End all corporate subsidies

[specklebang]

They are a little late they should have beat the hell out of the Supreme Court for having no balls, when they declared Social Security a charity in order to keep FDR from packing the court.

Git a link for this? Never heard of this before.

 

[specklebang]

Tell me, why do you want American business to be overrun by foreign competition?

You are advocating putting American business into a gladiator fights armed with a cardboard sword for attack and kmart quality pillows as armor against light saber armed powered armor opponents.

Have some examples please?

 

[obvious Child]

Have some examples please?

PV is a great example. The PRC gave PV companies in China free land, exemptions from environmental laws, nearly free credit and no taxes. With that kind of state support, they've essentially dominated the global market. US PV makers have all but died out. The EU brought a case against Chinese PV firms for dumping. The US government failed to match that kind of state supported and our PV industry is decimated.

Steel for example. South Korea poured vast amounts of state support into its steel industry and for a significant period of time were beating the pants off Americans. China did the same. We've caught up to a certain degree and stopped the bleeding by consolidation and automation, but our cost structure is still higher than theirs. In the process the American steel industry was nearly annihilated.

Subsides are a problem, but when every other nation is doing them, it's industrial policy suicide to stop. Basically, Phil just called for unilateral complete disarmament.

 

[specklebang]

PV is a great example. The PRC gave PV companies in China free land, exemptions from environmental laws, nearly free credit and no taxes. With that kind of state support, they've essentially dominated the global market. US PV makers have all but died out. The EU brought a case against Chinese PV firms for dumping. The US government failed to match that kind of state supported and our PV industry is decimated.

Steel for example. South Korea poured vast amounts of state support into its steel industry and for a significant period of time were beating the pants off Americans. China did the same. We've caught up to a certain degree and stopped the bleeding by consolidation and automation, but our cost structure is still higher than theirs. In the process the American steel industry was nearly annihilated.

Subsides are a problem, but when every other nation is doing them, it's industrial policy suicide to stop. Basically, Phil just called for unilateral complete disarmament.

Ah, yes, the PVC wars. We don't have a PVC industry from as far back as 1969 when I was developing the Korean handbag industry. There are terrific environmental issues involved and some things we just can't do in America for good reason.

We can protect our domestic market with fair tariffs and if we have to finance the businesses her for their international success, then what about us, the people?

I suspect there are many "special breaks" that are pure kumshaw, not integral to actual function. Like, how is the ethanol boondoggle helping us exactly?

 

[obvious Child]

Ah, yes, the PVC wars. We don't have a PVC industry from as far back as 1969 when I was developing the Korean handbag industry. There are terrific environmental issues involved and some things we just can't do in America for good reason.

There are plenty of industries out there that with foreign state support have brought specific American industries to their knees. I cannot in good faith argue for what Phil is advocating for.

We can protect our domestic market with fair tariffs and if we have to finance the businesses her for their international success, then what about us, the people?

Tariffs are largely disallowed under WTO. Companies and the government can bring cases to the WTO about unfair advantages, but by then, it's almost always too late.

I see as this, we either off state support for American industries, or we let foreign ones overrun us. Is life better under overrun or better with our industries? That's the question you gotta answer yourself.

I suspect there are many "special breaks" that are pure kumshaw, not integral to actual function. Like, how is the ethanol boondoggle helping us exactly?

That's absolutely true, but that;s not the same as a wholesale removal of all subsidies.

Sugar for example. That whole tariff and tax break is benefiting a tiny portion of Americans at the expense of the rest of us. We get rid of the support on that and more sugar flows into America and ethanol from sugar may replace corn. Corn ethanol is one of the biggest industrial mistakes of the 21th century.

 

[PirateMk1]

Git a link for this? Never heard of this before.

