Even Less Gloom?

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Tax deductions =do= constitute "sucking on the government teat",

I doubt we will ever agree on this point.

...since the line between use and abuse is so fuzzy.

And your justification for equating the two is horrifying.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..


Tax deductions =do= constitute "sucking on the government teat", since the
line between use and abuse is so fuzzy.

Like deducting real estate taxes? Let's see. I get a job, make some money,
and use it to pay real estate taxes. Now, you think I should also pay income
tax on money I never got to use because the government took it away?

I agree that the general public is confused about "the common good", and
that politicians have long played on this situation to abuse us with pork.
But, the line is visible if not sharp, should one choose to see it.

Yes, it's visible. People just disagree on where it is.

In the proper application, there is no public tax money *spent* on such
aids. That is quite different from using public money to build things that
are then privately owned.

You mean, like the weather service? (it's going in that direction).
FSS? (it's already there). AMTRAK (let's not even go there!) But in
any case, tax money not collected due to abatements counts as "spent"
too, because it has to be collected from elsewhere (us) to make up the
difference.

Airports are general and available to the public, just as are roads and
publicly owned transportation systems serve the common good. Have you ever
seen a publicly owned hotel, and if so, how does that work?

Good point. But trains are privately owned and serve the public. Why
should airports, highways, and libraries not have the same model?

Farmers compete in the market just as any other business. If they can't
make money growing one crop, they should grow some other crop.

Cocaine and tobacoo come to mind. And I don't know enough about the
subsidies to argue intellegently about them in specific (though that has
never stopped me! but I believe the theory is that if all the
cropland was planted, prices would drop and nobody would survive.
Assuming this is true, I have other solutions for the problem.

On a smaller scale, something similar happened in California where all
the apple orchards were replaced by vinyards. While I'm not advocating
forcing people to grow apples, I'm not sure I would want the entire
country to be planted in tobacco instead of wheat. There would be no
food and everybody would be chain smoking. Public good? (yes, an
oversimplification)

A tax deduction is a reduction in liability; you get to keep your money
rather than receive a handout.

In theory.

If I decide that I will have all my students meet at the next airport
over, and I fly there the long way (filing IFR and getting vectored from
here to kingdom come), and I therefore deduct most of my flying and most
of my airplane purchase against my tutoring income (carrying forward, of
course), is this a legitimate business expense or am I sucking the
government teat?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Recently, Jose posted:

You mean, like the weather service? (it's going in that direction).
FSS? (it's already there).

Pork.

AMTRAK (let's not even go there!).

If you haven't "gone there", you should. Some of the most pleasurable
vacations taken by my wife and me incorporated first-class travels on
AmTrak. We crossed the country on each of the routes. Also, for many
citizens, it is the most practical way to cover long distances. AmTrak
*is* a public service either way, and I don't mind my tax dollars going to
support it.

But in
any case, tax money not collected due to abatements counts as "spent"
too, because it has to be collected from elsewhere (us) to make up the
difference.

Oh? What is "the difference" that needs to be made up in the case of
properly administered tax breaks? Usually, there is an *increase* in the
actual money in the coffers due to the taxes of those employed by such
companies.

Airports are general and available to the public, just as are roads
and publicly owned transportation systems serve the common good.
Have you ever seen a publicly owned hotel, and if so, how does that
work?

Good point. But trains are privately owned and serve the public. Why
should airports, highways, and libraries not have the same model?

Privately owned trains are for-profit businesses, not a public service.
Certainly, the line isn't that fuzzy to you?

Farmers compete in the market just as any other business. If they
can't make money growing one crop, they should grow some other crop.

Cocaine and tobacoo come to mind. And I don't know enough about the
subsidies to argue intellegently about them in specific (though that
has never stopped me! but I believe the theory is that if all the
cropland was planted, prices would drop and nobody would survive.
Assuming this is true, I have other solutions for the problem.

The reality is that it would sort itself out in short order, given the
mortgages that must still be paid. Most farmers aren't stupid people.

On a smaller scale, something similar happened in California where all
the apple orchards were replaced by vinyards. While I'm not
advocating forcing people to grow apples, I'm not sure I would want
the entire country to be planted in tobacco instead of wheat. There
would be no food and everybody would be chain smoking. Public good?
(yes, an oversimplification)

I really can't see any of the above happening, Jose. It's likely that the
ability to transport apples globally reduced the profitability in
California below what the land values and subsequent taxes could support.
Vinyards produce a crop that is not as directly tied to market forces, as
the price of a bottle of wine is not linearly related to the cost of
grapes. California farmers did the prudent thing, given that the Sonoma
and other areas are producing world-class wines that have created a demand
for grapes. Perhaps the decline in the popularity of Boones Farm Apple
wine played a role, as well. ;-)

A tax deduction is a reduction in liability; you get to keep your
money rather than receive a handout.

In theory.

If I decide that I will have all my students meet at the next airport
over, and I fly there the long way (filing IFR and getting vectored
from here to kingdom come), and I therefore deduct most of my flying
and most of my airplane purchase against my tutoring income (carrying
forward, of course), is this a legitimate business expense or am I
sucking the government teat?

You'd likely wind up sucking the government teat from behind bars, because
travel expenses don't work that way. ;-)

Neil

the weather service? ... FSS?
Pork.

So? That doesn't invalidate my premise. In fact, it supports it.

AMTRAK (let's not even go there!).
If you haven't "gone there", you should. Some of the most pleasurable
vacations...

So? Whether you (or anybody) enjoys AMTRAK doesn't change the fact that
it is a case of public dollars going to a private enterprise.

Oh? What is "the difference" that needs to be made up in the case of
properly administered tax breaks? Usually, there is an *increase* in the
actual money in the coffers due to the taxes of those employed by such
companies.

.... and an increase in demand for public services due to those same
employees. And "properly administered" is a pretty big loophole.

Privately owned trains are for-profit businesses, not a public service.
Certainly, the line isn't that fuzzy to you?

But if they serve the public good, they are (by your definition) a
proper role of government too. The public good can be served both by
private business and by government business and by many flavors in
between. A legitimate argument can be made that =no= enterprise that
can be adequately served by private business should be the the role of
government. FSVO "adequately". And that's the rub.

The reality is that it would sort itself out in short order, given the
mortgages that must still be paid. Most farmers aren't stupid people.

Maybe half of them will go out of business and the farmland will be
turned into airports and condos. The other half will survive.

It's likely that the ability to transport apples
globally reduced the profitability

It's more likely that wine is just more profitable.

[deducting aviation as a tutoring expense...] You'd likely wind
up sucking the government teat from behind bars, because
travel expenses don't work that way. ;-)

"Reasonable and necessary". This is subject to interpretation. A
business owner does not have to pick the cheapest or most efficient mode
of transport. It just can't be "extravagant". I would argue that using
an airplane to visit my far flung clients of education is similar to
using an airplane to visit my far flung clients in sales. Free flying.
Why not?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

...since the line between use and abuse is so fuzzy.
And your justification for equating the two is horrifying.

Ok. =Some= tax deductions constitute sucking on the government teat.
Others are quite legitimate. Less horrified?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Jun 26, 9:32 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:



Oh, like United?

Rest of your pompous, FOS "guesstimate" snipped

Matt, you are making uninformed snide comments without any explination
to back them up, and you are calling ME
pompus????????????????????????
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

"K Baum" wrote

Matt, you are making uninformed snide comments without any explination
to back them up, and you are calling ME
pompus????????????????????????

Don't worry about it. Matt is an equal opportunity insulter.
--
Jim in NC

Recently, Jose posted:

AMTRAK (let's not even go there!).
If you haven't "gone there", you should. Some of the most pleasurable
vacations...

So? Whether you (or anybody) enjoys AMTRAK doesn't change the fact
that it is a case of public dollars going to a private enterprise.

When did AmTrak become a private enterprise?

Privately owned trains are for-profit businesses, not a public
service. Certainly, the line isn't that fuzzy to you?

But if they serve the public good, they are (by your definition) a
proper role of government too.

That's YOUR opinion. I don't recall positing anything of the kind, and to
be more direct, for-profit businesses are not a public service, even if
their operations provide some benefit to the public. I think I'm beginning
to see why you think the line is fuzzy.

The reality is that it would sort itself out in short order, given
the mortgages that must still be paid. Most farmers aren't stupid
people.

Maybe half of them will go out of business and the farmland will be
turned into airports and condos. The other half will survive.

Your basis for thinking this is...?

It's likely that the ability to transport apples
globally reduced the profitability

It's more likely that wine is just more profitable.

Curious that you omitted my statement to this effect, which refutes your
notion that farmers would go out of business and that farmland would be
turned into "airports and condos". Didn't happen in CA, and it's unlikely
to happen elsewhere.

[deducting aviation as a tutoring expense...] You'd likely wind
up sucking the government teat from behind bars, because
travel expenses don't work that way. ;-)

"Reasonable and necessary". This is subject to interpretation.

The issue is not whether the trip is necessary, it's how the travel
expense deduction is set up.

A
business owner does not have to pick the cheapest or most efficient
mode of transport. It just can't be "extravagant".

Perhaps you should review the tax code on this one.

I would argue
that using an airplane to visit my far flung clients of education is
similar to using an airplane to visit my far flung clients in sales.
Free flying. Why not?

Try it and we'll see how it works out for you. Perhaps, with good
behavior, you could still participate in R.A.P. from the Fed Pen computer?
;-)

Neil

"K Baum" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 26, 9:32 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:



Oh, like United?

Rest of your pompous, FOS "guesstimate" snipped

Matt, you are making uninformed snide comments without any explination
to back them up, and you are calling ME
pompus????????????????????????

Shall we go back to your guesses about my desires, my jealosies, or my
posting history (I think you're confusing me with Matt Whiting)? Why? Seeing
that you're apparently nothing but a typical union thug, who should I
bother?

Pompous, union thug, I should note!

{plonk}

Oh, yes; FoS, as well.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY