY this obtuse, or are you just goofing on us to see if we'll believe someone can be this dumb and still operate a keyboard?

Revenue, gross income, and total income are the same thing.

No they aren't.

 

[FA_Q2]

The initiative took not one dime out of the public treasury. The initiative put not one dime into the pocket of Intel owners other than what Intel would subsequently earn. It raised nobody's taxes. It confiscated nobody's property. All it did was make what was a highly unattractive location more attractive.

The initiative resulted some 3,300 hundred very good paying private sector jobs in an area in which unemployment was high and people very much needed the work. Those 3,300 jobs provided an economic base that other businesses quickly moved in to serve, which in turn provided an economic foundation supporting more commerce and industry. Result? Providing an initial tax break for a large manufacturing plant has resulted in a thriving, prosperous community and created tens of thousands - probably hundreds of thousands of jobs.

It was an initiative that was win win for all concerned and absolutely promoted the general welfare.

It was good government.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
(Because I think some of these are getting buried as DBlack pointed some of this out already)

Completely and totally irrelevant as you piled right over my entire post completely missing the point. You are again focused solely on the fact that nothing was taken out of the treasury bust still fail to see that the REAL travesty is in the fact that one entity was allowed to not comply with the law where other entities were not. I can come up with a thousand different examples all outlining how this is absolutely corrosive.

You pay a 50% tax rate. Your neighbor, on the other hand, pays a scant 10% tax rate. He pays 40% less because the local company (company X) that produces water heaters and air conditioners donated to the local politician’s campaign. Now that politician has, using YOUR exact justification, decided to give your neighbor a huge tax break because he has purchased a water heater and air conditioner that ‘helped create local jobs.’ Nothing was ever taken from the coffers. Not one red cent in tax monies was expended. Never mind that now his competitor did not donate to the campaign and therefore could no longer compete with company X. Never mind that now, as a DIRECT result that competitor has gone out of business also ensuring that company X is able to charge even more for his product considering he now has less competition and prospective clients have less supply to purchase. It is all okay that you are paying way more in taxes because the politician did this in order to promote the ‘common good’ through policies that were ‘business friendly.’ Hell, the fact that the company paid the politician off is actually irrelevant – the policy still sucks and should be outlawed.

In the end you have still to overcome one basic fact – you are advocating for politicians to be able to apply one law to you and then NOT apply that law to your neighbor. THAT is sickening and completely contrary to the concept of rule of law. We cannot, under any circumstances, have a nation of laws when we are creating special groups of entities that are above that law. Your justification is the EXACT same justifications that are used in Solyndra, the bank bailouts and the auto company bailouts. EXACTLY THE SAME.

I don’t think that you realize it but your essentially advocating for democrat based concepts with a conservative façade over them. I hope that you can see the problem here because it is a doozy and one of the central reasons that the republicans have become the disaster of a party that they are today. They have lost the concept of law to the power of special interests.

And you and dblack are failing to see the distinction and differences between the example I used - an example of how government can effectively PROMOTE the general welfare as opposed to attempting to PROVIDE it--rather than favoring one business over another. In the example I used, there was no cost to anybody, but the incentive provided to Intel benefitted EVERYBODY and I do mean EVERYBODY including all other private businesses and enterprises and all the people they served. It cost nobody a single dime, imposed not a single requirement on anybody, and has helped hundreds of thousands of people prosper as well as create tens of thousands of brand new taxpayers that has allowed debt free upgrading of infrastructure that has further benefitted everybody.

If you are unable to see the difference between that and differing tax rates or favoring one business over another, then I don't know what else I could say to convince you because you obviously don't WANT to make the distinction between those two things.

It’s not about wanting to see it one way or another Fox. You are demanding that taxing one business a different rate than another is not taxing one business a different rate than another.

I never thought I would see you take up the liberal definition of general welfare but here you have – using to justify giving an entity special considerations because it is ‘better’ for us all. How many times have you argued against this exact thing? How exactly is it different than the example I gave you with the person that has purchased the ‘correct’ water heater and air conditioner.

The simple answer is that it is not. There is no difference.

 

[FA_Q2]

It does not push people into debt anymore than offering lower interest rates than a competitor pushes people into borrowing from one bank over another. It does make debt a bit less scary, but it is not going to be the deciding factor in the decision on whether or not to buy a house.

