1
0
0

This gay wedding welfare has got to be stopped ! (self.Conservative)

submitted by propshaftRadical Redneck

Several posters in this forum whined and bitched at me yesterday claiming they wanted to put a stop to "their tax dollars being given to this nations farmers".

When I inquired as to where this tax money of 'theirs' was being made available to us farmers not a one of them was able to show me where I could go get some of it.

However several of them did provide blog articles claiming that those of us in the farming community were being 'subsidised' through 'tax incentives', some even calling it welfare for farmers.

Now how anyone being allowed to keep their own hard earned money by utilising a tax incentive becomes a 'subsidy' or 'welfare handout' is beyond me. however this is what the anti ag whiners claim it is.

That being the case, I being a single guy wish to protest homosexual marriage because of my tax dollars being given to them in the form of welfare for gay marriage.

Hell, I might even go so far as to demand all that money you straights have been receiving for years through your marriage be reimbursed to us suppressed single's !

You straights have been on the dole for centuries and now we have to support the homosexuals as well !

You bastards should be ashamed of yourselves for stealing all those billions of dollars from us hard working single people.

IT HAS TO STOP NOW !

We've been carrying the load for you freeloading welfare sucking buttlickers far to damn long !

all 16 comments
sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]ezfrag 2 ポイント3 ポイント

ECON201

[–]Waynehead69 3 ポイント4 ポイント

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

[–]CarolinaPunkEsse Quam Videri 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I don't see the problem, subsidy, marriage credits, home mortgage deductions are all attempts to use the tax code as social engineering. The only purpose of the tax code is should be to raise revenue for the function of government as efficiently as possible with the least deadweight loss.

Here is the problem with farming subsidies. Case in point, Corn Ethanol. http://theweek.com/article/index/247596/its-time-for-america-to-end-ethanol-subsidies#axzz33lUXTggz

[–]propshaftRadical Redneck[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Here is the problem with farming subsidies. Case in point, Corn Ethanol.

Farmers do not receive anything except a bigger market for their crops from ethanol, the oil companies get a tax credit for mixing it with their gasoline.

[–]propshaftRadical Redneck[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Again with the word 'SUBSIDY' !

Did you even read your own damn oil industry funded article ?

Even in it they clearly state " tax credits" , not subsidy, not welfare, not your tax dollars, but credits.

What part of that do you find so difficult to comprehend ?

Why do you insist on denying people the right to keep their own hard earned money, and to suppress the free market ?

Are you a damn communist by any chance ?

[–]ezfrag 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Tax credits are an indirect subsidy. Whether the government is giving someone money, or just not taking it from them - the end result is the person has more money than if the government did nothing.

Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates).[2][3] Furthermore, they can be broad or narrow, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. The most common forms of subsidies are those to the producer or the consumer.

[–]FranzJosephWannabe 2 ポイント3 ポイント

This. The question you seem to be asking yourself is, "without taxes, would I have this money that I earned?" When the question you should be asking yourself is, "without 'tax credits,' would I have this money that I earned?" The answer to the first question is, of course, yes! But that's not the reality that we live in.

Another way to look at it is like this. Your gross income is X, your taxes are Y. Without the tax credits, your net income is X-Y. But, if you add in tax credits, Z, the formula changes. The taxes minus the tax credits can be expressed as Y - Z. Then the full formula for net income looks more like this: X - (Y - Z). Another way to write it would be like this: X - Y + Z. THAT's why it looks like (and in fact is) a subsidy. As ezfrag said, it is an indirect subsidy because it's included in the taxes, but it's still a subsidy.

I'm sorry you don't see it that way, but calling people Communists doesn't change the reality of the situation. Perhaps this is all semantics, and there are certainly legitimate reasons for subsidies (if one knows anything about the history of agriculture in the US, they know that these are intended to protect farmers), but don't try to pretend that they aren't subsidies when they are.

[–]propshaftRadical Redneck[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Since you are claiming all income is the property of the fed, then how in the hell is it YOUR tax dollars being spent or used to 'subsidize' someone else ?

[–]propshaftRadical Redneck[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

So let me try and get this straight, lets say you owned a cupcake bakery, and one day I stopped in for some cupcakes, however upon doing so I decided you were the ugliest damn person I have ever run across so I beat the shit out of you and called it your ugly tax.

Then after several weeks of collecting ugly tax off of you, you offered me some cupcakes at a reduced price, so I decided to forego beating the shit out of you and collecting the ugly tax,,, that would mean I was giving you a subsidy by not knocking the crap out of you that day right ?

[–]propshaftRadical Redneck[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

So according to you all income is the property of the fed and any they allow you to keep is a subsidy.

[–]FranzJosephWannabe 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Um, no. But, the basic rule of taxes in the US is essentially, all income is taxable unless it's not. Since you are doing business in the US, you are subject to US taxes. So, your NET income is expressed as Gross Income minus Taxes. As I have it up there, it's X - Y. That's it. That's a normal tax relationship. A tax credit, however, undermines that normal X - Y relationship. As explained above, the formula becomes Gross Income minus the result of your Taxes minus any Tax Credits PROVIDED TO YOU BY THE GOVERNMENT. Expressed above, this is X - (Y - Z). That line about being provided by the government is key. Through simple distribution, this formula can also be expressed as income minus taxes PLUS TAX CREDITS , or X - Y + Z. So, while you see "tax credits," it can easily be shown that you are actually gaining money from the government that you would otherwise not receive.

Of course, all of that is semantics, but here's another way to look at it:

YOU RECEIVE MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS EARMARKED TO GO TOWARD YOUR TAXES.

That's it. That's as simple as I can make it so that you can understand that what you receive is, in fact, a subsidy.

[–]JohnnyDollarPaleoconservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Tax breaks are a form of subsidy. By definition. You can argue they aren't the same as outright payments, but railing against the term subsidy is silly as it is a subsidy by definition. Although I'm sure you could argue crop insurance was more of a direct subsidy.

[–]propshaftRadical Redneck[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Despite the lame attempts by the left to twist them, words actually do have meaning, and a tax credit is not the same as a subsidy.

Subsidy: money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

A "tax credit" is a tax benefit offered by either the IRS or a state / local government for spending your money on certain things such as college tuition.

The benefit comes in the form of a direct reduction in the amount of income taxes you might owe by the amount of the credit you receive. For example, if you owed $5,000 in Federal income taxes and received a $1,000 tax credit, you would now only owe $4,000.

http://collegesavings.about.com/od/glossarydefinitions/g/taxcredit.htm

[–]JohnnyDollarPaleoconservative -1 ポイント0 ポイント

My man. You have a really valid point here. But you are refusing to make it. Instead you are getting caught up on the definition of subsidey. Which is really a basic economic and investment definition. You're making yourself look silly instead of positioning your very valid point.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

Feel free to google as well. Which I'm sure you already did and just decided to ignore for some reason.

[–]propshaftRadical Redneck[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Lets try this, I want you to show me where I as a farmer am personally and directly receiving these subsidies you claim I am receiving.

And I am talking subsidies, YOUR TAX MONEY, not the hard earned money from my own pocket.

[–]propshaftRadical Redneck[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

From your own link:

Investopedia explains 'Subsidy'

There are many forms of subsidies given out by the government, including welfare payments, housing loans, student loans and farm subsidies. For example, if a domestic industry, like farming, is struggling to survive in a highly competitive international industry with low prices, a government may give cash subsidies to farms so that they can sell at the low market price but still achieve financial gain.

If a subsidy is given out, the government is said to subsidize that group/industry.

The only subsidy in the ag business which fits the description of giving something for nothing I am aware of is protected pricing on certain products like dairy or honey. Both of which I have no dealings with.

I am a row crop farmer, soy beans and corn, and I guarantee you there is no price protection for those products.