Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Big Oil or Facebook?

34 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Big Oil should not get tax breaks, has been the opinion here for awhile, but Facebook?

Hmmmm

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/02/16/facebook-paid-no-taxes-despite-record-profits/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Neither. Hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

one has a much higher and easier proftit margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

As a supporter of a free market no one should get special treatment regardless of business model.

Imperialistic proponents would argue that self-sustainability as a nation with respect to natural resources and infrastructure are important to maintaining the standing of the USA as a lone world superpower.

The flip side of the coin is that the reality of a federal government spending us into extinction deserves no more money from any source. 3.8 trillion dollars a year should be easily triple the amount of what is required to perform its function as laid out by the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Facebook just poked you.

Bend over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Fwiw, I don't have an issue with the government providing breaks to some industries, as long as there is a benefit to the public interest in doing so and that benefit outweighs the cost of the benefit. But they should have to have quite a justification for providing said benefit. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Davidson Deac II' timestamp='1361067091' post='2136905']
Fwiw, I don't have an issue with the government providing breaks to some industries, as long as there is a benefit to the public interest in doing so and that benefit outweighs the cost of the benefit. But they should have to have quite a justification for providing said benefit. .
[/quote]

I believe that would be fine except for two things:

1) What may be deemed as a public good for some people is inherently not for others. If we were to look at a list of things that have been done on behalf of the American public, government doesn't have a great track record... especially over the past century. Native Americans and Pacific Islanders come to mind off the top of my head.

2) At the federal level, a politician is essentially in charge of someone else's credit card where their children will be responsible for the bill. Hence, if you are in the business of making promises via future accountability, you've set the stage for corruption that reads exactly like what Bastiat had laid out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I was thinking along the lines of providing incentives to the domestic oil industry in order to increase domestic production or finding alternative energy sources. Anything that reduces our dependence on foreign oil is a benefit to our national security imo.

Also, I was thinking about local governments providing incentives to industries that provide jobs. These are usually beneficial to the population of the state or local area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Local government is much more accountable than the leviathan that currently exists as Mordor on the Potomac.

Regarding dependence on foreign resources: I honestly believe that the issue would take care of itself if we were actually allowed the existence of a free market. Counting on the federal government to deliver on something like that has failed to the nth degree. Their primary charge to protect the freedoms of the American citizen is failing spectacularly. If they can't even do that, why trust them with anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oil subsidies were designed specifically with Big Oil in mind. Facebook is simply following tax accounting laws not receiving specific subsidies aimed at facebook. Unless I misread the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='twylyght' timestamp='1361120891' post='2137071']
Local government is much more accountable than the leviathan that currently exists as Mordor on the Potomac.

Regarding dependence on foreign resources: I honestly believe that the issue would take care of itself if we were actually allowed the existence of a free market. [b]Counting on the federal government to deliver on something like that has failed to the nth degree. Their primary charge to protect the freedoms of the American citizen is failing spectacularly.[/b] If they can't even do that, why trust them with anything else?
[/quote]

How so?

I mean we have more freedom now than at any point in our history imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If I'm free, why must I relinquish 25% of what I earn for government programs that do not represent my views? Why must I then be taxed again and again throughout the life of services and goods to feed an entity that can't find a way to make 3.8 trillion dollars per year work?

The 2nd amendment was not a law in place for people to own firearms. It was for any armament. At that time, if you wished to own a cannon, you could. People flippantly talk about no assault weapons existing during that time, but muskets were as advanced as what the American militia had at the time. There was a reason the founding fathers put that in as they did.

I don't have any say in the debt that my son's generation is incurring without benefit nor counsel on their behalf. I cannot opt out of programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. I can't vote myself a raise, but Congress has no issue with doing exactly that with our money. They refer to it as "revenues" as if we have a choice in the matter of purchase or price.

Government decides which items are worthy of a "sin tax" by virtue not of a rights' perspective, but of a moral majority. Due process continues to erode for the fight against terror. Enforcement of Constitutional mandates are no longer law, but subject to the whims of a judiciary that applies it as it sees fit. The very fact that victim-less crimes exist is an affront to freedom.

I can't start a business without a gambit of government agencies to submit to. Hell, under Bush, they began naming the heads of said agencies czars. Government will mandate with whome you must do business if they must.

A simple look at where the wealth of this nation has been amassed will tell you everything you need to know about where the modern day lords and ladies of this country reside. 7 of the 10 richest counties in the union reside around DC. They're doing great, and they have no qualms about taking from the rest of the country to ensure that they remain doing great. They'll just bundle it up into new stimulus program and do the least amount possible to keep an ignorant public at bay.

What if I don't wish to support rehab programs, public education, abortions, space exploration, NATO warlords, imperialist foreign policy, assorted foreign aid, etc? Do I have a choice for any of that? In some places in the country, you can't even grow your own garden for subsistence, order a soda more than 20oz in size, engage in mutual consensual sex for monetary transactions, gamble (unless it's for the children's education through... that's right, government).

As a citizen that has done nothing wrong in all counts, I am now treated like a criminal because someone in power decided these things needed to be put into law for our own good.

No thanks. I can take responsibility for my own life and actions. I don't need to be held accountable for [i]things I might do[/i]. I don't need someone else enforcing a cradle-to-grave set of regulations to protect me from myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites