quote:
But, you can't be pathological about it. If losing a business would cost X dollars for the state and keeping it would cost LESS than X, you fricking keep it.

You have yet to present one piece of evidence this is the case.

BUT you still miss the point that return to the government should not be a criteria for taxes!!!!

Let's take an extreme example of what you advocate. There is no question that we could tax everybody in Louisiana to start an oil production company. The state could take a billion dollars a year from taxpayers and generate $5 billion for itself. Would you favor that?? Isn't that what they have in Venezuela? Isn't that what PetroMex is?? Taking money from the citizens simply because it is a good return for the state is a very bad criteria for taxing.

They could take ALL your money and give to Benson and get back all your money plus something and in your eyes that is a good thing. That is "keeping a business that cost less than X" and you want to "frickin keep it".

When does deciding what is good for the state supersede what is good for the individual???

Why elevate the state to something more than a servant of the citizens?

This post was edited on 9/12/17 at 7:45 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by ShortyRob

Member since Oct 2008

82116 posts

Posted on 9/12/17 at 8:19 pm to I B Freeman

quote:
You have yet to present one piece of evidence this is the case.

Dude. You fricking started the thread and haven't presented any evidence supporting the idea that it isn't a net gain.

Good fricking lord.

quote:

BUT you still miss the point that return to the government should not be a criteria for taxes!!!!

I'm not even entirely sure what you mean with this sentence. Criteria how?

quote:
They could take ALL your money and give to Benson and get back all your money plus something and in your eyes that is a good thing. That is "keeping a business that cost less than X" and you want to "frickin keep it".

Oh. Now I see. You still haven't the slightest idea how this thing happens.

You don't even understand the mechanism.

But, that's beside the point. My ENTIRE response was simply based on two simple points.

1)I asked. "Is there evidence this is a net loser"? - I've received no answer

and

2)I've pointed out that if it is NOT a net loser, then that means that no taxpayer dollars are "taken". To this, you don't even seem to understand the math.

But hell. Can we at least get #1 out of the way? How on Earth can you be bent out of shape about something you don't even KNOW to be true and take zero effort to actually check to see if it is?

That's just fricking weird.

0 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board