I have no idea if DU pays property taxes. I THINK they are a "503 (C)"
I never said I was against taxes. I said am against the tax system we have today. I am more opposed to the federal tax code than the state and local taxes.
Football lunacy
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
I have no idea if DU pays property taxes. I THINK they are a "503 (C)"
I never said I was against taxes. I said am against the tax system we have today. I am more opposed to the federal tax code than the state and local taxes.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
I'm not anti tax. I'm just saying that Taxation is coercion. It may be a necessary evil but it nonetheless is coercion.
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
Yup. When people list all the subsidys given to big business they list tax breaks along with everything else. A subsidy is a gift plain and simple.
Dear Church - you're cool so here's a gift for you - tax free status- enjoy.
Dear Pontiac,MI - you're not cool but we wish you were - here's a gift for you so you can build a stadium - enjoy.
Either way the rest of us have to pay for the gift, but let's not forget that we get gifts too.
For those of us who do not have it all memorized and nailed down:
*********************************************************************
Definition of 'Subsidy'
A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.
Politics play an important part in subsidization. In general, the left is more in favor of having subsidized industries, while the right feels that industry should stand on its own without public funds.
Investopedia explains 'Subsidy'
There are many forms of subsidies given out by the government, including welfare payments, housing loans, student loans and farm subsidies. For example, if a domestic industry, like farming, is struggling to survive in a highly competitive international industry with low prices, a government may give cash subsidies to farms so that they can sell at the low market price but still achieve financial gain.
If a subsidy is given out, the government is said to subsidize that group/industry.
*********************************************************************
Definition of 'Subsidy'
A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.
Politics play an important part in subsidization. In general, the left is more in favor of having subsidized industries, while the right feels that industry should stand on its own without public funds.
Investopedia explains 'Subsidy'
There are many forms of subsidies given out by the government, including welfare payments, housing loans, student loans and farm subsidies. For example, if a domestic industry, like farming, is struggling to survive in a highly competitive international industry with low prices, a government may give cash subsidies to farms so that they can sell at the low market price but still achieve financial gain.
If a subsidy is given out, the government is said to subsidize that group/industry.
Webster's definition:
[h=2]sub·si·dy[/h] noun \ˈsəb-sə-dē, -zə-\: money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function
plural sub·si·dies
[h=2]Full Definition of SUBSIDY[/h]: a grant or gift of money: as
a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation
b : money granted by one state to another
c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
Subsidies, in the end, raise costs, raises taxes and limits competition. The Federal government should not be involved in the business of the State or the individual. States should not be involved in business.
ALL government should have small, well defined roles, that are paid for by as small a tax that is needed and no more. The tax should be fair, as in one rate and everyone pays. No more freebies.
The idea that allowing people/business/organizations to keep what is rightfully their's in the first place is somehow a subsidy is VERY Marxist and assumes that somehow the government has a RIGHT to other's private property, which it does not.
All the subsidies, and our punitive tax codes, have done is run us into debt. You can't buy what you don't have the money to buy. Passing out borrowed monies, to buy votes, is what has led us to the point we are today. This congress, this administration, is carrying on the tradition of graft and corruption of the past, only taking it to new heights.
The worst subsidy of all is welfare. The absolute best way to bring a person up is to insure that they stand on their own two feet. The welfare system we have today is there to create dependency, not self reliance. Dependent people are controllable.
Government grows to justify itself. It must gain power to grow. The more power it has the more it harms those it governs. They become addicted to power, out of touch with the realities that the People are living with. They must expand their reach, their power, their control over the People, to feed that addiction. Tyranny is often the end result.
[h=2]sub·si·dy[/h] noun \ˈsəb-sə-dē, -zə-\: money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function
plural sub·si·dies
[h=2]Full Definition of SUBSIDY[/h]: a grant or gift of money: as
a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation
b : money granted by one state to another
c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
Subsidies, in the end, raise costs, raises taxes and limits competition. The Federal government should not be involved in the business of the State or the individual. States should not be involved in business.
ALL government should have small, well defined roles, that are paid for by as small a tax that is needed and no more. The tax should be fair, as in one rate and everyone pays. No more freebies.
The idea that allowing people/business/organizations to keep what is rightfully their's in the first place is somehow a subsidy is VERY Marxist and assumes that somehow the government has a RIGHT to other's private property, which it does not.
All the subsidies, and our punitive tax codes, have done is run us into debt. You can't buy what you don't have the money to buy. Passing out borrowed monies, to buy votes, is what has led us to the point we are today. This congress, this administration, is carrying on the tradition of graft and corruption of the past, only taking it to new heights.
The worst subsidy of all is welfare. The absolute best way to bring a person up is to insure that they stand on their own two feet. The welfare system we have today is there to create dependency, not self reliance. Dependent people are controllable.
Government grows to justify itself. It must gain power to grow. The more power it has the more it harms those it governs. They become addicted to power, out of touch with the realities that the People are living with. They must expand their reach, their power, their control over the People, to feed that addiction. Tyranny is often the end result.
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
It's basic arithmetic.
If you have $100 and have to pay $20 in taxes you're left with $80.
If someone gives you $1 you have $81.
If someone had cut your tax by $1 you'd have $81.
Either way you benefited by $1. Either way you received a subsidy of $1.
If you have $100 and have to pay $20 in taxes you're left with $80.
If someone gives you $1 you have $81.
If someone had cut your tax by $1 you'd have $81.
Either way you benefited by $1. Either way you received a subsidy of $1.
zorry
Veteran Expediter
No need to complicate the simple.
Do we need permission to use that line ?
Someone ought to trademark it.
No you are wrong. If I am given someone else's dollar it is a subsidy. If my taxes are cut by 1 dollar I get to keep what is mine to begin with. Where do you get the idea that allowing me to keep what is mine to begin with is a subsidy?
It is NOT the governments money. ALL money is rightfully owned by those who EARN it. The government EARNS NOTHING! They take. The idea that being allowed to keep what is your's to begin with, is then a subsidy, is a Marxist idea, weak, and not based in reality or the Constitution. Not that any Marxist out there gives a rats flip about the Constitution or the RIGHT to own private property, which wages are.WanderngFool
Active Expediter
You have gone over the edge. If you don't mind I'll wave to ya on the way down.
You fought well. Against whom I don't know but you fought against somebody by golly.
You fought well. Against whom I don't know but you fought against somebody by golly.
Sorry buddy cutting taxes and allowing someone to keep more of their own money is in no way a subsidy.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app
Whether the government SHOULD have that money in the first place is a separate issue.OH GOODY!!
Effectively, NO! It is not the government's money to take or lose.
A tax break is, in fact, a subsidy. It's technically called a tax expenditure, which is government spending through the tax code. They can collect the tax and then give it right back, making it a subsidy in your eyes, or they can give them a tax break and not have the money changing hands, which yields the same, exact result. The tax expenditure concept was invented in 1967 by Stanley Surrey, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, as a way to represent and account for the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending for subsidies. Rather than pay money out of the treasury for a subsidy, if the same subsidy can be accomplished by a tax break, it was more efficient to do so.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability." Congress annually estimates tax expenditures in terms of revenues lost to the US Treasury for each special tax provision included in the U.S. tax code, including revenue lost from not taxing churches and other non-profit organizations.
This gets to a basic economic notion that no one - especially the younger generation - seems to understand any more. Why should we give politicians more of our money to waste or spend on the interests of their friends (Solyndra)? When it was discovered that Bernie Madoff was a crook, people stopped giving him money, he was prosecuted and sent to jail. Why then, should we continue to give Congress more of OUR MONEY to spend (waste) as they see fit? The sequester was a good thing; we need more sequesters. Politicians can make do with less, just like businesses and individuals do when times get tough.
Tell us, Mr Fudd, what is the difference?
zorry
Veteran Expediter
I'm looking in to it. But it seems complicated.
Yeah, but it used to be simple.
Sooo, someone DID complicate the simple.
Who woulda thunk !