No, it does so in exactly the same way the individual mandate does - by taxing them more if they don't do as the 'incentive' requires. This is exactly why Roberts ruled as he did. He recognized that the mandate was the equivalent of a tax incentive and to rule against it would have undermined all similar incentives. If you're opposed to the individual mandate because it orders people to buy insurance or be fined, then to be consistent you have to be opposed to the mortgage interest deduction because it operates in exactly the same way.

I do not get taxed more if I don't buy a house. The simple fact is that most people don't itemize, they take a standard deduction. If we eliminated it the only people who would notice are the people who are rich enough that they can afford an accountant to track everything they spend. The reason that politicians are always so eager to defend the deduction is that their rich donors benefit from it.

If you want to argue against the damn thing, which I have, more than once, you should base your argument on reality, not your absurd delusions that the deduction is claimed by everyone who files taxes who doesn't rent.

He never made that claim at all.

What you are failing to understand is the mortgage deduction is functionally identical to the ACA mandate.

If you purchase insurance then you get a $95 or 1% of your income in a tax break. It is why (as DBlack pointed out) Roberts ruled the way that he did. There is zero difference in the functionality of the mandate or a thousand other governmental kickbacks for making the ‘correct’ decisions. The government (in Obama’s attempt to not admit he was raising taxes) simply used the opposite angle.


In truth, Obama simply raised everyone’s taxes by 2.5% (at the end of the penalty increases) and then gave everyone a tax break of 2.5% if they purchased an ‘approved’ plan. How can you be against the mandate then if you agree with targeted tax incentive for specific purchases? That is ALL the mandate really is – a tax break for those that have insurance.

 

[FA_Q2]

I am so frigging tired of this numbskulled idea that's become popular that "equality under the law" means "everyone gets the same outcome", rather than "the same laws are applied to everyone the same way".

You're wildly missing my point if you think that's what I'm saying. In fact, misguided efforts to equalize outcomes are often used as justification for the kind of crap I'm talking about.

I won't say that our government is free of graft and corruption, nor will I say that I think it's the government's job to micromanage social behavior via the tax code. I will say, however, that there's nothing "unequal" about tax deductions that are available across the board, to anyone who meets the clearly-stated requirements (eg. being a mortgage-paying homeowner.)

You don't see how the mortgage interest deduction is manipulating behavior? It does so every bit as much as the individual mandate and its net effect is the same - punishing everyone who fails to maintain home debt by taxing them more on their income.

When I'm talking about equal protection it's not equality of outcome, but equality under the law. No one should be granted preferential treatment due to some quid-pro-quo arrangement, whether it's to satisfy the genuine interests of the state or the product of a corrupt lobbying process.

I never said mortgage deductions weren't "manipulating behavior". Please don't assume that because YOU have personally decided something is "eeevil" and unacceptable, everyone else agrees with you and is therefore trying to tailor their arguments to support that. I understand that EVERY human interaction involves the altering of someone's behavior in some fashion, and don't waste my time trying to condemn or avoid that.

I said - and you might want to take notes, since this seems to be confusing you - that I don't think it's the government's job to micromanage social behavior via the tax code, and I don't. That is not necessarily the same thing as acknowledging that certain activities are necessary to the function of society - such as providing housing for one's family - and should therefore not be interfered with by a tax code that's already onerous and intrusive. And as long as ANYONE paying a mortgage has the law applied to him in the exact same way as ANYONE ELSE paying a mortgage, it is equal under the law. It does NOT become unequal simply because people who rent instead aren't eligible. It is definitely a far cry from the individual mandate, which forces people to purchase something whether they want it or not.

See above. Functionally, it has zero difference with any other tax break. You are still able to decide not to purchase health insurance. Nothing is stopping you. The only thing that is changing is that you are going to have to give up that juicy 2.5% tax break if you choose not to purchase health insurance from an approved source.

 

[Foxfyre]

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
(Because I think some of these are getting buried as DBlack pointed some of this out already)

Completely and totally irrelevant as you piled right over my entire post completely missing the point. You are again focused solely on the fact that nothing was taken out of the treasury bust still fail to see that the REAL travesty is in the fact that one entity was allowed to not comply with the law where other entities were not. I can come up with a thousand different examples all outlining how this is absolutely corrosive.

