Class warfare is the ONLY thing Obama has going for him, he's a one and done prez...

KoH: I'd think your chances of being right would be higher if the Republicans had put someone out there that could rally people around them. Romney's just not an inspiring figure. I see this one going down kind of like 2004. Democrats were certain they could beat Bush after how bad things were going, but then they put John Kerry out there as the nominee.

Investment income is taxed on earnings. If you take out your invested money and it's earnings before it matures you are hit with capitol gains tax, plus penalties, fees and state taxes.

So even though people like Romney may not have paid tax on all they "earned" they did pay tax on all they earned and had access to. If Romney or any other person with money invested was to take that money out to use it they would pay tax on it. Simply saying that he paid a lower percent based on earnings is garbage. He actually paid more on what he earned and had access to use for living, than his secretary did on what she earned and had access to, to use for living.

Invested money is put back in the economy in the hopes it generates more money. That is not always the case. So unless you want to start compensating losing investors for their losses then you better back off taxing earnings from investment anymore than it already is.

Take your savings to the broker and invest it and see if you really want to see any more tax applied to the earnings. You might change your tune pretty fast.

If you don't make enough money then do something different. Don't try to take what you don't have from someone else because you are too lazy to go earn it for yourself. Hell go to work in North Dakota they are hiring anyone with a pulse, and paying 18+ an hour depending on what you know how to do.

Is there no one else in this community that invests that will chime in here and inform these libs that on top of paying tax on your income before investing it you pay tax on the earning when you take it out?

Oh and when we spend our recently withdrawn investment money we pay sales tax and depending on what we buy we pay an additional luxury tax and the list goes on and on. And to make it even better when I die and pass it to my kids I will pay a death tax and they will pay an inheritance tax. So you can take your "The rich don't pay" fluffing bullfluff and stick it straight up your fluffing ass!

If you are too stupid to live a life that allows you to put away for the future and still exist then don't blame me or try to take what I have worked for.

Oh and before you go on some tirade about how I must make too much money blah blah blah.... I make under 65k a year and raise 3 kids that never go without clothes or meals. So if I can do it any one of you can as well. The only threat to lower middle class Americans is libs like Obama and idiots like WT wanting everything to be free cheese and collapsing the country as a whole before we can reap the returns of our sacrifice and hard work.

I saw someone suggest raising the minimum wage.... why would you think that raising the base cost of producing goods and providing services and thereby raising the cost of living would make anything better?

Someone else stated that we are overrun with illegal immigrants not paying their fair share. Those immigrants do the manual labor jobs that bring the food to the table of Americans at a price that we can afford. (that most Americans view as being beneath them) We need to enforce the immigration laws we have with temporary visas for work and school which would be enough to curb that problem. (note i did not say completely correct it) Also not demonizing law enforcement for enforcing current immigration laws would be good as well. Exportation of illegal aliens convicted of drug or violent crimes should also be a priority. (not putting them in our jails and paying for them)

We need to reduce the income of elected officials and pro rate their retirement pay to receive at most 50% of their pay after retirement and not their entire salary for the rest of their lives.

We need to do away with the BS "Carbon Credit" and green tax garbage that companies have to pay to operate in this country so they will come back and manufacture goods here again.

States like Washington need to be cut off from federal funding for maintenance on their roads and waterways if they continue to block the mining and sale of trillions of dollars worth of coal from the Rockies. (which would undoubtedly create many jobs for skilled labor and revenue for the federal government)

All states should manage the wildlife that is native to that state and all federal funding/regulation of those programs should be defunded/deregulated. The only wildlife that should be federally regulated if wildlife that migrates annually between several different states or that enters the ocean or another country. (Ducks, Geese, Salmon and so on)

Class discrimination needs to be viewed in the same light as race discrimination and the minority needs to be accepted for their exceptional-ism and not demonized for their success.

The government needs to be forced to put it's share of the companies it purchased with the bail out funds from all the bailouts on the public market to be sold to repay the debt incurred in bailing those companies out. (i know that would mean that foreign investors and even foreign governments could then purchase those shares, but that is the way it goes when you make your company a public commodity)

The federal government should not be allowed to hold stock in any private company.

GSA which currently manages US Govt fleet vehicles should purchase vehicles and not lease them. The fleet should be put on a 5 year rotation regardless of mileage and and every year 20% of the fleet should be sold at public auction. The proceeds of the sale should go toward the purchase of the next years replacement fleet.

Government officials below the speaker of the house should be required to fly on commercial air. No GSA planes should be used. They could be allowed to fly military Space A flights at the reduced cost as long as there was an already scheduled flight. Also unless they personally paid the difference they should be required to fly the cheapest available fare.

There is so much more that can be done to reduce spending, but this is enough for one rant thread. :P

Khavic: "Is there no one else in this community that invests that will chime in here and inform these libs that on top of paying tax on your income before investing it you pay tax on the earning when you take it out?"

What's the rate on that? I have some meager investments from 403(b) deposits, but as I'm 31, I really don't know what the tax rate is. If it's the same as normal income, then everything I've been saying is already true. The impression I've gotten is that the taxes on investments top out at 15%, even if you're super rich like Romney.

"If you don't make enough money then do something different. Don't try to take what you don't have from someone else because you are too lazy to go earn it for yourself."

So anyone in a position that isn't financially lucrative is a lazy bum who needs to work harder? I'm a teacher. I work approximately 60 hours a week throughout the school year. I do enjoy my summers off, so I figure that balances out my 60 hour work weeks throughout most of the school year, but I definitely put in my hours. I'm also quite good at what I do and am most of the way done with my Master's Degree. For this, I get paid a pretty meager amount. Should I and all the teachers I know abandon this work and go become an investment banker? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not truly advocating that you're only as important as the size of your paycheck.

As far as the rest of your rant, I either agree with you or don't care enough to argue with you on your other points.

Twain, have you looked at the latest polls in the swing states??? not looking good for Obama..

You're right. Because it a hydra type deal we need to approach it as such and make sure we put regulations in place to prevent 2 more heads popping back up for each one we cut off. Half of those "heads" is our Military / Industrial Complex which eats up half of our yearly budget. They closed a lot of bases here in our country, costing us a lot of civilian jobs, while opening a lot of bases in other countries and in the process, helping THEIR economy while costing us a portion of OUR economy. Bring those bases, or at least most of them, back here and help US get back to work!

Right again. Some States actually give them licenses which help them to VOTE ILLEGALLY!

Back during the last Presidential election, John McCain was asked this question: "At what income level would you consider a person to be "middle class"? His answer: "After giving this some careful thought, I'd have to say $5,000,000.00 a year". My gut reaction to that statement was man, this dude is clueless and totally out of touch with reality. You got me to thinking about this and I'd have to say that several "small" businesses would be around that figure. I know I have at least 5 friends that make about that much BUT the majority of my friends, "working stiffs", husband and wife combined, make between $65k and $250k per year. Those "small" businesses and "working stiffs" should only be taxed at between 13 and 15% because they are the ones who contribute to your local economy. I don't feel there is a single CEO out there worth between $10,000,000.00 and $300,000,000.00 (pay and stock options) per year!

I am a volunteer at 2 local food pantries. I know about their "budgets" and where they get their money from. Your numbers could be right, I don't know one way or the other BUT both of these pantries have seen their "client" numbers more than double since 2008 while their available "donations" has been cut in half (from what they received in 2007)!

The "general rule of thumb" is that we need 250,000 jobs added every week to keep up with the people entering the workforce nation wide. with the exception of part of his 1st term in office, Bush LOST that many a week and more!

We started off that cliff back when one of my relatives, a Republican Senator from Rhode Island, brought forth a bill that would create a PUBLICALLY owned Central Banking System. His bill was shot down but brought back, after being changed to a PRIVATELY owned system and passed in 1913. It became known as the Federal Reserve Act! After that, they made it illegal for citizens to own gold! The "icing on the cake" was when Nixon took us off the gold standard. Reagan devalued our dollar down to a dime, created the Trade and Tarriff Act which was the forerunner of NAFTA. Bush senior signed the agreement with Canada and Mexico after which it went to the House and Senate for ratification. Clinton signed it as one of his first acts in office.

The so called "clean coal" and "clean gas" is just the Republican way of saying "I want more money in my pocket" because there is NO SUCH THING as clean coal or gas. You're still burning a carbon product and as such IS DIRTY period. BTW, oil was $29.00 a barrell when "W" came into office. Before he left office it hit dam near $150.00 a barrell! "Renewables" are the only way to go (wind, water, solar). You also need to do things to conserve energy. Items that use less power, insulation such as radiant barrier foil (basically bubble wrap with aluminum foil on it). Using the foil in an attic can keep the summer sun from frying your brains and wallet. It will keep your attic a comfy 70 - 80 degrees all year round instead of the normal 120 - 140 degrees in the summer sun. Using the same foil on your stone or cement block basement walls can keep your basement around 65 - 75 degrees in the coldest of winters.

I'm trying to help fix my local economy but getting financing in this economy only happens if you're very well connected. :(

No Twain I do not think that you are only as valuable as the size of your paycheck. If that was the case I would have a very low opinion of myself as well since my earning are not stellar by any stretch of the imagination.

You at 31 are well on your way to a solid career and though you may not earn a ton of cash each year you said it yourself you have a savings and add to it. You are continuing your education and that will undoubtedly increase your income over time.

I recently (2010) liquidated an underperforming mutual fund and was charged 28% capital gains, 8% state and some other early some thing or another fee. I ended up basically putting money into an account and pulling out the same dollars I put in after 4 years of purchasing that stock. So had a net gain of near 0 on $10,000.00 invested (it was just over $130.00 more than originally invested). I knew there was a risk of losing all I put in and am not complaining about getting all my money back, but all the rants about how much X or Y makes and does not pay tax on is getting out of hand. Yes their gains on paper are substantial. If I had been able to invest $1,000,000.00 then my net gains would have obviously been more and the same taxes would have been levied against me to liquidate those stocks and use my cash. It is the same for anyone who invests.

What is frustrating me the most is that there are resources at our disposal to improve our situations and if people do not start at home and change what is within their control they should not be asking "Big Brother" to take what you and I and others like us have earned so they can feel equal.

There are grants and scholarships for education, work resource funds through the department of labor, work study programs, journeyman trade opportunities and multiple different faith based education opportunities. People have to go out and actively pursue them for them to work.

There is no reason for someone to sit on their thumb and complain about what someone else has when there are a multitude of opportunities to go out and earn the same thing for themselves.

That is unless we let our Republic become a Fascism or Communism where no matter how hard you work or how much you save the Gov't tells you what you can and cannot have. Or tells you how much you can or cannot earn.

every republic in history, when it has ended, has been replaced by a totalatarian regime

this republic has already, i believe, lasted longer than any...ever

we've permitted those that get handouts to vote, and they'd be morons NOT to keep voting for those who give them the handouts

seems to me it's all over but the cryin'

It truly is the end of the roman republic all over again

Khavic: If it's any consolation, in addition to my "wanting the rich to pay more" attitude, I also believe tax credits that allow the poor to draw more out than they actually paid in throughout the year should also be closed. I don't care if the super-poor basically don't pay taxes by getting them all refunded, but we have enough social welfare programs without making the tax collection system an additional one.

So my ideology isn't really a class warfare one. I just think there are several issues with the tax system.

Oh, and I teach at a Catholic school. The only way my paycheck's going to get considerably better is if I go to a public school. The Catholic school system seems to believe that our rewards will come in the afterlife :P

Twain: The "rich" (man I hate that vague term) already pay for over 85% of what this county operates on. Take the blinders off for just a minute and look at the average tax contribution.

For argument sake, let's say you put in around 8k and got around 3k of that back. So you alone contribute 5k. Let's say all 300,000,000 Americans were working and paying in the same amount. That would be a gross of about 1 and a half trillion dollar budget to work with. Now here comes the problem. Take 3% away from the contribution pool for disability/retirees. Take 10% away for current unemployment. Take 1% away for people who work for the government who, may pay taxes on earnings, but their whole earnings are a drain on the budget. So remove 240 bil just in what they would be contributing. Now figure that 14% draws an average salary of 30k a year. That is a drain of 1.5 trillion dollars a year. You now have 0 to operate the country on. Remember in this scenario you still have not put 1 gal of fuel in the presidents helicopter, jet or limo. You have not put 1 gal of fuel in an FBI vehicle. Not one inch of interstate has been paved. Not one dollar has gone to a foreign country for aid.

Where do you think the majority of taxes that this country runs on come from?

khavic, i think the point is not that where the money in circulation comes from, but how the individual taxation affects individual people

or do you not think that 5k from a person who makes 30k affects them differently than 17k from a person who makes 100k?

(these are assumed numbers, based on your post above. if my tax deductions are any indication, the estimate of 1/6th income is low. or i'm just unlucky :P)

i have *no doubt* that the richest in the country also contribute the largest total of money in tax. it'd be fluffing stupid if they didn't. my perspective (and presumably others) is that it's not proportional. not even close.

1st : It does not matter how it affects them. Everyone is crying about "Fair share" and a "Fair share" is everyone pays their portion of the bill owed.

If you and I are kicking back drinking a beer and decide to take our 2 families to pizza dinner do we sit there and figure out who makes what and divide the tab up by our incomes? Or do we both pitch in half because both of our families shared the meal?

If your income is double mine do you drive on different highways? Should you pay more to maintain the highways we share?

2nd : Did you know that your employer, you know the rich person, not only pays individual tax on earnings they take from their company, but is required to match certain taxes they withhold from you when they pay their business taxes? (I have not had employees since 1998 so I don't know what today's numbers are now, but then it was around 70% of the tax my employees paid I had to match when I paid my company tax.)

3rd : You are right it is not proportional because they pay a much larger share than most even begin to realize.


4th : It is not the guy next door making "Too much money" that has got us where we are today.

Too much government is what has lead us here.

The housing bubble collapse was due to over regulation of the housing market, not under regulation. The collapse of the securities and exchange was due to over regulation, not under regulation. The collapse of GM was due to over regulation (by the unions as well) not under regulation.

What was the driving force for banks to make risky/unsecure loans?

Why did the securities market insure those risky loans?

Why do auto makers send their vehicles to Canada to have their A/C units charged and buy their electronic components from Mexico?

khavic, i was going to be thoughtful and considerate in my response, but i'm convinced at this point that you're a fluffing sociopath. it matters 100% how this affects people. if you don't care how other people are affected, you are a sociopath.

here's a few points
a) in theory, the gas taxes pay for the roads. and gas, while a usage tax, is not that disparate across income levels, except that i would expect slightly better mileage, on average, for people that can buy newer/more efficient cars.

b) my employer is not a person. my previous employer was not a person. my employer has never been a person, and if an employer has any fluffing sense, they are not a person. they are a company. my *boss* does not pay jack fluff for business taxes. the company (the university, currently) does.

c) i'll let the proportionality one slide because i honestly don't feel like doing the research right now, but apparently neither do you.

d) you're right, it's not the "guy next door making too much money". it's a long fluffing chain of events, and i'm not trying to lay blame anywhere. having said that, do you believe that banks fluffing with reselling subprime mortgages was really based on a government mandate to "omg fluff up our economy"? i'd be very saddened to find out that the people that presumably understand better than anybody else how markets and finances work are so fluffing shortsighted that they didn't anticipate the bottom falling out from under them.

you want something to point blame at? i'll point some blame. greedy psychopath/sociopaths who will do whatever it takes to increase the number of digits in an account in the fluffing caymans, with no concern for anybody else. this is entirely based on greed. that's the driving force for making pisspoor choices on loans. that's why car manufacturers build cars out of parts sourced from countries that have no compunction with paying people fluffty wages for fluffty hours. or are you against the minimum wage too? you think that the "market will correct" wages? you think that 15 guys in a corporate boardroom give 2 fluffs about the state of people at the bottom of the ladder?

fluff flows downhill.

i'm done with this topic, i'm not convincing you, and you're not convincing me.

OMFG you must be high.

Do you think that universities spring into being without someone starting them? Okay so maybe your university is now run by a co-op or some other entity, but it is a safe bet that it did not start that way. Even universities are for profit organizations.

And if your "Greedy Bankers" had refused to make the loans that ultimately went into default and subsequently crashed the economy then they would have been sued as being discriminatory and another bank would have made the loan anyway.

The government forced, through regulation, the banks to make the loans and lied to the loan insurers that they would cover them if they did default.

Selling sub-prime mortgages allows the bank that is selling them to reduce their exposure to loss in the event of a default. The people buying them take points in exchange for the risk. They felt they were safe because the loans were federally guaranteed.

Of course 15 guys in a boardroom care about wages. Employers need stable, productive employees that know what they are doing respective to their job. For the large majority they are willing to pay to keep those people happy and productive. Maybe that has not been your experience because you have worked in places where your work could not be quantified that way.

I was going to be thoughtful in my response to you, but that is not what you would want so go fluff yourself you are a waste of oxygen you socialist egocentric bastard :P

Khavic: A couple last things then I'm probably done with this too, becuase I'm getting bored arguing this.

You claim that the fair share implies that your income level doesn't matter. We should all pay $5,000 a year in taxes. That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and I can't imagine you actually even agree with your logic here.

Living in a country like America involves paying taxes for the opportunities you've been afforded. For as much as you seem to be defending the wealthy, the attitude of everything should be equal that you're advocating sure sounds a lot more socialist than capitalist.

Furthermore, the idea of a truly equal tax bill for everyone is class warfare of a different type. That would completely bankrupt everyone up through the middle class, but would be a great bargain for the wealthy. Heck, I'll be happy to have my attitude considered a Robin Hood "steal from the rich and give to the poor" attitude in comparison to your Prince John attitude. Let's just throw everyone in tax jail if you can't find enough money to pay your portion of the national budget.

Flat tax fan here. Get rid off all the deductions. You earn it you keep it.

Top it off with a sales tax. You make more, you consume more, so you pay more.

Given that it does unfairly hit the lower socio-ecomonic classes but it is countered by those classes tend to receive more benefits. Plus they can get balanced by a standard deduction.

No system is going to be 'fair' or 'even' someone will always lose. It all depends on which lens is being looked through.

All I care about is the govt only spends what you take in.

Twain you just don't want to hear my point.

The point is that the people who make more already pay more.

The people who make less pay less.

Those who cannot make do have support out there to make change.

We, as a whole, need to spend less time and energy trying to make rules to make the top performers pay more.

We need to spend our time and energy making the government smaller and forcing it to spend less.

I get your point, but I think you undermined your own point with your last idea. I'm hoping that was just rhetoric to make your point and not actually how you feel, because if it's the latter, then there's nowhere we can go from there.

And besides that, I don't think you're seeing my point either. I don't care if the rates stay at their current levels, I just think the super wealthy have too much access to loopholes around paying the amount they're supposed to pay.

I really don't even find your position defensible, considering even Romney himself in an interview with TIME talked about the fact that the middle-class needs to have their tax burden lifted. So ultimately, even the person we're talking about as our example seems to be agreeing with my point.

If you think my means of doing this are misinformed, they may be. As I said, being relatively early in my career, I don't much think about retirement yet. I haven't given much though to how my tax burdens will change, so I haven't researched it. But ultimately, they are a lot of people in the top tax brackets that are paying 10-15% in taxes when those brackets are supposed to be reserved for the lower and working classes.

And I don't care if the top whatever percent pay most of the taxes. They also make most of the money. If you show me numbers that show the burden they shoulder is excessive in comparison to the income they generate for themselves, then I'll be more open-minded, but saying they pay 70% (or whatever it was, I think when you quoted it, it's on a previous page...) without any context of how much of the wealth they represent is one-sided and manipulative.