Debates on the constitutionality of the Act[edit]

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck down many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the Railroad Retirement Act. The Social Security Act's similarity with the Railroad Retirement Act caused Edwin Witte- the executive director of the President's Committee on Economic Security under Roosevelt who was credited as "the father of social security"-[15] to question whether or not the bill would pass;[16] John Gall, an Associate Counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers who testified before the US House of Representatives in favor of the act, also felt that the bill was rushed through Congress too quickly and that the old age provision of the act was "hodgepodge" that needed to be written more properly in order to have a higher likelihood of being ruled constitutional.[17] The Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and New York State's minimum-wage law. President Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.[18] The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal was heated and widespread, and lasted over six months. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April, and May, 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases), the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation.[19]

Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.
Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[20] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.

Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian

 

[specklebang]

Debates on the constitutionality of the Act[edit]
Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian

Thanks. Not sure that it answers

when they declared Social Security a charity

but certainly something I didn't know before.

 

[PirateMk1]

Thanks. Not sure that it answers but certainly something I didn't know before.

The actual constitutionality of the plan was never actually answered.

Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.

Ephram Nestor was a Bulgarian immigrant who came to the United States in 1918 and paid Social Security taxes from 1936, the year the system began operating, until he retired in 1955. A year after he retired, Nestor was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party in the 1930s. In 1954 Congress had passed a law saying that any person deported from the United States should lose his Social Security benefits. Accordingly, Nestor’s $55.60 per month Social Security checks were stopped. Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.

The Supreme Court disagreed, saying “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”

The Court’s decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past and is likely to do so in the future.

This should more answer your question. Fleming V. Nestor. Flemming v. Nestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[apdst]

It's time we end all tax payer funded subsidies and bailouts to corporations, businesses, and other private entities and industries. If a business can't stand on its own two legs, tough, it goes out of business. That's how a free market works.

I agree and we need start by ending green energy subsidies.

 

[Linc]

I agree and we need start by ending green energy subsidies.

Not until we get rid of "GOP/RED" energy subsidies, which will never happen since so many of these billions go to GOP Congresscritters and their donors..

 

[apdst]

Not until we get rid of "GOP/RED" energy subsidies, which will never happen since so many of these billions go to GOP Congresscritters and their donors..

Are you referring to oil and gas subsidies?

 

[Linc]

Are you referring to oil and gas subsidies?

Just the tip of the GOP/TEAt/RED iceberg;
How about those GOP farmer/congressman getting 3 million from the farm bill yet they still voted against food stamps !

 

[apdst]

Just the tip of the GOP/TEAt/RED iceberg;
How about those GOP farmer/congressman getting 3 million from the farm bill yet they still voted against food stamps !

Oil companies dont get government subsidies.

 

[obvious Child]

Oil companies dont get government subsidies.

[h=4]Intangible Drilling Costs[/h] The costs of developing oil, gas, or geothermal wells are ordinarily capital expenditures. You can usually recover them through depreciation or depletion. However, you can elect to deduct intangible drilling costs (IDCs) as a current business expense. These are certain drilling and development costs for wells in the United States in which you hold an operating or working interest. You can deduct only costs for drilling or preparing a well for the production of oil, gas, or geothermal steam or hot water.
You can elect to deduct only the costs of items with no salvage value. These include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to drilling wells and preparing them for production. Your cost for any drilling or development work done by contractors under any form of contract is also an IDC. However, see Amounts paid to contractor that must be capitalized, later.

You can also elect to deduct the cost of drilling exploratory bore holes to determine the location and delineation of offshore hydrocarbon deposits if the shaft is capable of conducting hydrocarbons to the surface on completion. It does not matter whether there is any intent to produce hydrocarbons."

Publication 535 (2012), Business Expenses

Oil has a special section under DPAD and QPAI:

Instructions for Form 8903 (01/2013)

Percentage Depletion rates are far more favorable than the run of the mill depreciation method.

You are wrong

 

[CRUE CAB]

It's time we end all tax payer funded subsidies and bailouts to corporations, businesses, and other private entities and industries. If a business can't stand on its own two legs, tough, it goes out of business. That's how a free market works.

They wont go out, they will go overseas.

 

[apdst]

[h=4]Intangible Drilling Costs[/h] The costs of developing oil, gas, or geothermal wells are ordinarily capital expenditures. You can usually recover them through depreciation or depletion. However, you can elect to deduct intangible drilling costs (IDCs) as a current business expense. These are certain drilling and development costs for wells in the United States in which you hold an operating or working interest. You can deduct only costs for drilling or preparing a well for the production of oil, gas, or geothermal steam or hot water.
You can elect to deduct only the costs of items with no salvage value. These include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to drilling wells and preparing them for production. Your cost for any drilling or development work done by contractors under any form of contract is also an IDC. However, see Amounts paid to contractor that must be capitalized, later.

You can also elect to deduct the cost of drilling exploratory bore holes to determine the location and delineation of offshore hydrocarbon deposits if the shaft is capable of conducting hydrocarbons to the surface on completion. It does not matter whether there is any intent to produce hydrocarbons."

Publication 535 (2012), Business Expenses

Oil has a special section under DPAD and QPAI:

Instructions for Form 8903 (01/2013)

Percentage Depletion rates are far more favorable than the run of the mill depreciation method.

You are wrong

Those are the same deductable business expenses that every other corporation gets.

Try again, because green energy companies get cash money from the government.

 

[Phil_Osophy]

It's hard to group all libertarians into the same boat. We all have different beliefs, but our common goal is liberty.

 

[Linc]

Oil companies dont get government subsidies.

Why do you still support three million dollar farm subsidies to millionaire farmer/congressman/GOP who turn right around and vote against lateral off-sets for poor folks and food stamps..sounds like the insurance company rip-offs/GOP debate

 

[specklebang]

The actual constitutionality of the plan was never actually answered.
This should more answer your question. Fleming V. Nestor. Flemming v. Nestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I think I was one of those who viewed it as an "earned right" although it seems the rate of ROI is higher for the lesser which certainly gives it that welfare flavor. I really need to read up on this because I didn't know benefits had ever been cut. All I know was that as soon as I got to draw SS, the raises disappeared and then reappeared greatly diminished.

SS is not my sole source of revenue (whew) but it provides nearly 50% of my income as a retiree. I use this extra income to assist my ex-wife and some close friends. It also allows me to confidntly makje charitable contributions. I could survive without it even without going back to work.

I more see it through the eyes of my elderly tenants who receive $1000 a month or less and seem to completely depend on it for survival.

I do know that I can not trust people to save and that SS serves as a form of mandatory savings. There are other, more desirable approaches but I think any changes are far in the future.

 

[apdst]

Why do you still support three million dollar farm subsidies to millionaire farmer/congressman/GOP who turn right around and vote against lateral off-sets for poor folks and food stamps..sounds like the insurance company rip-offs/GOP debate

Because we need to eat? Foreign oil is one thing, bit foreign food would suck.

 

[PirateMk1]

Because we need to eat? Foreign oil is one thing, bit foreign food would suck.

We don't need to subsidies farmers. Those boys are raping us coming AND going right now. The ethanol subsides is how they get paid to get rid of their hazardous waste, processing corn into high protein animal feed.

 

[Rocketman]

Because we need to eat? Foreign oil is one thing, bit foreign food would suck.

Farm subsidies are the ass raping of the American Tax payer. No farmer that is a millionaire should be drawing checks from the government. If you want to see how much some of your neighbors draw, go to the link below and enter your zip code, you will probably be shocked, especially it you are from the Midwest.

EWG Farm Subsidy Database

 

[obvious Child]

Those are the same deductable business expenses that every other corporation gets.

Did you even read them? If every other corporation gets them...why does oil and gas have special sections in DPAD and QPAI then? Nor does it explain why Percentage Depletion rates are far more favorable than ordinary depreciation.

I get that you have literally no understanding of what I wrote, but you could at least attempt to read them.

Try again, because green energy companies get cash money from the government.

This isn't about other industries getting subsidies. You claimed that oil and gas doesn't.

You are wrong.

 

[Kushinator]

You are wrong.

He will never admit it though!

 

[Linc]

Because we need to eat? Foreign oil is one thing, bit foreign food would suck.

You're defending tens of millions in corporate farm welfare to eleven GOP Congressman who are farmers, for some to not plant,, you don't see a conflict of interest,, and don't mind these GOP congressman voting against food for kids--just like the GOP insurance position