You pay a 50% tax rate. Your neighbor, on the other hand, pays a scant 10% tax rate. He pays 40% less because the local company (company X) that produces water heaters and air conditioners donated to the local politician’s campaign. Now that politician has, using YOUR exact justification, decided to give your neighbor a huge tax break because he has purchased a water heater and air conditioner that ‘helped create local jobs.’ Nothing was ever taken from the coffers. Not one red cent in tax monies was expended. Never mind that now his competitor did not donate to the campaign and therefore could no longer compete with company X. Never mind that now, as a DIRECT result that competitor has gone out of business also ensuring that company X is able to charge even more for his product considering he now has less competition and prospective clients have less supply to purchase. It is all okay that you are paying way more in taxes because the politician did this in order to promote the ‘common good’ through policies that were ‘business friendly.’ Hell, the fact that the company paid the politician off is actually irrelevant – the policy still sucks and should be outlawed.

In the end you have still to overcome one basic fact – you are advocating for politicians to be able to apply one law to you and then NOT apply that law to your neighbor. THAT is sickening and completely contrary to the concept of rule of law. We cannot, under any circumstances, have a nation of laws when we are creating special groups of entities that are above that law. Your justification is the EXACT same justifications that are used in Solyndra, the bank bailouts and the auto company bailouts. EXACTLY THE SAME.

I don’t think that you realize it but your essentially advocating for democrat based concepts with a conservative façade over them. I hope that you can see the problem here because it is a doozy and one of the central reasons that the republicans have become the disaster of a party that they are today. They have lost the concept of law to the power of special interests.

And you and dblack are failing to see the distinction and differences between the example I used - an example of how government can effectively PROMOTE the general welfare as opposed to attempting to PROVIDE it--rather than favoring one business over another. In the example I used, there was no cost to anybody, but the incentive provided to Intel benefitted EVERYBODY and I do mean EVERYBODY including all other private businesses and enterprises and all the people they served. It cost nobody a single dime, imposed not a single requirement on anybody, and has helped hundreds of thousands of people prosper as well as create tens of thousands of brand new taxpayers that has allowed debt free upgrading of infrastructure that has further benefitted everybody.

If you are unable to see the difference between that and differing tax rates or favoring one business over another, then I don't know what else I could say to convince you because you obviously don't WANT to make the distinction between those two things.

It’s not about wanting to see it one way or another Fox. You are demanding that taxing one business a different rate than another is not taxing one business a different rate than another.

I never thought I would see you take up the liberal definition of general welfare but here you have – using to justify giving an entity special considerations because it is ‘better’ for us all. How many times have you argued against this exact thing? How exactly is it different than the example I gave you with the person that has purchased the ‘correct’ water heater and air conditioner.

The simple answer is that it is not. There is no difference.

If you think I in any way have taken up the liberal definition of general welfare, you have no idea what the general welfare is.

But it is obvious you and I do no agree on this issue and therefore I am going to move on. I have not suggested anybody be taxed at different rates, but that is not what providing an incentive to lure a company that will help everybody is. But you can't see it that way so oh well. I'm pretty sure that the hundreds of business that exist because of that Intel Plant don't feel they were disadvantaged in any way.

 

[dblack]

And you and dblack are failing to see the distinction and differences between the example I used - an example of how government can effectively PROMOTE the general welfare as opposed to attempting to PROVIDE it--rather than favoring one business over another. In the example I used, there was no cost to anybody, but the incentive provided to Intel benefitted EVERYBODY and I do mean EVERYBODY including all other private businesses and enterprises and all the people they served. It cost nobody a single dime, imposed not a single requirement on anybody, and has helped hundreds of thousands of people prosper as well as create tens of thousands of brand new taxpayers that has allowed debt free upgrading of infrastructure that has further benefitted everybody.

If you are unable to see the difference between that and differing tax rates or favoring one business over another, then I don't know what else I could say to convince you because you obviously don't WANT to make the distinction between those two things.

It’s not about wanting to see it one way or another Fox. You are demanding that taxing one business a different rate than another is not taxing one business a different rate than another.

I never thought I would see you take up the liberal definition of general welfare but here you have – using to justify giving an entity special considerations because it is ‘better’ for us all. How many times have you argued against this exact thing? How exactly is it different than the example I gave you with the person that has purchased the ‘correct’ water heater and air conditioner.

The simple answer is that it is not. There is no difference.

If you think I in any way have taken up the liberal definition of general welfare, you have no idea what the general welfare is.

But it is obvious you and I do no agree on this issue and therefore I am going to move on. I have not suggested anybody be taxed at different rates, but that is not what providing an incentive to lure a company that will help everybody is. But you can't see it that way so oh well. I'm pretty sure that the hundreds of business that exist because of that Intel Plant don't feel they were disadvantaged in any way.