Furthermore, as Azz Kikr brought up, 10% of someone's income that is only making $25,000 a year is far more punitive than 35% of someone making $500,000, just because there's a certain amount that must be made in order to support oneself and one's family.

I'm far from thinking that the rich should be punished for their success. I'm simply saying that I'd rather live in a society that actually tried to take care of all its citizens and give them all an equal chance at success. That whole "pulling oneself up by their bootstraps" becomes more and more difficult without all the social programs that help out those that are in the lower and working classes. Those programs are often the ones that are first put on the chopping block when the Republicans want to make cuts.

Furthermore, as Azz Kikr brought up, 10% of someone's income that is only making $25,000 a year is far more punitive than 35% of someone making $500,000, just because there's a certain amount that must be made in order to support oneself and one's family.

Right there... right there... this is what no one wants to acknowledge :

If you make 25k a year then you are not "entitled" to a 60" plasma TV and all that other "stuff" people think they cannot live without.

It is hard to pull yourself up by the boot straps because gov't has imposed a glass ceiling where they take more of what you earn in a disproportionate scale as you make more money.

Taking more from one income level and giving it to another or handing it to the gov't to handle is not the answer.

Reduce the size of gov't.

Institute a flat tax and do away with 50% of the IRS employees.

Reduce elected officials pensions.

Reduce the pay of elected officials.

Cut aid to foreign countries.

I am not saying that it is not harder for the working class under 100k a year. I am saying that if the gov't got their hands out of peoples pockets and backed off to let them live their lives we would all be better off.

As for your last point Twain : Giving someone a chance to succeed does not mean regulating them to death. And then taxing them for dying. As long as we have a government that pends out of control and then tries to make the masses fight each other to take from those who have managed to succeed no one will truly have success.

A couple questions if anyone knows because I do not.

1) why is overtime pay taxed at a higher rate?
2) why do we pay tax on our earnings?
3) Twain you said you work at a Catholic school which I would assume is funded by donations of the congregation. Why would you pay tax at all?

Hey in NY if you are on welfare you qualify for a free Obama Cellphone. There are lots of things that people are entitled to have and should not have to live without.

Let it be, man, class warfare is all the left has going for them, their failed policies are living prove and Obama is on his way out, how's "hope and change" worked out for the USA?, look at Obama/Biden polling in the swing states!

In all fairness, liberal policies have done a great deal to improve the life of many in this country. Economic prime pumping a historically proven tool ans well as decifit spending.

The problem is that we've hit the wall. The deficits can go no higher. We cannot continue spending our way out of the corner the way we used to be able to in the past. In short our standard of living has peaked.

Now the bill is due. We've gone as far as we can go down that path. It is now time to pay the piper. Until the debt is managed we can no longer afford to prime the pump. And to pay for the standard of living that we have achieved, our grandchildren's will be reduced.

Nothing we can do about it except slog on through it the hard way and maybe my grandkids' grandkids will be able to start the cycle all over again.

Khavic25

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/end-polluter-welfare/

At a time when we have a record debt, Congress should not continue to give away taxpayer money to the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuels are subsidized at nearly 6 times the rate of renewable energy. From 2002 to 2008, the US Government gave the mature fossil fuel industry over $72 billion in subsidies, while investments in the emerging renewable industry totaled $12.2 billion.

The fossil fuel energy industry does not need taxpayer subsidies. In 2011, the Big Five oil companies alone made $137 billion in profits. During the first quarter of 2012, the Big Five oil companies earned a combined $33.5 billion, or $368 million per day.

Unlike renewable energy incentives which periodically expire and require Congress to approve extensions, the fossil fuel industry has dozens of subsidies permanently engrained in the tax code from decades of successful lobbying. In 2011, the oil, gas, and coal industries spent a combined $167 million on lobbying the federal government.

In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did Exxon NOT pay any Federal Income taxes, they actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to their SEC filings!

This is better known as the Polluter Welfare Act. I have a real problem with corporations earning that much profit and and getting over $150 million dollar rebate that could have been much better spent keeping families in their homes. If the average house in this country was worth $200,000, that money would have kept 780 families, about 3,120 people, in their homes instead of turning them into renters!

I believe it was Twain who said that in this country we have a bad habit of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

You do understand that regardless of how much a company makes that they can reinvest a portion of their earnings into growing their company and reduce their tax burden by expanding their operation. Thus through leveraging tax liability the government can encourage growth and development of already large companies. 19 billion or 19 trillion is irrelevant if the company grows their operation and reinvests properly.

Don't blame the wolf for killing the sheep. Blame the farmer for not protecting his sheep and controlling the wolf population.

We are supposed to control our government, not the other way around. If you lobby your congressman to introduce legislation to stop subsidizing the oil companies then I'm sure it would take root and we could force the government to comply.

Cut the bull fluff with the Polluter Welfare blah blah blah and I would be much more interested in discussing things with you.

I fall in the middle here. I don't believe that we should be giving tax credits to Exxon et al for re-investing in developing an oil field in Trindad etc. That is a waste of my money. Let Exxon take the risk and reap the rewards.

On renewable energy we should promote by giving tax credits as I feel it is in our national interest. Guarenteed loans on the other hand no. Tax credits.

And the way this administration has handled these loans is frankly criminal.

If you own a small business whatever you do to increase your business is on you. There are other things like providing a product or service to your customers which are considered "the cost of doing business". There is absolutely no reason why the same should not be true with "big" businesses. Same thing with farms. Small farms have to take care of themselves. Corporate farms get money to leave fields empty! That's just wrong.

Either you are intentionally lying or are uninformed. Regardless you are just straight out wrong!!

Research land banks and you will see why farmers are subsidized to leave land bare.

Ask an accountant if expansion of a business is tax deductible or not.

I know that big corporate farms are subsidized to leave land empty. Small farms are not. "Big businesses" get things like PILOT programs while small, local businesses get the shaft. Just in case you don't know, PILOT is:
Payment
In
Leu
Of
Taxes
Out of town developers get things like a local building, worth $4,000,000, only pay $10,000 for it and then a 20 year PILOT program where they don't pay the taxes the City would normally get for a $4,000,000 building!

Here they use Restore New York grant money to tear buildings down so that developers have a "shovel ready" site instead of reusing buildings smartly.

I go to every City Council meeting and see this stuff happening. So if you still think I'm lying or uninformed, you're wrong. Try going to your own City Council meetings and see for yourself.

Pilot programs can be a good thing when used right. Yes, they get the building dirt cheap and get a break on the taxes, and typically utilities as well. But rather than an empty building generating no revenue, jobs can be created in the new location generating more indirect taxes than the property taxes.

Like I said... when done right.

Just don't get me started on that whole use of E.D. to give private property away to corporations because it's "for the public good".

WT were you not just saying earlier in this thread that buildings need to be better constructed to use energy more efficiently and that bigger government was the solution. More mandated programs and so on??

Now you complain because old buildings are torn down so companies can hire people to rebuild them to their required specifications so they can be modern and more useable for their need? So what if they get a tax credit for putting people to work and expanding their operation. They are investing in that community.

Are you just posting fluff to try and be argumantative?

sss

I never said bigger government was the solution. We, as a Nation, have been there, done that and it's an abysmal failure on too many counts.

One of the things that attract people from all over the world to come to my city is the various styles of architecture including buildings from the 18th century. Movies have been shot here. Our politicians have been too quick to just tear things down. They have destroyed entire neighborhoods. If a building presents a hazard to people, can't be repaired, then by all means tear it down.

There is no "master plan" for the future. But, when you have buildings that are of historic significance, you need to incorporate them into the future. Having a "neighbor" such as Rite Aid is the pits. They tear down historic buildings to build a store only 500 feet away from an existing Rite Aid, rather than put money back into their business.