PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues U.S. bill seeks to communize faltering newspapers


Taco John
03-25-2009, 12:12 AM
U.S. bill seeks to "rescue" faltering newspapers

Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:05pm EDT


By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible.

Because newspaper profits have been falling in recent years, "no substantial loss of federal revenue" was expected under the legislation, Cardin's office said in a statement.

Cardin's office said his bill was aimed at preserving local and community newspapers, not conglomerates which may also own radio and TV stations. His bill would also let a non-profit buy newspapers owned by a conglomerate.

"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.

Newspaper subscriptions and advertising have shrunk dramatically in the past few years as Americans have turned more and more to the Internet or television for information.

In recent months, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Rocky Mountain News, the Baltimore Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle have ceased daily publication or announced that they may have to stop publishing.

In December the Tribune Company, which owns a number of newspapers including The Baltimore Sun, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times filed for bankruptcy protection.

Two newspaper chains, Gannett Co Inc and Advance Publications, on Monday announced employee furloughs. It will be the second furlough this year at Gannett.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52N67F20090324

jAZ
03-25-2009, 01:29 AM
Non-profits = communist!!!!

I think "communize" just jumped the shark.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 01:34 AM
That doesn't sound too bad, but I think you can still design a paper in a way that promotes one agenda over others without directly stating that you are for or against something in editorials. Omitting certain stories, deciding what is front page, what is page 22, that's all pretty influential.

But my first reaction is that I think it's a pretty good idea.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 01:48 AM
Non-profits = communist!!!!

I think "communize" just jumped the shark.


Jump the shark? Is the word not accurate?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2009, 02:22 AM
So "communize" is the new Lew Rockwell/Paultard buzzword of the week.

I think I enjoyed "looter" more, although revolution was catchy too.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 02:57 AM
I love how these guys try to pass of communism merely as "non-profit."

It's the ole Orwellian double speak. If you call it something else, then it's not really what it is. Things become what they are by what you call them, not by their substance.

"It's not communism if our intentions are good!"

Amnorix
03-25-2009, 06:45 AM
I love how these guys try to pass of communism merely as "non-profit."

It's the ole Orwellian double speak. If you call it something else, then it's not really what it is. Things become what they are by what you call them, not by their substance.

"It's not communism if our intentions are good!"


Why would letting a newspaper convert to a nonprofit be communizing them?

And how would the prohibitions on political endorsements be any differetn from how religious charities are treated. They, too, cannot make political endorsements, right?

I'm missing the whole communist connection. I know you see communism everywhere, but this seems a stretch even for you.

Ultra Peanut
03-25-2009, 06:47 AM
http://j.photos.cx/whitehouse-e41.gif

BucEyedPea
03-25-2009, 07:08 AM
This congress/administration is saving inefficient companies.
My guess, is that as the govt saves newspapers they will still decline.
Another waste of money. That's the the govt for ya' buying things that no one wants to pay for, forcing the
taxpayer to pay for. Govt buys worthless junk.

wild1
03-25-2009, 07:12 AM
They still won't stick around if they can't make money, even if the Congressional democrats do manage to get their friends in the media exempted from taxes. Don't kid yourself, that's what this is about.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2009, 07:14 AM
They still won't stick around if they can't make money, even if the Congressional democrats do manage to get their friends in the media exempted from taxes. Don't kid yourself, that's what this is about.

When that happens, they'll nationalize them. Then we'll have our very own Ministry of Truth.

Amnorix
03-25-2009, 07:15 AM
This congress/administration is saving inefficient companies.
My guess, is that as the govt saves newspapers they will still decline.
Another waste of money. That's the the govt for ya' buying things that no one wants to pay for, forcing the
taxpayer to pay for. Govt buys worthless junk.

First, this is a bill that hasn't yet gotten through one house, much less both, of Congress. Who knows if it will ever go anywhere.

Second, the government isn't buying anything. All it seems to be doing is giving a tax break to newspapers that want to convert into non-profits. Probably something to do with their retained earnings. This is money that the government will never see anyway if the paper goes belly up, which is what most of them are doing.

Third, the government is not seeking to control any newspaper, nor are they giving them any money.

Fourth, it's entirely possible that the newspapers will be uneconomical even as non-profits. The business model is unfortunately completely broken. I'm not sure that operating as a non-profit will significantly help them.

memyselfI
03-25-2009, 07:17 AM
When that happens, they'll nationalize them. Then we'll have our very own Ministry of Truth.

Minitrue. I've been using that term for months!!!! Orwell would be impressed at the lack of violence, ease, and speed of this transition.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2009, 07:22 AM
First, this is a bill that hasn't yet gotten through one house, much less both, of Congress. Who knows if it will ever go anywhere.

Second, the government isn't buying anything. All it seems to be doing is giving a tax break to newspapers that want to convert into non-profits. Probably something to do with their retained earnings. This is money that the government will never see anyway if the paper goes belly up, which is what most of them are doing.

Third, the government is not seeking to control any newspaper, nor are they giving them any money.

Fourth, it's entirely possible that the newspapers will be uneconomical even as non-profits. The business model is unfortunately completely broken. I'm not sure that operating as a non-profit will significantly help them.



I didn't say the govt was buying newspapers. I said it was saving them. That's what this is. Then I mentioned govt buying worthless junk, in general....which is happening with the nationalization of the financial sector. That's what's going on in general. They're doing just another thing to save another inefficient operation that's losing money because technology is replacing them for one. Next step, just may be another nationalization.


Bankruptcy cleans out the inefficient stupid entities. They need to go. It's also a stimulus.

memyselfI
03-25-2009, 07:25 AM
I didn't say the govt was buying newspapers. I said it was saving them. That's what this is. Then I mentioned govt buying worthless junk, in general....which is happening with the nationalization of the financial sector. That's what's going on in general. They're doing just another thing to save another inefficient operation that's losing money because technology is replacing them for one. Next step, just may be another nationalization.


Bankruptcy cleans out the inefficient stupid entities. They need to go. It's also a stimulus.

They are also buying positive press. What editor is going to want to be critical of the guy if he saved his job and that of his staff. You can rest assured the papers receiving help will respond in kind.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2009, 07:28 AM
They are also buying positive press. What editor is going to want to be critical of the guy if he saved his job and that of his staff. You can rest assured the papers receiving help will respond in kind.

Definitely. The Ministry of Truth is here folks.

SBK
03-25-2009, 07:31 AM
Didn't Donger call this a few days ago?

BucEyedPea
03-25-2009, 07:48 AM
Didn't Donger call this a few days ago?

Did he? Well, guess what else is going to be next? WalMart. The hate fest is underway. They're going to have billions confiscated from it. Anything left standing that's successful, is going to see ruinuous fines, taxation and regulations. These guys don't want a recovery....they hate the market. They're stimulating govt.

jAZ
03-25-2009, 11:28 AM
Awesome.

Now we have a massive non-profit communist conspiracy afoot. I can see how the red-scare really took hold.

Non-profits = communist

Seriously?

Taco John
03-25-2009, 08:42 PM
Awesome.

Now we have a massive non-profit communist conspiracy afoot. I can see how the red-scare really took hold.

Non-profits = communist

Seriously?


Who is paying their bills jAZ? Is the American community at large being stuck with their bills?

Taco John
03-25-2009, 08:47 PM
Attention Obama Bots!

Just because you don't like the word "communism" doesn't mean it isn't happening!

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 08:49 PM
Fourth, it's entirely possible that the newspapers will be uneconomical even as non-profits. The business model is unfortunately completely broken. I'm not sure that operating as a non-profit will significantly help them.

Going under is exactly what *should* be happening. Technology has rendered them useless. There are faster, cheaper, more interactive, more resource friendly ways to get print media. It's time for the printed paper to die. Magazines are welcome to join them.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 08:52 PM
Awesome.

Now we have a massive non-profit communist conspiracy afoot. I can see how the red-scare really took hold.

Non-profits = communist

Seriously?

So only businesses who are smart and make money should be paying high taxes? The dumb ones who are losing their shorts should be able to keep charging us, but not pay into the system?

HonestChieffan
03-25-2009, 09:05 PM
So only businesses who are smart and make money should be paying high taxes? The dumb ones who are losing their shorts should be able to keep charging us, but not pay into the system?

Redistribution of profits? Naaaaaa, no way....

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 09:05 PM
Going under is exactly what *should* be happening. Technology has rendered them useless. There are faster, cheaper, more interactive, more resource friendly ways to get print media. It's time for the printed paper to die. Magazines are welcome to join them.

Most newspapers are moving online. But they still have to pay writers, editors, reporters. That's not free just because you shut the press down and let go over the delivery drivers.

Anyway, making a sudden leap from print to internet would leave a lot of people out.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 09:08 PM
Most newspapers are moving online. But they still have to pay writers, editors, reporters. That's not free just because you shut the press down and let go over the delivery drivers.

Figure out a way to profit or go out of business. We can't support every idea whose time has passed into perpetuity.

I'm sure the guys that made wooden wheels would like the govt. to be hooking them up right about now too. After all, it wasn't their fault the rubber and metal ones are better.

headsnap
03-25-2009, 09:10 PM
Anyway, making a sudden leap from print to internet would leave a lot of people out.
sudden leap?

Are you serious?


I think they have had quite a while now to figure the interwebs out...

Ultra Peanut
03-25-2009, 09:14 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gsZ_8s0BPGo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gsZ_8s0BPGo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

KC Dan
03-25-2009, 09:14 PM
Most newspapers are moving online. But they still have to pay writers, editors, reporters. That's not free just because you shut the press down and let go over the delivery drivers.

Anyway, making a sudden leap from print to internet would leave a lot of people out.
Wah, f'n wah! Move to China then. Businesses fail every day. i know you find that unbelievable and unnecessary but businesses failing is how society moves forward. Someone else figures a better way to do things or make things or sell things and the dinosaurs extinct themselves. Grow up dude, this is America. Innovation, drive, better ideas and efficiency weeds out the bad.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 09:15 PM
Figure out a way to profit or go out of business. It seems to me they would be going out of business.

We can't support every idea whose time has passed into perpetuity.

How has the idea of the spreading of information and news passed into perpetuity? The idea of a newspaper is still very good. Essential.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2009, 09:15 PM
http://j.photos.cx/whitehouse-e41.gif

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/3553/716ed.gif

HonestChieffan
03-25-2009, 09:17 PM
What would prevent a newspaper declaring themselves a non profit? Im not sure I understand. What does this bill do that isnt already possible?

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 09:18 PM
sudden leap?

Are you serious?


I think they have had quite a while now to figure the interwebs out...

I doubt a majority of people over 60 get on the internet regularly. Yeah, people like my grandparents would be left out. They're not going to buy a computer and take a class so they can learn to read the paper online. Let them have their non-profit newspaper.

headsnap
03-25-2009, 09:18 PM
The idea of a newspaper is still very good. Essential.

In the digital age, the idea of getting yesterday's news delivered to your door today is obsolete...

KC Dan
03-25-2009, 09:20 PM
I doubt a majority of people over 60 get on the internet regularly. Yeah, people like my grandparents would be left out. They're not going to buy a computer and take a class so they can learn to read the paper online. Let them have their non-profit newspaper.
Do them a favor junior - buy them one and help them out by showing them how to use it. They probably wiped your azz when you were a baby. The least you could do then.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 09:20 PM
Wah, f'n wah! Move to China then. Businesses fail every day. i know you find that unbelievable and unnecessary but businesses failing is how society moves forward. Someone else figures a better way to do things or make things or sell things and the dinosaurs extinct themselves. Grow up dude, this is America. Innovation, drive, better ideas and efficiency weeds out the bad.

Why would I find that unbelievable or unnecessary?

I can't see how people not getting information about their communities and states and nation through the new non-profit newspaper is innovative, driven, a better idea, or efficient.

headsnap
03-25-2009, 09:22 PM
I doubt a majority of people over 60 get on the internet regularly. Yeah, people like my grandparents would be left out. They're not going to buy a computer and take a class so they can learn to read the paper online. Let them have their non-profit newspaper.

my 96-year-old grandmother uses the internet!

but more to your point, as long as there is a market(your 60+ demographic) there will still be papers serving that market. Let the ones that can't find a market FAIL!

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 09:23 PM
In the digital age, the idea of getting yesterday's news delivered to your door today is obsolete...

That's not really how I see the purpose, goal, and underlying importance of a newspaper.

banyon
03-25-2009, 09:23 PM
Who is paying their bills jAZ? Is the American community at large being stuck with their bills?

what?

That's not in your article.

alanm
03-25-2009, 09:23 PM
my 96-year-old grandmother uses the internet!

but more to your point, as long as there is a market(your 60+ demographic) there will still be papers serving that market. Let the ones that can't find a market FAIL!
Adapt or die. No bail out.

KC Dan
03-25-2009, 09:23 PM
Why would I find that unbelievable or unnecessary?

I can't see how people not getting information about their communities and states and nation through the new non-profit newspaper is innovative, driven, a better idea, or efficient.
how does being non-profit make any of that happen other than allow politically like minded companies of a particular party make money tax-free? If they improve their efficiency and move with the times, they can do that without trying to live 50 years in the past.

headsnap
03-25-2009, 09:24 PM
new non-profit newspaper is innovative(1), driven(2. lol), a better idea(3), or efficient(4. you can't be serious!).

that's four strikes there...

alanm
03-25-2009, 09:27 PM
So "communize" is the new Lew Rockwell/Paultard buzzword of the week.

I think I enjoyed "looter" more, although revolution was catchy too. I've heard the word "Statist" becoming quite popular.

headsnap
03-25-2009, 09:27 PM
That's not really how I see the purpose, goal, and underlying importance of a newspaper.
you are correct... I still get the Sunday paper.


I like to read the ads with my Sunday morning coffee...

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 09:27 PM
my 96-year-old grandmother uses the internet!

but more to your point, as long as there is a market(your 60+ demographic) there will still be papers serving that market. Let the ones that can't find a market FAIL!

They're becoming non-profit, they get tax breaks, and have to put their profits away to benefit the paper in the future. Why do they need to cease from existing in the world?

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 09:28 PM
It seems to me they would be going out of business.

Too bad, so sad.

How has the idea of the spreading of information and news passed into perpetuity? The idea of a newspaper is still very good. Essential.

There was a time when not having a blacksmith in every town was unfathomable. We got over that. We'd get over newspapers too if pussies like you would just be quiet.

I know, the newspapers are totally in the tank for your guys and you hate to lose an ally like that, but the fact is that nobody reads them anymore. If people did read them we wouldn't be having this conversation.

alanm
03-25-2009, 09:29 PM
When that happens, they'll nationalize them. Then we'll have our very own Ministry of Truth.
Peace be with you Komrade.:thumb:

KC Dan
03-25-2009, 09:29 PM
They're becoming non-profit, they get tax breaks, and have to put their profits away to benefit the paper in the future. Why do they need to cease from existing in the world?
Because they are obsolete like the Edsel, the Yugo, record albums, Atari ... good gawd, you really don't understand, do you?

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 09:30 PM
That's not really how I see the purpose, goal, and underlying importance of a newspaper.

So you write a check to keep their doors open.



Oh, wait, you can't. At least not without using the force of government to steal it from the producing class.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 09:32 PM
They're becoming non-profit, they get tax breaks, and have to put their profits away to benefit the paper in the future. Why do they need to cease from existing in the world?

Are they going to stop using roads? Not benefit from the laws of the land? You know, all the excuses you give for why it is Ok to rape companies who aren't failing?

headsnap
03-25-2009, 09:34 PM
well Johannes, it's been a great 570 year run, but all good things must come to an end...



blame Al Gore...

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 09:35 PM
Too bad, so sad.

The good news is they can be non-profit organizations I guess.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 09:43 PM
The good news is they can be non-profit organizations I guess.

...and when that isn't enough? Most papers are way too upside down for just the tax breaks to save them.

So, given that some are bound to fail, how many do we need do you figure? Two per town? How big is a town? Should there be a certain number of papers per capita? We can hash this to death and fund it forever or we can let nature take its course.

As papers start to fold people like your grandparents who refuse to give them up will gradually begin to consolidate onto the fewer remaining papers until the surviving ones are profitable. Then bingo, the 'problem' solves itself and doesn't cost society at large a dime.

The people who lose their jobs will be back out looking for a new way to package their services and make themselves more attractive, spurring innovation and competition. Oh the horror!

banyon
03-25-2009, 09:44 PM
So you write a check to keep their doors open.



Oh, wait, you can't. At least not without using the force of government to steal it from the producing class.

What are you talking about? What theft? There are no subsidies in this proposal.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 09:45 PM
What are you talking about? What theft? There are no subsidies in this proposal.

I keep hearing about how the government and society as a whole is owed these massive amounts of money from corporations for letting them exist. Why do newspapers get off the hook?

I also don't believe for a second that it will stop with tax breaks.

HonestChieffan
03-25-2009, 09:46 PM
No Taxes would be considered by those who pay taxes as a subsidy.

headsnap
03-25-2009, 09:46 PM
...and when that isn't enough?


they just have to make sure they report the news 'correctly' and the politicians will keep giving them money...

KC Dan
03-25-2009, 09:46 PM
...The people who lose their jobs will be back out looking for a new way to package their services and make themselves more attractive, spurring innovation and competition. Oh the horror!
Capitalism working? No way - it must be stopped!!!

banyon
03-25-2009, 09:46 PM
No Taxes would be considered by those who pay taxes as a subsidy.

I guess by people who don't understand what a subsidy is, perhaps.

banyon
03-25-2009, 09:48 PM
I keep hearing about how the government and society as a whole is owed these massive amounts of money from corporations for letting them exist. Why do newspapers get off the hook?

I also don't believe for a second that it will stop with tax breaks.

So that's just speculation then?

HonestChieffan
03-25-2009, 09:50 PM
Looks like its been done before....and to India even

http://bgates43.newsvine.com/_news/2008/11/30/2163588-maureen-dowd-outsourcing-news

Its a great read. Ive added link to Dowd story http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30dowd.html?_r=1&hp

banyon
03-25-2009, 09:52 PM
Don't know. But I'm sure you'd find a way to rationalize the loss of more decent paying jobs.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 09:53 PM
...and when that isn't enough? Most papers are way too upside down for just the tax breaks to save them.

So, given that some are bound to fail, how many do we need do you figure? Two per town? How big is a town? Should there be a certain number of papers per capita? We can hash this to death and fund it forever or we can let nature take its course.

As papers start to fold people like your grandparents who refuse to give them up will gradually begin to consolidate onto the fewer remaining papers until the surviving ones are profitable. Then bingo, the 'problem' solves itself and doesn't cost society at large a dime.

The people who lose their jobs will be back out looking for a new way to package their services and make themselves more attractive, spurring innovation and competition. Oh the horror!

Are you against all non-profit organizations, tax breaks for churches and charities, public access tv, or is it just the non-profit newspaper you are against?

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 09:54 PM
So that's just speculation then?

Sure. I'd like to equate it to taking the reigning NBA champ straight up over the 64th team to make the NCAA tourney, though. I'd say the odds are really good.

banyon
03-25-2009, 09:54 PM
Are you against all non-profit organizations, tax breaks for churches and charities, public access tv, or is it just the non-profit newspaper you are against?

Next thing you know, we'll be subsidizing churches and charities!

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 09:55 PM
Are you against all non-profit organizations, tax breaks for churches and charities, public access tv, or is it just the non-profit newspaper you are against?

All of them.

HonestChieffan
03-25-2009, 09:55 PM
We already do

banyon
03-25-2009, 09:56 PM
We already do

yeah! somehow!

headsnap
03-25-2009, 09:56 PM
Are you against all non-profit organizations, tax breaks for churches and charities, PBS, or is it just the non-profit newspaper you are against?

just the Non-Profit newspaper and PBS.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 09:58 PM
All of them.

You had to say it.

banyon
03-25-2009, 09:58 PM
Sure. I'd like to equate it to taking the reigning NBA champ straight up over the 64th team to make the NCAA tourney, though. I'd say the odds are really good.

Well, when that proposal comes up, be sure to let me know. Until then, though, discusssing the current one seems germane.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 10:00 PM
You had to say it.

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 10:09 PM
I don't understand what you're getting at here.

You had to say that in order to not sound hypocritical here. You've probably never looked at a church and were enraged that they didn't have to pay sale tax for the food for their pastor's 50th birthday party or tax on the donations they get from passing the basket around. "If the parishoners can't afford it, then that church should be gone from existence!" You've probably never been enraged at the charities that get tax breaks, or even at the tax deduction you get from your own charitable deed, like giving a bunch of clothes to Goodwill or something. But this has enraged the free marketer! This is communism! It's no longer a slope. We are in Soviet Russia now that these newspapers are non-profit. Now that the glorious free market has failed them, we are foolishly fighting against nature by propping them up and making them agents of the power hungry state!

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 10:12 PM
You had to say that in order to not sound hypocritical here. You've probably never looked at a church and were enraged that they didn't have to pay taxes. "If the parishoners can't afford it, then that church should be gone from existence!" You've probably never been enraged at the charities that get tax deductibles, or even at the tax deduction you get from your own charitable deed, like giving a bunch of clothes to Goodwill or something. But this has enraged the free marketer! This is communism! It's no longer a slope. We are in Soviet Russia now that these newspapers are non-profit. Now that the glorious free market has failed them, we are foolishly fighting against nature by propping them up and making them agents of the power hungry state!

Actually, if you can find one instance where I supported tax breaks for churches or charities I'll be amazed because I can't recall ever holding that opinion.

Religion is the biggest money laundering scheme in the history of the world.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 10:16 PM
Actually, if you can find one instance where I supported tax breaks for churches or charities I'll be amazed because I can't recall ever holding that opinion.

Well you've never been one that was short of a bad idea or two.

Religion is the biggest money laundering scheme in the history of the world.

Oh look. Two.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 10:20 PM
"The invisible man who loves you completely said to give me 10% of everything you earn or you'll burn for all eternity in a fire that he built, but all that is totally out of his hands despite the fact that he's omnipotent."

Now, are all religious people that way? Certainly not. I think a large percentage of them actually believe it on some level. I still fail to see where the money comes in, though.

banyon
03-25-2009, 10:21 PM
I don't know of any sect of Christianity that makes salvation contingent on tithing.

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 10:23 PM
Not unbelievable that the leftists on here would be defending tax breaks for the failing enterprises that vociferously support their cause and have for quite a long time. Jeez. You lefties are sooooo transparent. Riddle me this....why would you be against letting them simply fail? Are you going to come clean and admit that it is because the newspapers tend to be left leaning or are you going to throw some bullshit against the wall and hope it sticks?

banyon
03-25-2009, 10:25 PM
Not unbelievable that the leftists on here would be defending tax breaks for the failing enterprises that vociferously support their cause and have for quite a long time. Jeez. You lefties are sooooo transparent. Riddle me this....why would you be against letting them simply fail? Are you going to come clean and admit that it is because the newspapers tend to be left leaning or are you going to throw some bullshit against the wall and hope it sticks?

It's not really a tax break considering that it means that they aren't allowed to keep profits any more, if they choose to avail themselves of this proposal.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 10:30 PM
Not unbelievable that the leftists on here would be defending tax breaks for the failing enterprises that vociferously support their cause and have for quite a long time. Jeez. You lefties are sooooo transparent. Riddle me this....why would you be against letting them simply fail? Are you going to come clean and admit that it is because the newspapers tend to be left leaning or are you going to throw some bullshit against the wall and hope it sticks?

It's not giving a billion dollars to New York Times. It's allowing St. Donatus Herald to keep covering city hall, and the monthly school board meetings, and the chamber of commerce's bid for Pepsi including all the tax breaks being offered and analyzing how St. Donatus is doing in the global recession.

Some people do actually care about that stuff still, not just national elections, and Glenn Beck and him crying over 9 principles. Enough to make a profit? Apparently not.

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 10:31 PM
It's not really a tax break considering that it means that they aren't allowed to keep profits any more, if they choose to avail themselves of this proposal.
WTF??????? LMAO

1) If they are failing they aren't keeping any profit because THEY AREN'T MAKING ANY.

2) It is a tax break. It helps keep a failing enterprise afloat.

3) Why are you defending this idea? I think we both know the answer to that, right?

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 10:33 PM
It's not giving a billion dollars to New York Times. It's allowing St. Donatus Herald to keep unprofitably covering city hall, and the monthly school board meetings, and the chamber of commerce's bid for Pepsi including all the tax breaks being offered.

Fixed your post.

Once again, what happens when just becoming a non-profit isn't enough? You've already decided these people are too important to fail, so what is the next step?

BTW, there would be someone in St. Donatus who would still cover that, they'd just put it on the web. Or circulate as a newsletter. Or any of a couple of dozen more efficient things. If people actually want the product (in this case the information) then there will be someone supplying it.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 10:37 PM
Fixed your post.

Once again, what happens when just becoming a non-profit isn't enough? You've already decided these people are too important to fail, so what is the next step?

They would probably cease to exist if this didn't work ot.

BTW, there would be someone in St. Donatus who would still cover that, they'd just put it on the web. Or circulate as a newsletter. Or any of a couple of dozen more efficient things. If people actually want the product (in this case the information) then there will be someone supplying it.

That's what the newspaper does. They print out a newsletter, and put it on their website.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 10:37 PM
Another question, Jenson:

Who else is either too big, or too important, or too historically put upon to fail? Can we make a list of all the people and enterprises that everyone else is going to have to bail out? I'd like to know ahead of time so I can see just what percentage of this country is going to be getting more than just a free ride.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 10:41 PM
Another question, Jenson:

Who else is either too big, or too important, or too historically put upon to fail? Can we make a list of all the people and enterprises that everyone else is going to have to bail out? I'd like to know ahead of time so I can see just what percentage of this country is going to be getting more than just a free ride.

Schools, transportation, the military, police, legal system, freedom of poor religions to continue to exist, assemblies, charities not being burdened by government on top of all the good they do. That's a start.

banyon
03-25-2009, 10:41 PM
WTF??????? LMAO

1) If they are failing they aren't keeping any profit because THEY AREN'T MAKING ANY.

2) It is a tax break. It helps keep a failing enterprise afloat.

3) Why are you defending this idea? I think we both know the answer to that, right?

1) Actually, most of the large newspapers made profits last year and the year before, even in a faltering economic climate that their auto and financial bretheren sweltered in.

2) Non profits don't pay taxes and don't keep profits, it's not a money-making scheme. In that context the term "tax break" really doesn't make any sense, because it doesn't alter their profitability like that term usually connotes.

3) I defend the idea for the same reason that the Founders though it was important enough to protect in the Constitution.

Rather than letting a few corporations dictate what we shall hear, this could in fact free up some entities that had clearly been focused on the bottom line as opposed to the public interest fot the last few years.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 10:44 PM
Rather than letting a few corporations dictate what we shall hear, this could in fact free up some entities that had clearly been focused on the bottom line as opposed to the public interest fot the last few years.

I think believing that anyone is looking out for your best interest is part of the problem.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 10:44 PM
The Black Lung Benefit Trusts too should not fail.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 10:46 PM
The Black Lung Benefit Trusts too should not fail.

You list off all of your pet projects, then the other 300 million Americans will list off theirs, then we'll just run the printing presses at the Treasury until they catch fire. It'll work out. No way that plan can fail.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 10:48 PM
You list off all of your pet projects, then the other 300 million Americans will list off theirs, then we'll just run the printing presses at the Treasury until they catch fire. It'll work out. No way that plan can fail.

It's amazing how representative democracy works. I encourage you to read up on it sometime.

banyon
03-25-2009, 10:50 PM
I think believing that anyone is looking out for your best interest is part of the problem.

So, the press is not worthy of protecting then? We should scrap the whole 1st amendment thing?

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 10:53 PM
It's amazing how representative democracy works. I encourage you to read up on it sometime.

Why? We're supposed to live in a representative republic.

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 10:53 PM
1) Actually, most of the large newspapers made profits last year and the year before, even in a faltering economic climate that their auto and financial bretheren sweltered in.

2) Non profits don't pay taxes and don't keep profits, it's not a money-making scheme. In that context the term "tax break" really doesn't make any sense, because it doesn't alter their profitability like that term usually connotes.

3) I defend the idea for the same reason that the Founders though it was important enough to protect in the Constitution.

Rather than letting a few corporations dictate what we shall hear, this could in fact free up some entities that had clearly been focused on the bottom line as opposed to the public interest fot the last few years.

1) The entities we are talking about are failing. I highly doubt the profitable ones would avail themselves of this ridiculous measure.

2) The term tax break makes perfect sense in the real world. If they don't have to pay taxes, they don't have the added operating expense. Whether or not they make a profit is irrelevant. The overhead is less so they live a while longer (until the next taxpayer funded 'tax break').

3) There is nothing in the Constitution mandating government assistance of private press entities. I can't believe you even tried to use a hyperbolic argument like that to defend your position. Just be honest. The press tends to portray your ideals in a positive light and you want to keep the voter base that they influence so you support keeping them afloat with taxpayer money.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 10:55 PM
So, the press is not worthy of protecting then? We should scrap the whole 1st amendment thing?

There are plenty of press sources other than printed newspapers. Like newspapers they all have their own interest at heart first, just like every human being on the planet.

banyon
03-25-2009, 10:59 PM
1) The entities we are talking about are failing. I highly doubt the profitable ones would avail themselves of this ridiculous measure.

Ok fine.

2) The term tax break makes perfect sense in the real world. If they don't have to pay taxes, they don't have the added operating expense. Whether or not they make a profit is irrelevant. The overhead is less so they live a while longer (until the next taxpayer funded 'tax break').

If they can't keep a profit, who gives a f*ck, there's nothing to tax.

3) There is nothing in the Constitution mandating government assistance of private press entities. I can't believe you even tried to use a hyperbolic argument like that to defend your position. Just be honest. The press tends to portray your ideals in a positive light and you want to keep the voter base that they influence so you support keeping them afloat with taxpayer money.


The Red and the Blue do not jibe. What assistance?

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:01 PM
There are plenty of press sources other than printed newspapers. Like newspapers they all have their own interest at heart first, just like every human being on the planet.

To the contrary, although there is some self interest involved in getting up every day, breathing, and being a human being, newspapers have played an important historical role for their contributions to our society.

Having few newspapers, or one, is a sign of a totalitarian regime.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 11:02 PM
Why? We're supposed to live in a representative republic.

Oh, well, we elect our representatives by majority vote. Are you trying to say we're a constitutional republic? Yeah, I think we're labeled that too.

Don't annoy me Simplex.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 11:08 PM
To the contrary, although there is some self interest involved in getting up every day, breathing, and being a human being, newspapers have played an important historical role for their contributions to our society.

Having few newspapers, or one, is a sign of a totalitarian regime.

That was true when there weren't other sources of information like the TV, radio, and Internet. Unless those are going somewhere I'd say we can afford to lose the papers.

As for the bolded portion of your comment, put that shit in a museum where it belongs.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 11:08 PM
Don't annoy me Simplex.

Yeah, facts are annoying sometimes.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:15 PM
So, the press is not worthy of protecting then? We should scrap the whole 1st amendment thing?



Yeah. This issue is about the first amendment, you dope. :rolleyes:

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 11:17 PM
The Red and the Blue do not jibe. What assistance?

We are making progress. The assistance would be the reduction in overhead cost thru the lack of necessity of paying taxes making it possible to stay in 'business'. Do you really believe that failing businesses don't ordinarily have to pay taxes or what was the point of this particular argument? Now please answer the question honestly. Why do you want to see this idiotic measure pass?

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:19 PM
I keep hearing about how the government and society as a whole is owed these massive amounts of money from corporations for letting them exist. Why do newspapers get off the hook?

I also don't believe for a second that it will stop with tax breaks.



This is THE thing... It starts with a foot in the door. "We just want to help!" And things go along swimmingly for awhile. But it never ends there. Look at income taxes for the perfect example of how this stuff creeps in slowly and with good intentions.

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 11:19 PM
To the contrary, although there is some self interest involved in getting up every day, breathing, and being a human being, newspapers have played an important historical role for their contributions to our society.

Controlling the press by favoring them if they support your viewpoint is a sign of a totalitarian regime.

FYP

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:20 PM
Yeah. This issue is about the first amendment, you dope. :rolleyes:

Good insult there man. Way to raise the level of discussion.

wild1
03-25-2009, 11:20 PM
they are a dinosaur medium anyway. it's like saying the government should bail out a company making horses and buggies.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:22 PM
How has the idea of the spreading of information and news passed into perpetuity? The idea of a newspaper is still very good. Essential.


Yeah? How many are you subscribed to?

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:24 PM
We are making progress. The assistance would be the reduction in overhead cost thru the lack of necessity of paying taxes making it possible to stay in 'business'. Do you really believe that failing businesses don't ordinarily have to pay taxes or what was the point of this particular argument? Now please answer the question honestly. Why do you want to see this idiotic measure pass?

But the government isn't "giving" them anything. What item/dollar amount are they giving them?

And taxes don't have anything to do with overhead. Damn man.

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 11:25 PM
I, personally, do not subscribe to any print papers because they are a waste of ****ing paper. I would rather see the trees live.

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:25 PM
FYP

Funny, I didn't catch that in the OP anywhere.

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:26 PM
I, personally, do not subscribe to any print papers because they are a waste of ****ing paper. I would rather see the trees live.

You should probably throw any books you have into the fire while you are at it.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 11:26 PM
Yeah? How many are you subscribed to?

Whether I subscribed to 0-100 would not be relevant in my argument. But I pay school fees which help support the library, which has papers, one of which I read almost every day.

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 11:27 PM
But the government isn't "giving" them anything. What item/dollar amount are they giving them?

And taxes don't have anything to do with overhead. Damn man.

OMG. LMAO

Taxes DO have to do with overhead because they impact the overall bottom line. If you dont have to pay business tax, the savings are reflected on the balance sheet.

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:28 PM
Yeah? How many are you subscribed to?

I subscribe to 2, what do I win? Do I get to keep arguing?

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:29 PM
Good insult there man. Way to raise the level of discussion.

It's had no place to go but up after that stupid first amendment crack.

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 11:29 PM
You should probably throw any books you have into the fire while you are at it.

Why? Any books I read are actually factual rather than opinionated and the ones that aren't are clearly marked 'FICTION'.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:30 PM
Whether I subscribed to 0-100 would not be relevant in my argument. But I pay school fees which help support the library, which has papers, one of which I read almost every day.


ROFL

You prove my point.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 11:32 PM
ROFL

You prove my point.

What point?

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:32 PM
But the government isn't "giving" them anything. What item/dollar amount are they giving them?

And taxes don't have anything to do with overhead. Damn man.


It's not the "giving" that's the problem here. It's the "taking." You commented on the first amendment, but said nothing of the first amendment rights that are being taken away from the papers with this "plan."

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:33 PM
OMG. LMAO

Taxes DO have to do with overhead because they impact the overall bottom line. If you dont have to pay business tax, the savings are reflected on the balance sheet.

Only indirectly, and not in a classical sense of the term, since they are figured after profits.

But it's irrelevant in this discussion, since as a nonprofit, the entity would hold no profits to tax.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2009, 11:34 PM
It's not the "giving" that's the problem here. It's the "taking." You commented on the first amendment, but said nothing of the first amendment rights that are being taken away from the papers with this "plan."

So whether or not a paper endorses a politician once every four years is now the entirety of the first amendment?

Just once, I'd like to see a Libertarian engage in an argument that didn't rely completely on a slippery slope fallacy.

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:35 PM
Why? Any books I read are actually factual rather than opinionated and the ones that aren't are clearly marked 'FICTION'.

Just burn the ones you disagree with then, that will be sufficient.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:36 PM
Just once, I'd like to see a Libertarian engage in an argument that didn't rely completely on a slippery slope fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. It's happened time and time again in history. Government just needs a foot in the door, and before too long they're changing the drapes and remodeling the place.

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:36 PM
It's not the "giving" that's the problem here. It's the "taking." You commented on the first amendment, but said nothing of the first amendment rights that are being taken away from the papers with this "plan."

What rights are being taken away under the 1st amendment? :spock:

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 11:37 PM
Only indirectly, and not in a classical sense of the term, since they are figured after profits.

But it's irrelevant in this discussion, since as a nonprofit, the entity would hold no profits to tax.

You have never had your own business have you? Be honest. Please.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:37 PM
So whether or not a paper endorses a politician once every four years is now the entirety of the first amendment?



Either the first amendment is violated or it isn't.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:39 PM
What rights are being taken away under the 1st amendment? :spock:




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Aren't you supposed to be some sort of lawyer? What the ****?

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 11:41 PM
Just burn the ones you disagree with then, that will be sufficient.

The ones that are factual are immune since it is irrelevant whether or not I agree with them. Fact is fact. Caesar conquered Gaul and it doesn't matter if I agree with him doing it or not. No book burning of 'The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire' I suppose. Fiction books are merely entertainment and thus not worthy of the flame either.

What was your point again?

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:43 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Aren't you supposed to be some sort of lawyer? What the ****?

So what law here abridged the freedom of the press?

Aren't you supposed to be some kind of internet moron?

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:44 PM
So what law here abridged the freedom of the press?

:rolleyes:

jAZ
03-25-2009, 11:44 PM
So only businesses who are smart and make money should be paying high taxes? The dumb ones who are losing their shorts should be able to keep charging us, but not pay into the system?

We're talking about non-profits. Take a deep breath and just think about what you are saying here.

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:45 PM
You have never had your own business have you? Be honest. Please.

I'm not going to participate in your thread tangent/hijack.

Despite this, again, there are no profits to tax, therefore there is not a tax break, it's really that simple.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:45 PM
Banyon, I get tired of leading you by the nose through these discussions. The playing stupid act is really weak when you are an actual lawyer.


Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:46 PM
:rolleyes:

Let me know if you actually have anything to contribute or if it's just a bunch of snarky, hateful s***, you can GFY.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:46 PM
It's really simple:

is that, or is that not an abridgement to the freedom of press?

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 11:47 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Aren't you supposed to be some sort of lawyer? What the ****?

Would it not be similar to prohibiting a pastor from directly telling his congregation on Sunday morning who to vote for? It seems like there would be relevant case law that deals with such issues as the non-profit and freedom of speech.

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:47 PM
Banyon, I get tired of leading you by the nose through these discussions. The playing stupid act is really weak when you are an actual lawyer.


Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

So, they would be forced into this arrangement? I didn't see that in the OP, perhaps I missed it. The OP I read said "allow them" to become nonprofits.

Besides being a lawyer, I am also a reader.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:48 PM
Let me know if you actually have anything to contribute or if it's just a bunch of snarky, hateful s***, you can GFY.

Your "playing stupid" act brings out the best in me.

You're a fucking lawyer and you can't recognize that the first amendment is being violated here? I feel like Jon Stewart interviewing Jim Cramer. I you fucking lawyers can't see the simple straightforward truth in this, what hope do the rest of us have?

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:49 PM
So, they would be forced into this arrangement?

Irrelevant.

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 11:49 PM
I'm not going to participate in your thread tangent/hijack.

Despite this, again, there are no profits to tax, therefore there is not a tax break, it's really that simple.

I'll take that as a last ditch 'no, I have never had a business and I don't know what the **** I am talking about'. Fair enough.

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:49 PM
Irrelevant.

Why, because you say so?

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:51 PM
I'll take that as a last ditch 'no, I have never had a business and I don't know what the **** I am talking about'. Fair enough.

Well, if you want to play the "I've run a business and you haven't so I win any argument even if I'm not able to articulate my position" game, I guess I would rather you played that game with someone else, yes. "chris" likes to win arguments by default in that game, perhaps you can pay that with him.

Or if I wanted to I guess I could say, why are you commenting on this OP? It involves a law. I am a lawyer, are you? why do you feel you can comment? But of course that's just as silly.

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:54 PM
Why, because you say so?

Is it an agridgement or is it not? It's a simple fucking question.

Jenson71
03-25-2009, 11:56 PM
Irrelevant.

LMAO

I'm pretty sure it's established we can voluntarily waive our freedom of speech for circumstances like this.

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2009, 11:57 PM
Well, if you want to play the "I've run a business and you haven't so I win any argument even if I'm not able to articulate my position" game, I guess I would rather you played that game with someone else, yes. "chris" likes to win arguments by defualt in that game, perhaps you can pay that with him.

Or if I wanted to I gues I could say, why are you commenting on this OP? It involves a law. I am a lawyer, are you? why do you feel you can comment? But of course that's just as silly.

Fair enough. I suppose I could have been more direct and civil about my disagreement with you. It can sometimes be annoying if someone you are debating with is dishonest enough to defend a position with half truths and deflections instead of being honest enough to say what they mean and defend it. I know the lefties on here love the press because they lean left most of the time. That is why they defend it to the bitter end. Why not just man up and admit it and defend it from that perspective?

Taco John
03-25-2009, 11:59 PM
LMAO

I'm pretty sure it's established we can voluntarily waive our freedom of speech for circumstances like this.



Voluntary?

When a mugger give you the option "your money or your life," is that voluntary?

The newspapers are faced with a similar decision: "Go non-profit, or die on the vine."

That's not voluntary.

And aside from this, your point is repulsive.

banyon
03-25-2009, 11:59 PM
Is it an agridgement or is it not? It's a simple ****ing question.

Of course it isn't because they're free to not take it. The law doesn't restrain anyone who wishes not to be restained.

Just like any church or charity does the same when they take non-profit status. Or any soldier who can no longer speak or assemble in his dress uniform.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2009, 12:00 AM
Just so I get this straight:

Columnist A can say Candidate X, Y, Z sucks/is great/ don't vote for him.
Columnist B can agree, disagree or find a middle ground with A, voicing similar or wildly different concerns.

The newspaper writ large cannot endorse a candidate, but every person in an editorial capacity is allowed to critique both candidates, the government, policy, weather, anything they want, and the first amendment is being violated?

Am I getting this straight?

Or does "endorsement" mean any type of editorializing whatsoever?

Taco John
03-26-2009, 12:00 AM
Of course it isn't because they're free to not take it. The law doesn't restrain anyone who wishes not to be restained.




You make me sick, comrade.

SBK
03-26-2009, 12:01 AM
If advertising was free, and you could get the paper delivered to your door for free people still wouldn't do it.

I'm sure a lot of horse buggy businesses went under when Henry Ford came along with the Model T--wonder if they should have just been converted to non-profits so we could have been better off today?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2009, 12:03 AM
Let's take the more extreme example of the two. A newspaper, which can choose to be non-profit or not, decides to go NP. Say they want to do a 20 part expose ala Bush's War. Are they hamstrung like PBS <del>was</del>?

banyon
03-26-2009, 12:04 AM
Fair enough. I suppose I could have been more direct and civil about my disagreement with you. It can sometimes be annoying if someone you are debating with is dishonest enough to defend a position with half truths and deflections instead of being honest enough to say what they mean and defend it. I know the lefties on here love the press because they lean left most of the time. That is why they defend it to the bitter end. Why not just man up and admit it and defend it from that perspective?

I haven't offered up any half truth for you. To the contrary, I posted something and then you were suspicious of my motives and demanded that I reveal that it was truly a leftist plot.

I stand by my words that the press has a historic and still vital role in our democracy. I worry that the past 20+ years of corporate co-opting of the press have irreparably harmed its image. But if this is the step it takes to salvage a few print media, I don't think it's a very high, if any type of, price to pay. If people truly don't want to read it anymore and it goes the way of the Dodo, then it will, and this step won't alter that either.

I suspect, more though, that it has more to do with the failing and decline of education and the younger generations curiousity about their own communties or country or world than just the internet switches. Our youth are just too intellectually disengaged.

CHIEF4EVER
03-26-2009, 12:05 AM
Of course it isn't because they're free to not take it. The law doesn't restrain anyone who wishes not to be restained.

Just like any church or charity does the same when they take non-profit status. Or any soldier who can no longer speak or assemble in his dress uniform.

The difference is that if they don't take the assistance, they die. That in and of itself is proof of Tacos point. They are being restrained because they have no other choice but to do that or not survive. By offering the carrot of survival with conditions is enough IMO.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 12:06 AM
Is it an agridgement or is it not? It's a simple ****ing question.

Endorsements abuse the very defenition of "the press" in the first place.

banyon
03-26-2009, 12:07 AM
You make me sick, comrade.

Man, I sure am glad I answered your question. You really came to the table with some great dialogue on this topic.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 12:07 AM
My question is why couldn't a newspaper reconstitute as a 501c6 and change nothing about their operations? Right now. They could make endorsements while operating as a non-profit.

banyon
03-26-2009, 12:09 AM
The difference is that if they don't take the assistance, they die. That in and of itself is proof of Tacos point. They are being restrained because they have no other choice but to do that or not survive. By offering the carrot of survival with conditions is enough IMO.

This reminds me of the "they had to take the bailout money" claim.

If profit is so awesome and they can't make it anymore, why would they continue? Particularly now that the only option we've left them with is some Stalin-esque Pravda option where they aren't allowed to write about anything?

Taco John
03-26-2009, 12:10 AM
Man, I sure am glad I answered your question. You really came to the table with some great dialogue on this topic.


Enough to expose you... And Jenson for that matter. His "newspapers are vital, I just don't subscribe to any" argument was a real gem.

banyon
03-26-2009, 12:12 AM
Enough to expose you... And Jenson for that matter. His "newspapers are vital, I just don't subscribe to any" argument was a real gem.

Yeah, you exposed us! Somehow!

YOU'RE A REGULAR WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN PUT TOGETHER!


ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 12:12 AM
Voluntary?

When a mugger give you the option "your money or your life," is that voluntary?

The newspapers are faced with a similar decision: "Go non-profit, or die on the vine."

That's not voluntary.

And aside from this, your point is repulsive.

That seems entirely voluntary from the government's point of view. The government is not forcing them to die, the beautiful free market is. The paper voluntarily chooses to side with the government non-profit deal. Once again, the government is not forcing them to die.

banyon
03-26-2009, 12:13 AM
That seems entirely voluntary from the government's point of view. The government is not forcing them to die, the beautiful free market is. The paper voluntarily chooses to side with the government non-profit deal. Once again, the government is not forcing them to die.

I thought we were supposed to worship the market?

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 12:14 AM
Enough to expose you... And Jenson for that matter. His "newspapers are vital, I just don't subscribe to any" argument was a real gem.

Please use formal logic in your arguments.

Aside from your lack of logic, let's try some rationality. I live on campus. My campus gets the paper. Why would I subscribe to one when my tuition already goes to pay for the one I can read for free at the library?

CHIEF4EVER
03-26-2009, 12:20 AM
I haven't offered up any half truth for you. To the contrary, I posted something and then you were suspicious of my motives and demanded that I reveal that it was truly a leftist plot.

What you posted was complete rubbish irt to the topic. You made an argument against the validity of the refutation of the argument based on your argument about the lack of taxation of businesses PROFITS. Fact is, unprofitable businesses are also on the hook for taxes. I know that from experience.

I stand by my words that the press has a historic and still vital role in our democracy. I worry that the past 20+ years of corporate co-opting of the press have irreparably harmed its image. But if this is the step it takes to salvage a few print media, I don't think it's a very high, if any type of, price to pay. If people truly don't want to read it anymore and it goes the way of the Dodo, then it will, and this step won't alter that either.

I don't disagree that the press has a role to play. But I disagree that the government should favor them. They will either sink or swim on their own.

I suspect, more though, that it has more to do with the failing and decline of education and the younger generations curiousity about their own communties or country or world than just the internet switches. Our youth are just too intellectually disengaged.

Or perhaps a new dynamic which some print medias haven't grasped and refuse to.....like technology.

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 12:20 AM
I thought we were supposed to worship the market?

Banyon, your communist is showing again. Communist.

Taco John
03-26-2009, 12:21 AM
Please use formal logic in your arguments.



You're arguing with "newspapers are vital, just not vital enough for me to subscribe to" argument, and are asking others to use formal logic?

Newspapers are not vital. If they were vital, this wouldn't be an issue.

When newspapers are allowed to die, independent reporters will have their comeuppance. But that will never happen while liberals are squashing innovation, desperately clinging to the past.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 12:23 AM
Has anyone explained why a newspaper can't operate as a 501c6 starting right now?

CHIEF4EVER
03-26-2009, 12:23 AM
My question is why couldn't a newspaper reconstitute as a 501c6 and change nothing about their operations? Right now. They could make endorsements while operating as a non-profit.

Good question but not one I am qualified to answer. You would have to ask Banyon or Amnorix about that one.

banyon
03-26-2009, 12:24 AM
What you posted was complete rubbish irt to the topic. You made an argument against the validity of the refutation of the argument based on your argument about the lack of taxation of businesses PROFITS. Fact is, unprofitable businesses are also on the hook for taxes. I know that from experience.

Are you talking C-corporations or non-C-corporations? because now it sounds like you may be dipping into the rubbish.



I don't disagree that the press has a role to play. But I disagree that the government should favor them. They will either sink or swim on their own.



Or perhaps a new dynamic which some print medias haven't grasped and refuse to.....like technology.

I guess it's good you're more optimistic about the level of engagement of our youth.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 12:26 AM
You're arguing with "newspapers are vital, just not vital enough for me to subscribe to" argument, and are asking others to use formal logic?

Newspapers are not vital. If they were vital, this wouldn't be an issue.

When newspapers are allowed to die, independent reporters will have their comeuppance. But that will never happen while liberals are squashing innovation, desperately clinging to the past.

You are on much stronger ground with this line of arguement than you are with the non-profit status = communism.

The latter is just stupid.

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 12:27 AM
You're arguing with "newspapers are vital, just not vital enough for me to subscribe to" argument, and are asking others to use formal logic?

Yes. Let's say I am a hypocrite, which in this case I'm not, but let's just say I am here. Hypocrisy is not an automatic disproval of an argument that the hypocrite is making.

Newspapers are not vital. If they were vital, this wouldn't be an issue.

Oh yes, the Law of Human Infallibility. Every action a human being does will be the best action for them to do. I had forgotten that one.

banyon
03-26-2009, 12:31 AM
Has anyone explained why a newspaper can't operate as a 501c6 starting right now?

I'm not very familiar with those, but at a glance, a press organization would not appear to meet the foundational requirements for that section of the code.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopick03.pdf

Basic To meet the requirements of IRC 501(c)(6) and Reg. 1.501(c)(6)-1, an Characteristics organization must possess the following characteristics:
of an IRC 501(c)(6)

1. It must be an association of persons having some common business Organization interest and its purpose must be to promote this common business interest;

2.
It must be a membership organization and have a meaningful extent of membership support;
3.
It must not be organized for profit;
4.
No part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual;
5.
Its activities must be directed to the improvement of business conditions of one or more lines of business (discussed under “The ‘Line of Business’ Requirement,” page 21) as distinguished from the performance of particular services for individual persons;
6.
Its primary activity does not consist of performing particular services for individual persons; and
7.
Its purpose must not be to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit, even if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces only sufficient income to be self-sustaining...
______


...
Examples of activities that are directed to the improvement of business Improving conditions and that do not constitute the performing of particular services for Business individual members include:
Conditions
1.
The presentation of information, trade statistics, and group opinions to government agencies and bureaus. Atlanta Master Printers Club v. Commissioner, 1 T.C.M. 107 (1942); American Refractories Institute v. Commissioner, 6 T.C.M. 1302 (1947).
2.
The promotion of the common business interests of members through advocacy of the open shop principle. Associated Industries of Cleveland v. Commissioner, 7 T.C. 1449 (1946); acq., 1947-1 C.B. 1.
3.
Attempting to influence legislation germane to the common business interests of an organization's members. Rev. Rul. 61-177, 1961-2 C.B. 117.
4.
The promotion of the members' line of business by publishing statistics on business conditions in the industry based on data reported by members on specific forms, which members also use in the analysis of their own operations. Rev. Rul. 68-657, 1968-2 C.B. 218.
5.
An organization, formed by a city's civic leaders, public officials, businessmen, and representatives of the community-at-large, to encourage conventions of national organizations in the city by making arrangements for facilities, services, and administrative support necessary to run a convention. Rev. Rul. 76-207, 1976-1 C.B. 158.
6.
The maintenance of a nonprofit lawyer referral service aimed at improving the image and functioning of the legal profession. Rev. Rul. 80-287, 1980-2 C.B. 186.
Continued on next page
IRC 501(c)(6) Organizations – page K-20
Exempt Organizations-Technical Instruction Program for FY 2003
Improvement of Business Conditions, Continued
Examples of Improving Business Conditions, continued
7.
The status of a professional sports league, exempt under IRC 501(c)(6), will not be adversely affected because its primary support is derived from the sale of television broadcasting rights to the tournaments it conducts. The sale of broadcast rights serves to increase public awareness of the sport. Rev. Rul.

CHIEF4EVER
03-26-2009, 12:31 AM
I guess it's good you're more optimistic about the level of engagement of our youth.

I guess I am. Maybe the youth of your region has made you jaded about their engagement in current affairs. My point was that if papers like the NYT online can get subscribers and even a crappy rag like WPI can get suckers to subscribe, maybe the ones that are failing could to. If not, so long.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 12:32 AM
I don't disagree that the press has a role to play. But I disagree that the government should favor them.

Ummm... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press".

CHIEF4EVER
03-26-2009, 12:42 AM
Ummm... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press".

Ummm...bingo. Abridging isn't limited to obstructing their content but also their autonomy.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 12:46 AM
I'm not very familiar with those, but at a glance, a press organization would not appear to meet the foundational requirements for that section of the code.

Thanks.

I should have looked up the codes myself. I was confusing parts of c6 (lobbying allowed) and c3 (education).

Seems to me that newspapers fully qualify as education. And honestly, as a c6 one of my organizations can do full throated endorsements.

After reading that there are 22 different kinds of non-profits, I would say that either newspapers probably should have their own subclass or the whole system should be altered and simplified in such a way that newspapers can operate as non-profit.

IMO, non-profit is how all media should function. The profit motive forces companies into info-tainment to attract markets and profits.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 12:51 AM
Ummm...bingo. Abridging isn't limited to obstructing their content but also their autonomy.

They are self abdriging by opting for the non-profit route.

This does open up the argument that maybe there can't/shouldn't be a press specific non-profit status, but instead a status that woudl work for the press and numerous other sorts of operations simultaneously.

They could opt into that status and in doing so self select into no endorsements.

CHIEF4EVER
03-26-2009, 12:54 AM
IMO, non-profit is how all media should function. The profit motive forces companies into info-tainment to attract markets and profits.

I disagree with this. The whole idea of media is to provide information in a demand driven environment and that is its check and balance. The public will vote with their checkbooks and thier feet. If the media prints opinionated rubbish, it will eventually turn readers off and they will look elsewhere for their news. Making it nonprofit takes away the public oversight as it takes away the financial oversight. JMO.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 12:56 AM
I disagree with this. The whole idea of media is to provide factual information in a demand driven environment and that is its check and balance. The public will vote with their checkbooks and thier feet. If the media prints opinionated rubbish, it will eventually turn readers off and they will look elsewhere for their news. Making it nonprofit takes away the public oversight as it takes away the financial oversight. JMO.

You've never worked in or run a non-profit, have you?

CHIEF4EVER
03-26-2009, 01:01 AM
You've never worked in or run a non-profit, have you?

Nope.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 01:09 AM
Nope.

They function pretty much like every other business. THey have to sell products that respond to customers needs, generate revenue, compete in the marketplace. They simply declare that they intend to put profits back into the business entirely and generally expect to operate at a zero profit level. As such, they aren't expected to pay taxes, even when they might temporarily be profitable.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2009, 01:50 AM
If advertising was free, and you could get the paper delivered to your door for free people still wouldn't do it.

I'm sure a lot of horse buggy businesses went under when Henry Ford came along with the Model T--wonder if they should have just been converted to non-profits so we could have been better off today?

This is pretty much totally false.

When I was a junior in college, the school began a trial program for newspaper readership. They bought copies of the NYT, USA Today, and the Post Dispatch and placed them in several vestibules across campus at 8 every morning. Within an hour, you could not find a paper at any of them.

People will still read newspapers, even young people, but they aren't going to pay for something that is only a little better than something they can get for free on their computer.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2009, 01:52 AM
Post 147 and 150, McCarthyites?

Buehler??

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 07:18 AM
Why? We're supposed to live in a representative republic.

Because "Democracy is the road to socialism." —Karl Marx
A socialist thinks whatever the people want they should get despite what the Constitution protects. The people matter not rights.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 07:19 AM
The good news is they can be non-profit organizations I guess.

There's loopholes in it though. Like exempting revenue from advertising.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 07:37 AM
Post 147 and 150, McCarthyites?

Buehler??

McCarthy turned out to be right per KGB files disclosed after the fall of the Soviet Union.

As if the left doesn't engage in it's own brand of McCarthyism at times like railing against capitalism's greed, being made slaves to an employer or hatin' on WalMart. Nice try though.

banyon
03-26-2009, 09:29 AM
McCarthy turned out to be right per KGB files disclosed after the fall of the Soviet Union.
As if the left doesn't engage in it's own brand of McCarthyism at times like railing against capitalism's greed, being made slaves to an employer or hatin' on WalMart. Nice try though.

ROFLROFLROFL

:tinfoil:

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 09:36 AM
Would it not be similar to prohibiting a pastor from directly telling his congregation on Sunday morning who to vote for?

It's exactly the same thing and both are affronts to the 1st.

Otter
03-26-2009, 09:39 AM
Maybe our government could bail out the typewriter repair and VHS player production sectors as well.

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 09:43 AM
Why would I subscribe to one when my tuition already goes to pay for the one I can read for free at the library?

:doh!:

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 09:46 AM
Oh yes, the Law of Human Infallibility. Every action a human being does will be the best action for them to do. I had forgotten that one.

As long as society has know-it-all college kids around to tell us what to do we'll be OK.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 09:49 AM
Maybe our government could bail out the typewriter repair and VHS player production sectors as well.

Don't give B.O. any more ideas.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 09:55 AM
McCarthy turned out to be right per KGB files disclosed after the fall of the Soviet Union.


WHOA! Right about what, exactly?

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 10:15 AM
It's exactly the same thing and both are affronts to the 1st.

Our little legal scholar here. This reminds me of when you told me that no good businesses take out loans to help their business for the future.

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 10:17 AM
Our little legal scholar here. This reminds me of when you told me that no good businesses take out loans to help their business for the future.

That's not what I told you. I told you that if you're taking out loans to cover expansion that you have already realized then you're fine. Otherwise you're digging to get out of a hole.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 10:21 AM
That's not what I told you. I told you that if you're taking out loans to cover expansion that you have already realized then you're fine. Otherwise you're digging to get out of a hole.


Yeah, but you realize that this is how every big business got that way, right?

The system works fine if the banks and borrowers know WTF they are doing. Seems like alot of people lost their minds the last few years, however.

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 10:22 AM
Our little legal scholar here. This reminds me of when you told me that no good businesses take out loans to help their business for the future.

I think we all get it. You're young. Things or people dying is pretty scary to you. It's sad that nobody taught you that it is the natural order of things and that not only is it OK but it's necessary.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 10:26 AM
It's exactly the same thing and both are affronts to the 1st.

So....preachers and churches have a constitutional right to be non-profit institutions?

They can't be ARRESTED for saying who to vote for, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 10:29 AM
Yeah, but you realize that this is how every big business got that way, right?

The system works fine if the banks and borrowers know WTF they are doing. Seems like alot of people lost their minds the last few years, however.

Yes, in almost all cases large business got there with loans. Loans to cover expansion for demand that already existed.

Jenson's position is that businesses should take out loans to continue with their same burn rate despite not having the income stream to support it. Much like most government entities.

I can think of very few businesses who were either stagnant or shrinking that took out a loan to keep their operation afloat where it later worked out that their revenues increased and they stayed in business.

I will agree that banks and borrowers were both insane for many years. I happen to think Jenson, academic America, and the government they love fuel that fire with ridiculous things like this trillion dollar debt package and expanding a government that is already bleeding red ink and has nothing but more red ink in the forecast.

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 10:30 AM
So....preachers and churches have a constitutional right to be non-profit institutions?

They can't be ARRESTED for saying who to vote for, but that's not what we're talking about here.

You must have missed my post where I said non-profits shouldn't exist.

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 10:31 AM
I think we all get it. You're young. Things or people dying is pretty scary to you. It's sad that nobody taught you that it is the natural order of things and that not only is it OK but it's necessary.

AWww, thanks for being there for me Simplex! Your argumentation skills are what the kids these days call "epic fail"

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 10:39 AM
AWww, thanks for being there for me Simplex! Your argumentation skills are what the kids these days call "epic fail"

It isn't possible to have a rational, factual discussion with someone like you who is basing their arguments on emotion.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 10:40 AM
Jenson's position is that businesses should take out loans to continue with their same burn rate despite not having the income stream to support it. Much like most government entities.

I won't pretend to know whether this is Jenson's position or not, but obviously it's untenable, though loans like that are not unheard of in the context of a lender trying to keep the business afloat long enough to turn things around. Sometimes a little more money can help recoup alot more money. Other times, it's throwing more money down the sink.

I can think of very few businesses who were either stagnant or shrinking that took out a loan to keep their operation afloat where it later worked out that their revenues increased and they stayed in business.

Absolutely.

I will agree that banks and borrowers were both insane for many years. I happen to think Jenson, academic America, and the government they love fuel that fire with ridiculous things like this trillion dollar debt package and expanding a government that is already bleeding red ink and has nothing but more red ink in the forecast.

I desperately hope that this stimulus plan and whatever else we're doing now to run the red ink through the roof works, and that we can then find some SANE fiscal policies. We obviously cannot sustain what we're doing now for very long or we'll go bankrupt, which would REALLY send shock waves through the world's financial systems.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 10:41 AM
You must have missed my post where I said non-profits shouldn't exist.

Ah, then you're off the hook, and yes I"m a latecomer to the thread.

Though I'm not quite sure how that works. You would tax religious organizations, etc?

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 10:43 AM
It isn't possible to have a rational, factual discussion with someone like you who is basing their arguments on emotion.

Did you not just post this five minutes ago? "I think we all get it. You're young. Things or people dying is pretty scary to you. It's sad that nobody taught you that it is the natural order of things and that not only is it OK but it's necessary." You're a degenerate clown. That's a fact.

alanm
03-26-2009, 10:43 AM
AWww, thanks for being there for me Simplex! Your argumentation skills are what the kids these days call "epic fail"Forgive him Simplex. He's 21 and in college. He knows everything.

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 10:43 AM
Ah, then you're off the hook, and yes I"m a latecomer to the thread.

Though I'm not quite sure how that works. You would tax religious organizations, etc?

Yep. If there is going to be a tax structure it is only fair that everyone be nailed by it. This favored group status is for the birds.

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 10:46 AM
Forgive him Simplex. He's 21 and in college. He knows everything.

I don't hold a grudge against the guy or even dislike him. When I was his age I'm quite sure I thought was every bit as smart as he thinks he is. I really do think it would be interesting to sit down with him and some of these posts twenty years from now and see his reaction. Hell, it would be interesting to see my own reaction to the things I'm saying.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 10:48 AM
Yep. If there is going to be a tax structure it is only fair that everyone be nailed by it. This favored group status is for the birds.

I **would** disagree with you, but I've encountered two massive non-profit scams in the last five years.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 10:50 AM
I don't hold a grudge against the guy or even dislike him. When I was his age I'm quite sure I thought was every bit as smart as he thinks he is. I really do think it would be interesting to sit down with him and some of these posts twenty years from now and see his reaction. Hell, it would be interesting to see my own reaction to the things I'm saying.

I thought I knew everything when I was in college. I was right. Now I just know more than everything.


:D

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 10:52 AM
I **would** disagree with you, but I've encountered two massive non-profit scams in the last five years.

I'm not even worried about the ones that are doing an end-around on the laws. Even if they all played by the rules I think the very premise is insane. We won't tax you if you promise to dump all your profits back into the business (except, of course, for the salaries you pay yourself which you probably wouldn't be able to afford if you were paying corporate taxes).

I would eliminate all corporate taxes, so I guess the end result of me being named king would be the same for the current non-profits.

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 10:53 AM
I thought I knew everything when I was in college. I was right. Now I just know more than everything.


:D

Chuck Norris has counted to infinity.


Twice.

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 10:54 AM
I don't hold a grudge against the guy or even dislike him. When I was his age I'm quite sure I thought was every bit as smart as he thinks he is. I really do think it would be interesting to sit down with him and some of these posts twenty years from now and see his reaction. Hell, it would be interesting to see my own reaction to the things I'm saying.

It's always amazing when people resort to disproving someone's argument based on the person's age that the person disproving was always exactly like the younger person when he was his age. The assumption is that you learned more as you got older and reached the final state of truth at age 36 and that based on this, if I follow the correct learning (your path), I too will agree with you at that age. I'm right because I'm right, because of who I am.

Degenerate clown ****. Does your absence of reasoning go so far as to you not looking and listening for cars as you cross the street, or has your selfishness tied you down to some level of making sense?

Taco John
03-26-2009, 10:56 AM
What is the cause of your absence of reasoning if not your inexperience, Jenson?

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 11:00 AM
What is the cause of your absence of reasoning if not your inexperience, Jenson?

A lack of reasoning is the cause of an absence of reasoning. If my arguments are wrong, then they should be shown to be wrong not by talking about my age or lack of experience in the business world, but by incorrectness of the claims I make.

Age is a distraction. We don't consider the oldest man necessarily the smartest or even the wisest. We consider the wisest the wisest, we just attribute wisdom to age, and are happy that many times that's true, it works out, our grandparents and parents do have some wisdom. But that's not logically true, and if we're arguing over something like "Falterning newspapers should be allowed to go non-profit" then instead of focusing on the age of someone who is arguing, you should focus on the points they are making.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 11:02 AM
I'm not even worried about the ones that are doing an end-around on the laws. Even if they all played by the rules I think the very premise is insane. We won't tax you if you promise to dump all your profits back into the business (except, of course, for the salaries you pay yourself which you probably wouldn't be able to afford if you were paying corporate taxes).

I would eliminate all corporate taxes, so I guess the end result of me being named king would be the same for the current non-profits.

Would you have all corporations be pass through entities for tax purposes then?

banyon
03-26-2009, 11:06 AM
Yep. If there is going to be a tax structure it is only fair that everyone be nailed by it. This favored group status is for the birds.

You realize this would require repealing the First Amendment, right?

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 11:07 AM
A lack of reasoning is the cause of an absence of reasoning. If my arguments are wrong, then they should be shown to be wrong not by talking about my age or lack of experience in the business world, but by incorrectness of the claims I make
Some of us have tried straight reason. It didn't take. So we had to blame it on youthful indiscretion is all.If reason isn't working then it's gotta be something else just using the process of elimination. Kiddo! But you're a good kid.

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 11:09 AM
Would you have all corporations be pass through entities for tax purposes then?

Yep. Everything in a corporation is owned by the people who own the corporation. It's really just taxing the same thing twice. Once when the corporation receives it and then another time when the person receives it. That problem is addressed somewhat by LLCs, but why have that problem at all?

Taco John
03-26-2009, 11:10 AM
A lack of reasoning is the cause of an absence of reasoning. If my arguments are wrong, then they should be shown to be wrong not by talking about my age or lack of experience in the business world, but by incorrectness of the claims I make.

Age is a distraction. We don't consider the oldest man necessarily the smartest or even the wisest. We consider the wisest the wisest, we just attribute wisdom to age, and are happy that many times that's true, it works out, our grandparents and parents do have some wisdom. But that's not logically true, and if we're arguing over something like "Falterning newspapers should be allowed to go non-profit" then instead of focusing on the age of someone who is arguing, you should focus on the points they are making.



Even still, I would bet that experience would improve your ability to reason.

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 11:18 AM
You realize this would require repealing the First Amendment, right?

Taxing everyone equally would require repealing the 1st?

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 11:21 AM
Even still, I would bet that experience would improve your ability to reason.

Sure, a person can learn how to reason better. In a sense that is experience.

But the attacks directed at me about my age are based not on the experience of reasoning, but about the experience of living in the real world, is is said or implied.

In this case, experience usually can bring about a greater accumulation of facts and knowledge for which to better understand an issue. But it's not the experience that makes your argument better, it's the facts and knowledge you have now that make your argument better (of course, a person can experience the real world and misinterpret the facts and just plain be ignorant of the facts, but we'll assume for now that that's not happening in this case) That's what we should be dealing with, but many arguments, from petegz and terrorism to simplex and economics are usually focused on my age, and the fact that I'm in college. I feel I should point out that it's a bad argument. Can you imagine a high school debate in which the senior's argument was "But you're a freshmen!"

banyon
03-26-2009, 11:24 AM
Taxing everyone equally would require repealing the 1st?

Yes, the court has found on many occasions that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" and on that rationale has prohibited any taxation on religious institutions. To overturn those decisions would require the amendment to be repealed.

Simplex3
03-26-2009, 11:32 AM
Yes, the court has found on many occasions that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" and on that rationale has prohibited any taxation on religious institutions. To overturn those decisions would require the amendment to be repealed.

Wow, that is one hell of an admission but one I agree with to a point. I think where taxation becomes the power to destroy is where the government is allowed to vary the application of those taxes based upon some favored group status. I still think the ideal answer is to do away with the government's ability to tax production in any fashion. Tax consumption all you want, but get the hell out of production.