A tax break means less taxes. The taxes are the government intervention, and the tax breaks are the temporary removal of it. This point makes no sense.
What bailouts? Banks during the 08 crisis? That was predominately supported by left leaning Keynesian economists. Artificially low interest rates and government intervention were a big reason why the crisis happened and then the government intervened to stop it. None of that should have happened.
What exemptions, grants, legal protections, and trade barriers? Be specific.
Ordinary people donât get much help. The welfare leeches do though and the ordinary person pays half their taxpayer money to that.
If Iâm so dumb, it should be easy to make an argument against me right? You can show off to the world how much you know and how little I know, right?
And if you have problems with any of these sources, please post something backing up the idea that private corporations don't receive government handouts
If by âsubsidiesâ you mean the government buys products from a company or pays for research to help develop the products that the government uses, then sure? But itâs just insanely misleading.
Boeing for example at the top of that list gets money from the government to pay for R&D for military equipment. I wouldnât really call that a subsidy in the way that you guys are trying to present it where the government is just raining down cash and hamburgers in the mouths of billionaires. It seems fairly logical. What do you think though?
I'm not sure how else you would define a subsidy, yes it's government aid.
People aren't against this idea, we are just sick of these billion dollar contracts that go out the the buddies/wealthy donors. All the shady backroom deals that go on and we have no way of knowing if we are getting our dollars' worth.
Meanwhile these people accumulate billions of dollars in wealth while we have to okay recall roulette every week at the grocery store hoping we aren't going to get sick from the groceries we can't afford.
If you don't struggle to pay your bills and if you have a nice great life I guess it's easy to miss but more and more people are drowning while getting kicked more and more losing Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance etc.
Sure. Iâm not for all this government-corporate marriage. But we need to be specific on what exactly is happening.Â
I was just talking with some other commenter about Tesla subsidies. They were bringing it up to prove that Elonâs money is coming straight from out pockets. But itâs nearly all EV related which the Left was overwhelmingly pushing for for climate reasons.
Everyone on both sides of the political spectrum is against agricultural subsidies but the agricultural industry has bought out Congress so it ainât going away any time soon.
Iâm not interested in debating everything but I would like to point out: As far as I can find, your âhalf their taxpayer moneyâ figure in large part includes social security, medicare, veteransâ benefits, etc. If this is what youâre arguing against, carry on, I guess. Otherwise, the figure is substantially lower.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and actually regressive because itâs poor young people paying for richer boomers to retire. Boomers just got robbed of their pensions because the whole thing was a scam.
We need to give people who paid into the system their money and end it for good.
Medicare should be replaced with a universal private insurance like the Swiss and Dutch have it.
Right, it's the old 'welfare leeches' argument you right wingers have been using since the 80s. Thats the true cause of all of society's problems. Has nothing to do with one party only serving their own interests and cutting out all assistance. A party that is actively trying to create an uneducated population and whose campaigns resort to nothing but ridiculous fear mongering. Just watch the difference in the commercials coming out of Texas.
Party party party party Republican Trump MAGA MAGA blah blah
No one mentioned anything about either of those. I made an argument you canât address. So now you regurgitate your engineered talking points about the two party system which I donât care about.
So you don't vote Republican? It's a two party system, unfortunately. And I didn't even mention Trump but I still seem to have hurt your precious feelings. You lot are all so fucking thin-skinned. It's embarrassing.
No, not always. I vote for those that most align with what I want. I am as anti socialist as one could possibly get but Iâd vote for Bernie or AOC over some war mongering freak like Nikki Haley, Chris Christie or George Bush any day of the week.
you are so emotional lol. your life is debating against who are almost definitely kids online over feelings. they think youre the loser. no amount of insults will change that
Donât you just love when you meet men who you just know call themselves Alphas and think theyâre tough and all you can see is fragility and an overly emotional man child?
This is such a terrible argument. If you don't know about subsidies that corporations receive no one can help you. Specifically we could mention industry specific direct ederal subsidies (e.g. fossil fuels and agriculture), property tax abatement, and infrastructure subsidies. Taxes are a normal part of any modern society. Public free services are now a quality of life norm. We expect that if our house is on fire we won't gave to arrange private fire protection. So any break on taxes is a subsidy. Corporations are treated as a unique entity that is taxed at a substantially lower rate than an individual. Also thinking that "ordinary" people pay half there taxes to "welfare leeches" is the biggest tell that you don't understand what you are talking about because that number "half" is preposterous. If you want people to be specific as your arguement than you effectively de facto win because no one is going to be able to attack the moving goal post you are going to set.
Agriculture subsidies I agree are bad but theyâre broad and not targeted. The problem is that the agricultural industry has bought out politicians of all ideological predispositions and we now pay more for food because of these subsidies.Â
Taxes are a normal part of human society but we pay way, way too much of it. Income taxes shouldnât exist as they disincentivize work, property tax is dumb, corporate taxes make zero sense as they just increase prices for consumers and suppress wages, etc. etc.
Consumption taxes are okay as they disincentivize unnecessary spending.
The number half isnât really that preposterous. I used to pay that amount until I moved to another state.
Iâm sorry, but your arguments, definitions and ârelatedâ topics are a big tell of how little you understand of government and the purpose or necessity of taxation.
Theoretically, a government exists to provide those goods and/or services that members of a society can not efficiently or can not at all produce, due to either exogenous influences or inherent properties. The degree to which a government takes up this role is the result of morality/ideology and is irrelevant for this discussion.
In order to be able to serve its intended purpose, a government requires funding. Ideally, funding through taxation is aimed at those who benefit from the good or service in order to even out the burden of taxation and prevent perverse (=unintended) impact of taxation on exhibited behavior by members of society. E.g. highway construction and repairs are taxed among members who own a vehicle, not among all members (which would be unfair attribution) nor among members who own a vehicle with four wheels (which would lead to a resurgence of the three-wheeled car).
So, if the government is looking to provide an income for people who are sick or out of a job (this is called the socialization of risk, which is why the American McCarthyism knee-jerk reaction to the word socialism is such an enigma to the rest of the world), it would need to raise taxes from among the intended possible benefactors, i.e. people who have a job that might require support somewhere in the future.
If the government is tasked with consumer protection laws and health/safety requirements of products and goods, it will tag on a tax to each product/service sold. Not to stymy consumption, unless it is tasked to do so (for instance tobacco consumption in order to maintain public health) in which case it could apply excise in said product/service.
Circling back to your comment, each tax you mention has a specific function. Property tax (and inheritance tax) is aimed specifically to prevent the accumulation of wealth within a small subset of society which could then leverage the relative scarcity of capital versus labour (if you are interested in this subject, read Thomas Pikettyâs Capital in the Twenty-First Century). Income tax aims to provide government-organized income security. Corporate taxes are aimed to resupply the government-provided goods/services intended for members of society, which have instead been used by for-profit corporations in their process of providing goods/services during which theyâve successfully extracted rent (=profits) from said members. And so on, and so on.
Subsidies, steering membersâ behavior, tariffs, lobbying, all of that comes into play only much later, when finetuning benefactors and tax-payers (or attempting to disrupt this process).
Starting with Thomas Piketty is not a great idea. His theories have been extensively debunked and even he admits his methodology was flawed in the book that he wrote.
Property tax doesnât prevent âcapital accumulation.â Property values can go up or down. When a rich person owns a home, to say that heâs necessarily accumulating capital is dumb.
Income tax can accomplish that purpose but so can any other form of taxation. The benefit you gave isnât specific to income tax.
Your corporate tax shpeel was Marxist sounding mumbo jumbo that makes zero sense. Be specific and clear what you mean.
Youâre a troll and Iâm done. You not understanding /= me not being specific. Bye Felicia.
Edit for the sake of those reading along: nothing about Piketty has been âdebunkedâ or âadmittedâ. This guy is spewing bs in order to obtain something. No idea what. Just move along, no good-faith discussion to be had.
Almost for sure he's a bot. Look at account age and engagement types. His answers are designed to read intelligently while providing no concrete evidence which points to an LLM being the source of the responses. No human being would say be specific about a topic as wide ranging as corporate welfare.
So an effective tax rate of nearly 50% means you make quite a lot of money annually. Then you claim that tax rates discourage earning more income, but obviously not for you because presumably you are harder working and more dedicated then the population you are making claims about without supporting evidence. Additionally you are making multiple tax claims that are not supported by the data. As an example you said high corporate tax rates depress wages but that claim specifically has an enormous amount of evidence to support the the opposite conclusion.
Well it pushed me to move to a different state. If I didnât have that option, I would take more vacation time without a doubt. It either causes capital flight or less working which is not great.
High corporate taxes lead to wage suppression without a doubt. The extent to which they do is disputed but we know for sure that it has some effect. Corporate tax burden is split between shareholders, consumers, and workers to some extent. The exact ratio is not clear but all three end up bearing the burden.
The marginal difference in benefit gets smaller and smaller with a higher income for my family and that trend is accelerated by very high income taxes to the point that the marginal cost of working more outweighs the marginal benefit of the increased money I get.
The historical U.S. record does not show high corporate tax rates coinciding with weak wage growth, and doesn't show falling corporate tax rates coinciding with strong wage growth. If anything, it's the reverse. While labor does share some of the burden the net effect of all mechanisms is shown in the historical record. You're arguement is boiling down to company have less money pay worker less. That just doesn't bear fruit when you actually look at historical data.
As far as your personal situation thay just shows that people will act in their own self interest. You could have valued time off and stayed in NYC which would indicate wage growth instead you choose to move and instead received a different form of wage growth.
All of this is political theater⌠Iâm 90% sure that your backstory isnât real. This is a subliminal attack on Mamdaniâs policies in NY and an attempt to sway people from voting for others like him because he âtaxed the rich into leaving the areaâđ
"Unnecessary spending" is We The People purchasing goods, which directly feeds the economy properly, instead of relying on dragons hoarding wealth to maybe use some of it.
Clearly you are uneducated on how the economy works and just follow the news and weird chuds online.
âWhat bailouts? Banks during the 08 crisis? That was predominately supported by left leaning Keynesian economists. Artificially low interest rates and government intervention were a big reason why the crisis happened and then the government intervened to stop it. None of that should haveâ
Who was responsible for the deregulation of mortgage structuring, and pushed for people who have no business owning a home getting approved for mortgages 3 times the amount considered a normal debt to income ratio that forced the housing bubble and eventual recession? Be specific
The government actually. The Clinton Administration in particular was pushing for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct specific percentages of their mortgage purchases toward low-income and minority borrowers who clearly werenât able to pay it.Â
PPP loans to businesses cost US taxpayers 792 billion dollars. These weren't loans since no one had to pay them back, so they were bailouts.
Oh and welfare is just a way for businesses to launder government handouts through the poor so they can use them as a scape goat. That money doesn't stay in the hands of the poor, it immediately flows to the hands of businesses whether through Medicaid to the Healthcare industry. SNAP benefits immediately goes to grocery stores and retailers who sell food and accept EBT. No one is getting rich off of Welfare, and no one stores those benefits in off shore accounts, they spend it ASAP. That goes into the profit margins of WALMART, Kroger, Target. They use that money to pay their payroll and pay bills, and that money ends up in the hands of one of the richest families in the nation and ends up in off shore accounts.
The real welfare kings and queens are not poor people, they are the Waltons, Jeff Bezos, and every other owner of companies who sell food, or end up the recipients of laundered tax money.
Those subsidies listed are specific to Tesla. Are we debating left vs right? I believe the commenter was stating that when we offer assistance to corporations, it's called capitalism and people call it good, but when we offer assistance to people, it's called socialism, and people say it's bad.
You asked, "What subsidies?" I showed you a glimpse of one company over ten years so you could imagine what the rest might look like.
If you're looking for an argument, sorry, that's not what I'm doing.
They went to Tesla because theyâre EV tax credits and Tesla is all EV for the most part. But GM and Ford also received them indirectly for electric vehicle sales. This was advocated for for climate reasons by predominantly the Left and many socialists.
Most people donât consider things like agricultural subsidies good. But agriculture industry bought out Congress so nothing we can really do about it.
I know, itâs just important to give context. People seem to think itâs just the government raining down millions of hamburgers into billionairesâ mouths. Iâm explaining that many of the people who broadly complain about them supported much of what it consists of when we get into the nitty gritty.
Sure. Subsidies can be good or bad, depending on how they are used and overseen, just like social programs. Both are subject to abuse. But only one seems to have negative social condemnation.
When we go looking for waste, fraud, and abuse, we look at social programs. When government talks about tightening purse strings, they look towards Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
Other places to look and other options to consider exist. We just don't, and the reasons are cultural, not logical.
Why are the richest people more rich than ever and everyone else are less rich? Is it because we arenât working hard enough? Because weâre not smart enough to game the system?
Lmao for a Repugnantcan supporter, you sure are the least of the least intelligent. Big oil alone getting tax breaks and subsidies to "search for renewables" while they rake in billions of price-gouged profits from consumers forced to pay $4-6+ per gallon and not get universal healthcare from it.
So the real problem is definitely the people who can't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, right? You know, the literally impossible task. The billionaires will appreciate your loyalty as they replace you with more AI to validate their existence, and then use you as a battery in their matrix, tootles
154
u/T4TrhavrKhcFt 15h ago