- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 7/21/14 at 3:45 pm to Asgard Device
Posted on 7/21/14 at 3:45 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
What if the government decided to stop spending money on welfare and switch to a tax credit program.
LINK 
1
Posted on 7/21/14 at 6:33 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
LINK
I'm not sure what you're laughing at. EITC is indeed a tax credit but it is generally paid for by the government (if it exceeds liability).
There are tons of welfare/entitlement programs out there that are paid for out of the treasury and are not paid for through tax credits. We could move to an entirely tax credit-based system. You wouldn't need to even put any of these welfare programs in the budget, because it'll all be handled through credits.
I thought this board was in favor of tax credits. Its just the government collecting less taxes.
Posted on 7/21/14 at 7:01 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
There are tons of welfare/entitlement programs out there that are paid for out of the treasury and are not paid for through tax credits.
How does the government pay for things by giving tax credits? That doesn't even make sense.
quote:
We could move to an entirely tax credit-based system. You wouldn't need to even put any of these welfare programs in the budget, because it'll all be handled through credits.
DUDE - once again - I present - the EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT LINK
This post was edited on 7/21/14 at 7:02 pm
Posted on 7/21/14 at 7:07 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
How does the government pay for things by giving tax credits? That doesn't even make sense.
They do it for corporations and the movie industry all the time. It doesn't cost anything. Its just the government taking less money.
quote:
DUDE - once again - I present - the EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT LINK
Dude. Why are you so repetitive? I already explained this. EITC does not pay for food stamps, section 8, obamaphones, college tuition, cash assistance, etc. That money comes out of the treasury.
Also, some of the EITC is paid for out of the treasury. If you have EITC that exceeds your liability then the government will straight up send you a check.
I don't think you understand what I am proposing. Under my program, the person getting EITC would not get a check from the government anymore. The credits would be transferable, so they could sell them on the open market. Wouldn't cost the government a penny.
This post was edited on 7/21/14 at 7:49 pm
Posted on 7/21/14 at 7:12 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
DUDE - once again - I present - the EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT LINK
Phd my arse
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:09 pm to I B Freeman
I am truly proud of you, IBF. I don't want this to be a shite on Jindal thread. The Tax Credits thing is something that is marketed by businesses and politicians of all stripes. When you try to apply the same logic to poor people then it suddenly has a stain to it. When people see trashy fat people sitting on the couch, getting free shite off of tax credits, then they would realize that (transferable or redeemable) tax credits are indeed a subsidy. I think people know when they've been had.
Having said that, I think the Democrats would be smart to push my plan because it would both turn the tables on their political opponents and ensure that their beloved entitlement programs get funded.
You may proceed.
Having said that, I think the Democrats would be smart to push my plan because it would both turn the tables on their political opponents and ensure that their beloved entitlement programs get funded.
You may proceed.
This post was edited on 7/21/14 at 10:12 pm
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:24 pm to Asgard Device
Wouldn't the government lose out on the taxes they would have received without this tax credit? So the government would lose money? And it would have to be a substantial amount for businesses to want to buy up these tax credits. So in essence the government would still be "paying" for it wouldn't it?
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:28 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
I don't think you understand what I am proposing. Under my program, the person getting EITC would not get a check from the government anymore. The credits would be transferable, so they could sell them on the open market. Wouldn't cost the government a penny.
What's the point? So now instead of the government sending them a check, they get a credit they can sell to another party? What would be the good of that? It costs the government the exact same either way.
This post was edited on 7/21/14 at 10:31 pm
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:35 pm to tigersaint26
quote:
So in essence the government would still be "paying" for it wouldn't it?
It's blasphemy on this board to say such things about tax credits. Tax credits for welfare will generate over $1 of economic activity for every $1 of credit given and thus it is a net positive.. or so I'm told. Best part: the government no longer has to cut a check. It's just the government taking less of our money.
This post was edited on 7/21/14 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:35 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
What's the point? So now instead of the government sending them a check, they get a credit they can sell to another party? What would be the good of that? It costs the government the exact same either way.
His point is refundable tax credits are bad policy whether they apply to filmmakers or the general welfare public.
Posted on 7/21/14 at 11:18 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
His point is refundable tax credits are bad policy whether they apply to filmmakers or the general welfare public.
Why didn't he just say so?
I'd be curious to know what the total tax revenue is as a result of the film maker's operations before I make a judgement. They employee Louisianians who pay income tax and pay sales tax so its not a simple equation. THough it would be nice to know if there's going to be an end to it.
This post was edited on 7/21/14 at 11:19 pm
Posted on 7/21/14 at 11:26 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I'd be curious to know what the total tax revenue is as a result of the film maker's operations before I make a judgement.
This isn't about fricking film tax credits.
quote:
They employee Louisianians who pay income tax and pay sales tax so its not a simple equation.
So do landlords and people who sell shite to welfare recipients.
Why not find out all the numbers before you shoot down giving poor people tax credits? Leave it to a tax and spend liberal to oppose giving poors tax credits. These poors probably spend more money locally than just about anyone.
Posted on 7/21/14 at 11:45 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Why not find out all the numbers before you shoot down giving poor people tax credits? Leave it to a tax and spend liberal to oppose giving poors tax credits. These poors probably spend more money locally than just about anyone.
Why not just give them cash?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 12:05 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Why not just give them cash?
A tax credit sounds better. The public perceives them as a good thing because they are erroneously confused with regular ol' tax breaks. A lot of people get upset about the government taking cash from one person and giving it to another person.
I seriously doubt the public would get behind the film tax credits if it were a $200+ million line item expenditure in the state budget. Tax credits are one of the most incredibly brilliant schemes I have ever encountered in politics. It completely bypasses legislative input and the people eat it up.
If you're a special interest group , you should spend less time lobbying for cash handouts and more time lobbying for tax credits. Often it only takes the approval of the executive branch. You don't even have to lobby the legislature. Plus you can tell the public that it's of no cost to the tax payer. Everybody is happy - except for IBF.
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 12:07 am
Posted on 7/22/14 at 12:14 am to Asgard Device
quote:
A tax credit sounds better. The public perceives them as a good thing because they are erroneously confused with regular ol' tax breaks. A lot of people get upset about the government taking cash from one person and giving it to another person.
I'm not confused, or upset.
quote:
I seriously doubt the public would get behind the film tax credits if it were a $200+ million line item expenditure in the state budget. Tax credits are one of the most incredibly brilliant schemes I have ever encountered in politics. It completely bypasses legislative input and the people eat it up.
The legislature actually has to enact them. That's the opposite of bypassing legislative input.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 12:39 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The legislature actually has to enact them.
They don't have to approve how much is "spent" on tax credits. Just the parameters by which the departments in the executive branch must adhere to in issuing them.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News