Have you considered that competing businesses, that didn't receive the special treatment offered to Intel may have suffered? I have no specific information to indicate that it was the case in the scenario you presented - but in many cases it is. There are many accounts of 'mom and pop' stores being crushed by outside competition that could affort to bargain for the special treatment endemic to these incentive schemes.

To be clear, I have no problem with the idea of local and state governments 'competing' in terms of trying out different taxation schemes. And those that produce the most overall benefit should be those that are rewarded with success. But not at the sacrifice of equal protection. And that's what you seem to be willing to drop in the name of attracting investment.

Simply put, the rule of law is the founded on the idea that laws apply to everyone equally, and that no one, no business, is granted an exception regardless of the quid pro quo such an exception might allow. This exception granting is exactly what's happening when localities rewrite tax laws to accommodate specific business interests. It's a slap in the face, and a very real sacrifice of equal rights, to businesses that aren't granted the special perks.

 

[FactFinder]

"Why should govt be distrusted, kept smaller, and restricted to only certain tasks?"


Mostly because for some reason none of them have learned to spell the word Efficiency let alone put it into practice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it does so in exactly the same way the individual mandate does - by taxing them more if they don't do as the 'incentive' requires. This is exactly why Roberts ruled as he did. He recognized that the mandate was the equivalent of a tax incentive and to rule against it would have undermined all similar incentives. If you're opposed to the individual mandate because it orders people to buy insurance or be fined, then to be consistent you have to be opposed to the mortgage interest deduction because it operates in exactly the same way.

I do not get taxed more if I don't buy a house. The simple fact is that most people don't itemize, they take a standard deduction. If we eliminated it the only people who would notice are the people who are rich enough that they can afford an accountant to track everything they spend. The reason that politicians are always so eager to defend the deduction is that their rich donors benefit from it.

If you want to argue against the damn thing, which I have, more than once, you should base your argument on reality, not your absurd delusions that the deduction is claimed by everyone who files taxes who doesn't rent.

He never made that claim at all.

What you are failing to understand is the mortgage deduction is functionally identical to the ACA mandate.

If you purchase insurance then you get a $95 or 1% of your income in a tax break. It is why (as DBlack pointed out) Roberts ruled the way that he did. There is zero difference in the functionality of the mandate or a thousand other governmental kickbacks for making the ‘correct’ decisions. The government (in Obama’s attempt to not admit he was raising taxes) simply used the opposite angle.


In truth, Obama simply raised everyone’s taxes by 2.5% (at the end of the penalty increases) and then gave everyone a tax break of 2.5% if they purchased an ‘approved’ plan. How can you be against the mandate then if you agree with targeted tax incentive for specific purchases? That is ALL the mandate really is – a tax break for those that have insurance.

He didn't say that the mortgage rate forces people into debt?

Wait, he did.

One problem with any attempt that the mandate is a tax is that it isn't. In fact, it is a lien on your tax return. The only way for the IRS to collect the penalty portion of the mandate is by deducting it from your return. Since it is possible to structure your taxes so that you don't get a return, especially if you are rich, the only people that are going to be hit by the fake tax are people that are too stupid to avoid it.

I oppose the mandate because it takes away my freedom. I oppose the mortgage deduction for entirely different reasons.

 

[FactFinder]

I do not get taxed more if I don't buy a house. The simple fact is that most people don't itemize, they take a standard deduction. If we eliminated it the only people who would notice are the people who are rich enough that they can afford an accountant to track everything they spend. The reason that politicians are always so eager to defend the deduction is that their rich donors benefit from it.

If you want to argue against the damn thing, which I have, more than once, you should base your argument on reality, not your absurd delusions that the deduction is claimed by everyone who files taxes who doesn't rent.

He never made that claim at all.

What you are failing to understand is the mortgage deduction is functionally identical to the ACA mandate.

If you purchase insurance then you get a $95 or 1% of your income in a tax break. It is why (as DBlack pointed out) Roberts ruled the way that he did. There is zero difference in the functionality of the mandate or a thousand other governmental kickbacks for making the ‘correct’ decisions. The government (in Obama’s attempt to not admit he was raising taxes) simply used the opposite angle.


In truth, Obama simply raised everyone’s taxes by 2.5% (at the end of the penalty increases) and then gave everyone a tax break of 2.5% if they purchased an ‘approved’ plan. How can you be against the mandate then if you agree with targeted tax incentive for specific purchases? That is ALL the mandate really is – a tax break for those that have insurance.

He didn't say that the mortgage rate forces people into debt?

Wait, he did.

One problem with any attempt that the mandate is a tax is that it isn't. In fact, it is a lien on your tax return. The only way for the IRS to collect the penalty portion of the mandate is by deducting it from your return. Since it is possible to structure your taxes so that you don't get a return, especially if you are rich, the only people that are going to be hit by the fake tax are people that are too stupid to avoid it.

I oppose the mandate because it takes away my freedom. I oppose the mortgage deduction for entirely different reasons.

Certainly a windbag could spell out those reasons....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He never made that claim at all.

What you are failing to understand is the mortgage deduction is functionally identical to the ACA mandate.

If you purchase insurance then you get a $95 or 1% of your income in a tax break. It is why (as DBlack pointed out) Roberts ruled the way that he did. There is zero difference in the functionality of the mandate or a thousand other governmental kickbacks for making the ‘correct’ decisions. The government (in Obama’s attempt to not admit he was raising taxes) simply used the opposite angle.


In truth, Obama simply raised everyone’s taxes by 2.5% (at the end of the penalty increases) and then gave everyone a tax break of 2.5% if they purchased an ‘approved’ plan. How can you be against the mandate then if you agree with targeted tax incentive for specific purchases? That is ALL the mandate really is – a tax break for those that have insurance.

He didn't say that the mortgage rate forces people into debt?

Wait, he did.

One problem with any attempt that the mandate is a tax is that it isn't. In fact, it is a lien on your tax return. The only way for the IRS to collect the penalty portion of the mandate is by deducting it from your return. Since it is possible to structure your taxes so that you don't get a return, especially if you are rich, the only people that are going to be hit by the fake tax are people that are too stupid to avoid it.

I oppose the mandate because it takes away my freedom. I oppose the mortgage deduction for entirely different reasons.

Certainly a windbag could spell out those reasons....

And anyone that really cared could look them up.

 

[FactFinder]

He didn't say that the mortgage rate forces people into debt?

Wait, he did.

One problem with any attempt that the mandate is a tax is that it isn't. In fact, it is a lien on your tax return. The only way for the IRS to collect the penalty portion of the mandate is by deducting it from your return. Since it is possible to structure your taxes so that you don't get a return, especially if you are rich, the only people that are going to be hit by the fake tax are people that are too stupid to avoid it.

I oppose the mandate because it takes away my freedom. I oppose the mortgage deduction for entirely different reasons.

Certainly a windbag could spell out those reasons....

And anyone that really cared could look them up.

Actually I don't care, I rather like the mortgage deduction and don't understand why someone else wouldn't given all the breaks the banks already get. So your reasoning since you decided to just place it here would be appreciated. Hell, I didn't bring it up. Why should I look it up?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Certainly a windbag could spell out those reasons....

And anyone that really cared could look them up.

Actually I don't care, I rather like the mortgage deduction and don't understand why someone else wouldn't given all the breaks the banks already get. So your reasoning since you decided to just place it here would be appreciated. Hell, I didn't bring it up. Why should I look it up?

The mortgage deduction is a big fat gift to mortgage bankers and the real estate industry.

Remove the deduction and cut the tax rate to the point that it's a wash for the individual, and those who will squeal the loudest are the bankers.

 

[Foxfyre]

It’s not about wanting to see it one way or another Fox. You are demanding that taxing one business a different rate than another is not taxing one business a different rate than another.

I never thought I would see you take up the liberal definition of general welfare but here you have – using to justify giving an entity special considerations because it is ‘better’ for us all. How many times have you argued against this exact thing? How exactly is it different than the example I gave you with the person that has purchased the ‘correct’ water heater and air conditioner.

The simple answer is that it is not. There is no difference.

If you think I in any way have taken up the liberal definition of general welfare, you have no idea what the general welfare is.


But it is obvious you and I do no agree on this issue and therefore I am going to move on. I have not suggested anybody be taxed at different rates, but that is not what providing an incentive to lure a company that will help everybody is. But you can't see it that way so oh well. I'm pretty sure that the hundreds of business that exist because of that Intel Plant don't feel they were disadvantaged in any way.

Have you considered that competing businesses, that didn't receive the special treatment offered to Intel may have suffered? I have no specific information to indicate that it was the case in the scenario you presented - but in many cases it is. There are many accounts of 'mom and pop' stores being crushed by outside competition that could affort to bargain for the special treatment endemic to these incentive schemes.

To be clear, I have no problem with the idea of local and state governments 'competing' in terms of trying out different taxation schemes. And those that produce the most overall benefit should be those that are rewarded with success. But not at the sacrifice of equal protection. And that's what you seem to be willing to drop in the name of attracting investment.

Simply put, the rule of law is the founded on the idea that laws apply to everyone equally, and that no one, no business, is granted an exception regardless of the quid pro quo such an exception might allow. This exception granting is exactly what's happening when localities rewrite tax laws to accommodate specific business interests. It's a slap in the face, and a very real sacrifice of equal rights, to businesses that aren't granted the special perks.

If you had read what I wrote about it, dear, there WERE no competing businesses and there are none to this day. The plant was located on land belonging to the state and a sleepy little village that had at best a handful of small businesses, all struggling to survive with a much larger and more prosperous adjacent Albuquerque where most of the people worked. The tax break provided incentive for a plant, with its thousands of jobs, to locate in what would have otherwise been a most unattractive location for that plant. The result was massive prosperity for the existing businesses, hundeds and hundreds of new ones, tens of thousands of very good paying jobs for the people in the area, and what is now the fastest growing city in New Mexico and will probably become the largest. It was a huge win win for all involved.

It was the judicious use of government to promote the general welfare in a most successful way without taking a dime out of anybody's pocket or disadvantaging a soul in any way whatsoever.

I'm sorry that you and FA and others seem unable to see or understand that.

 

[dblack]

If you think I in any way have taken up the liberal definition of general welfare, you have no idea what the general welfare is.


But it is obvious you and I do no agree on this issue and therefore I am going to move on. I have not suggested anybody be taxed at different rates, but that is not what providing an incentive to lure a company that will help everybody is. But you can't see it that way so oh well. I'm pretty sure that the hundreds of business that exist because of that Intel Plant don't feel they were disadvantaged in any way.

Have you considered that competing businesses, that didn't receive the special treatment offered to Intel may have suffered? I have no specific information to indicate that it was the case in the scenario you presented - but in many cases it is. There are many accounts of 'mom and pop' stores being crushed by outside competition that could affort to bargain for the special treatment endemic to these incentive schemes.

To be clear, I have no problem with the idea of local and state governments 'competing' in terms of trying out different taxation schemes. And those that produce the most overall benefit should be those that are rewarded with success. But not at the sacrifice of equal protection. And that's what you seem to be willing to drop in the name of attracting investment.

Simply put, the rule of law is the founded on the idea that laws apply to everyone equally, and that no one, no business, is granted an exception regardless of the quid pro quo such an exception might allow. This exception granting is exactly what's happening when localities rewrite tax laws to accommodate specific business interests. It's a slap in the face, and a very real sacrifice of equal rights, to businesses that aren't granted the special perks.

If you had read what I wrote about it, dear, there WERE no competing businesses and there are none to this day. The plant was located on land belonging to the state and a sleepy little village that had at best a handful of small businesses, all struggling to survive with a much larger and more prosperous adjacent Albuquerque where most of the people worked. The tax break provided incentive for a plant, with its thousands of jobs, to locate in what would have otherwise been a most unattractive location for that plant. The result was massive prosperity for the existing businesses, hundeds and hundreds of new ones, tens of thousands of very good paying jobs for the people in the area, and what is now the fastest growing city in New Mexico and will probably become the largest. It was a huge win win for all involved.

It was the judicious use of government to promote the general welfare in a most successful way without taking a dime out of anybody's pocket or disadvantaging a soul in any way whatsoever.

I'm sorry that you and FA and others seem unable to see or understand that.

Well, I certainly don't have enough information to judge the specific instance you're citing. But rather than making a bunch of guesses and assumptions about the details of your case in point, can we discuss the matter in principle? Do you see value in the general concepts of equal protection and rule of law? Do you see the corrosive nature of government that selectively applies laws and grants ad-hoc exemptions to interest groups or businesses that 'have something to offer'? Even if you can imagine or cite examples where giving preferential treatment has no direct victims, surely you can see how such a mode of government would lead to abuse.

I know I harp about it more than I should, but this is what corporatist government is all about - replacing rule of law with arbitrary decree of the leaders in power. It's all about horse trading favors and special deals with everyone who's willing to 'deal'. It's used to play us off each other and creates an atmosphere where everyone is too busy competing for special treatment to care about universal rights.

 

[OnePercenter]

Okay, seriously. Are you REALLY this obtuse, or are you just goofing on us to see if we'll believe someone can be this dumb and still operate a keyboard?

Revenue, gross income, and total income are the same thing.

No they aren't.

Sure they are!

What's the difference between revenue and income? - Business - Answer Desk | NBC News
Revenue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia