tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post450575993381121244..comments2024-03-28T18:32:43.699-05:00Comments on Bayou Renaissance Man: The real addiction problem - government subsidiesPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-23540475964216348382017-08-09T15:34:07.238-05:002017-08-09T15:34:07.238-05:00Points being missed.
'Free market' appli...Points being missed. <br />'Free market' applies to counties, states, countries, and other geographical locales just as much as it does to businesses. If BASF is going to build a new plant, generating millions of dollars in taxes over decades, they get to choose the locale. The subset of likely locales gets to *compete* for BASF's plant. Just as a cheaper but comparatively well built car is ideal for a consumer, a good location coupled with a tax break for BASF is ideal for the manufacturer. The tax subsidies *are* free market. 100 percent free market. The concept is *locales* competing for a customer, who they then collect taxes from, directly and indirectly. Whoever provides the most attractive package to BASF gets the spoils.Sineaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-27244630007837388732017-08-06T04:14:10.586-05:002017-08-06T04:14:10.586-05:00That's poor reporting by the Telegraph. A big ...That's poor reporting by the Telegraph. A big reason farmers need those subsidies is the supermarkets screwing down the farmers on prices. And the government are happy with that because the public don't see their food bill increasing.<br /><br />TLDR: it's bread and circuses.Quentinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-80125621861287077942017-08-02T16:36:25.512-05:002017-08-02T16:36:25.512-05:00And people wonder why politicians think they can c...And people wonder why politicians think they can create jobs. Because they can, sort of.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00722792638246578812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-10850735412684064552017-08-02T11:42:25.142-05:002017-08-02T11:42:25.142-05:00Fred Reed did a spectacular post... I think he may...<i>Fred Reed did a spectacular post... I think he may be on to something.</i><br />Is that <i>on</i> or <i>on to</i>? Because when Fred gets involved, he can make anyone look sober as a judge. Even me.<br /><br />If a company or an entire industry is not able to survive without government subsidies in one form or another, the very first question to ask is <i>why</i>, and that's the question that is never asked by anyone who controls or influences the government money tap. It may well be that an industry is in trouble because it's facing unfair competition, such as foreign government subsidies. It may also be a temporary condition which will rectify itself within a year or four - gun and ammo manufacturing under a régime of moonbats comes to mind, but that only increased sales. Evaluate the situation before you let it sink or swim.<br /><br />If the product or service in question is essential to the welfare of the nation, then it isn't in trouble financially. The trouble, if it truly exists, is in catastrophically bad management combined with a critically inefficient workforce.<br /><br />The problem with our economy, as it exists today, goes back to the Great Depression. The government bailed out the insurance companies and let the banks fail, when it should have done the reverse. In more recent times the city of Detroit filed for bankruptcy, which was granted, and the bankruptcy proceedings were completely FUBAR.<br /><br />If you want to save money, or rather you want to see tax money go somewhere other than where it's currently going, look to the military and ask yourself just who the hell it is we're fighting and why. Balance that against the fact that we are the only nation who can afford to build and operate a supercarrier, and we have ten such carriers in service.<br /><br />The problems of our economy are legion, and we are relying on a group of men and women who are, for the most part, singularly unqualified to provide any kind of a solution. They've done nothing but win a popularity contest, and they've done so by garnering the votes of people who truly do not understand, and will never understand, that the light they see at the end of the tunnel is most certainly a train. That is, those who can find the tunnel. Most can't.<br />Mad Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06190137186843630543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-5185399788703394562017-08-02T11:31:01.719-05:002017-08-02T11:31:01.719-05:00$110 billion in public money. Whenever I see a num...$110 billion in public money. Whenever I see a number like that I divide by the number of taxpayers: 100 million. (Corporate and other taxes ultimately derive from individuals since we're at the bottom of the tax food chain.)<br /><br />So that's $1100 each. Don in Oregonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-4854605132064765242017-08-02T10:55:58.126-05:002017-08-02T10:55:58.126-05:00@JK Brown: No, EITC doesn't necessarily requi...@JK Brown: No, EITC doesn't necessarily require income - or, at least, not enough of an income to pay taxes on it. If you have no job, but receive welfare, food stamps, etc., that counts as income; and, depending on the number of children you have, you also qualify for EITC, which is <i>paid to you as a tax refund</i>. As a pastor and chaplain, I was familiar with many cases where a family paid no taxes, received only welfare and other entitlement payouts, but also got thousands every year from the IRS in EITC 'refunds'. Frankly, I found it sickening.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-43175127723237333862017-08-02T09:26:11.893-05:002017-08-02T09:26:11.893-05:00Actually, the EITC is the only program that has a ...Actually, the EITC is the only program that has a rational basis. If some economist called it reparations, then they were either racist or against requiring work for government welfare benefits. <br /><br />EITC requires for one thing the earning of income. It does reduce the taxes taken out of that income for those who don't make much. And it could be used to give subsidy through a negative income tax. But first and foremost it requires the earning of income, i.e., work and doesn't have the stark penalty for working or earning income that other programs have with their earnings cliffs. A fair number of working people could do all right if the government didn't take a quarter to third of their earned income off the top.<br /><br /><br />As an aside, I read recently a point that many of the machines at the start of the Industrial Revolution were invented, developed by members of the clergy. The clergy themselves live off subsidy, and in the 17th/18th century tithing to the local parish was not really optional. So the question is that what made these individuals use their subsidized spare time productively? Perhaps it was that much of the clergy back then were the spare sons of the upper and middle class? Or pastoral work was all that was available even as it frustrated those who were inventive? The latter would also be related to the sudden release of misallocated mechanical talent from farm work to factories and workshops. <br /><br />Many have argued that a "basic income" would free individuals to pursue art or invention, but barring the clergy of centuries past, we don't see the provision of basic subsistence as sparking productive activity in most. It seems rather to do the opposite. It is those who are struggling without a handout who tend to get inventive as a means to alter their situation and improve their life.JK Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-86882419153731239532017-08-02T09:12:17.707-05:002017-08-02T09:12:17.707-05:00I completely agree that the corporate dole is, or ...I completely agree that the corporate dole is, or should be, anathema in our economy. The problem may start at the federal level, but I believe it is driven at the state and local level. When states and towns compete for companies to locate in their area by offering sweet deals, what properly run company would not take advantage of that? If they did not, their shareholders would revolt. The problem comes, IMHO, when the states and towns are terrible negotiators and don't worry about the long term costs and as long as they can point to a short term gain. I know one local company who moves every 8-10 years because that is the normal term of tax benefits the local politicians will give them for locating in their town. Until the towns and states can/will no longer compete with tax and other benefits, this corporate welfare will continue. The whole issue of the federal government picking winners and losers in a "free" marketplace is a whole other conversation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-78796099431819359562017-08-02T08:18:18.055-05:002017-08-02T08:18:18.055-05:00I find myself in the role of the devil's advoc...I find myself in the role of the devil's advocate. Let's play that out, Pete: the tap is cut off, the dole dries up, and these guys close the doors, and lay everyone off. How many people are on social assistance now as a result? And what will the bill be for that?<br /><br />Fred Reed did a spectacular post on economics months back where he speculated that gov't and military bloat were the result of people not being able to find real jobs in the private sector. I think he may be on to something.Glen Filthiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03256741311142364722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-86437156606194646602017-08-02T07:21:29.327-05:002017-08-02T07:21:29.327-05:00I always say, "when it becomes cheaper and ea...I always say, "when it becomes cheaper and easier to buy a congressman than to make your products better, that's where the businesses will spend their money". Unfortunately, we've been there for over a hundred years. The government went over the "too big" event horizon around the turn of the <i>last</i> century. <br /><br />The thing I can never quite understand is that the big government crowd condemns business for it but thinks the government is innocent. If the government isn't taking what amounts to a bribe, businesses can't buy them. The answer is less government, not more.<br /><br />If the government isn't involved, all a business can do is try to market their products to you. If they get the government to mandate it, they can force you to buy it. Like buying corn to make ethanol, or an uncountable number of other things they force on us. <br /><br /><br />SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.com