If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Not content with just the demise of Hostess, Dennis Kucinich targets all snack cake peddlers   (thehill.com) divider line 100
    More: Followup, Dennis Kucinich, snack cake, Democrats, Hostess Brands, Nutrition disorder, shut downs  
•       •       •

1548 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Nov 2012 at 10:32 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-17 11:54:53 AM  
Clicked for pics of his wife, leaving disappointed.
 
2012-11-17 11:55:07 AM  

Generation_D: No and Hell No.

And what better way to get the left-wing loonies like Kucinich back in the public eye negatively than for them to try to start legislating morality.

Post some pics of his wife or ignore him, those are the choices.


Did you read the article? We are giving makers of sugary snacks a tax break for advertising. Why the hell are we doing that? I thought the US was broke and we couldn't afford things! Seems like a reasonable fiscally conservative suggestion to me.

That being said, and as a straight woman, I do not object to pictures of Kucinich's wife being posted.
 
2012-11-17 11:56:06 AM  

Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.

So we've come to the point when the government doesn't give special consideration to companies it's "legislating morality"?

The government doesn't give special consideration to junk food companies. They are taking the same deduction every other company takes. But I don't blame you for being misled, since that was clearly Kucinich's intent.

You seem to be missing my point. That we give any consideration to the advertising budgets for special benefits is the issue. It isn't morality.


Just to be clear I'm talking about all companies, not just those that manufacture and distribute junk food.
 
2012-11-17 11:57:31 AM  

Needlessly Complicated: We are giving makers of sugary snacks a tax break for advertising. Why the hell are we doing that?


The point they're making is why single out junk food companies when it's applied across the board to everyone?

I'm saying why are we giving tax breaks to any company for advertising.
 
2012-11-17 11:58:20 AM  
I thought Ohio was going to do the Nation a favor and redistrict this absurd clown out of Congress. Picture it. Congress: No Ron Paul, No Barney Frank, No Jesse Jackson Jr., No Alan West. It's getting better all the time.

Sure we've still got Rand Paul (come on Kentucky, come to your senses 2016), Maxine Walters, and that one guy who thought Guam could capsize, and Michelle Bachmann (and wife). But we're making progress here.
 
2012-11-17 12:02:58 PM  

Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.

So we've come to the point when the government doesn't give special consideration to companies it's "legislating morality"?

The government doesn't give special consideration to junk food companies. They are taking the same deduction every other company takes. But I don't blame you for being misled, since that was clearly Kucinich's intent.

You seem to be missing my point. That we give any consideration to the advertising budgets for special benefits is the issue. It isn't morality.


It's not a "special benefit," it's a business expense, like staff salaries and office supplies and equipment depreciation and rent and accounting fees and all that. If I spend $700 and make $1,000, my net income is $300 and that's what I should pay tax on. Unless you want to go all "FairTax"(tm) -- I disagree with that, but that's a different subject.

But obviously, to get back to the original subject, Kucinich was talking about taking away the deduction just for junk food companies, not for all industries equally. I don't care to discuss whether you can label that "legislating morality," but in any event it would epitomize everything that's wrong with the tax code today. If this bill were to go through, you'd have lobbyists descending on the Hill to argue about what is and isn't junk food. English muffins? Red Bull? Pancakes are pretty low in nutrients and high in simple carbs, so let's say those are junk food. And there will be pages and pages of regulations on this, with thousands of tax lawyers billing hours and hours to go through them. How do we deal with Denny's Grand Slam commercials, which feature pancakes (junk food), eggs (not junk), fruit (not junk), whipped cream (junk) and coffee (who knows)? Do you allocate or apportion expenses?

/tax lawyer
//don't particularly need more work, especially on this kind of crap
 
2012-11-17 12:05:14 PM  

LordJiro: They're so desperate, they're grabbing straws they've already discarded.

Christ, the modern GOP cannot collapse fast enough. GTFO and let adults take your place in government.


They are picking up feathers that have fallen off of that poor chicken and claiming that they're straws.
 
2012-11-17 12:08:15 PM  

Fart_Machine: Needlessly Complicated: We are giving makers of sugary snacks a tax break for advertising. Why the hell are we doing that?

The point they're making is why single out junk food companies when it's applied across the board to everyone?

I'm saying why are we giving tax breaks to any company for advertising.


Fair enough. No advertising tax breaks for anyone! Sounds good to me. Even the right wingers can agree with that, right?

Now, before you answer:
www.bbsradio.com
 
2012-11-17 12:08:55 PM  

Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.

So we've come to the point when the government doesn't give special consideration to companies it's "legislating morality"?

The government doesn't give special consideration to junk food companies. They are taking the same deduction every other company takes. But I don't blame you for being misled, since that was clearly Kucinich's intent.

You seem to be missing my point. That we give any consideration to the advertising budgets for special benefits is the issue. It isn't morality.

It's not a "special benefit," it's a business expense, like staff salaries and office supplies and equipment depreciation and rent and accounting fees and all that. If I spend $700 and make $1,000, my net income is $300 and that's what I should pay tax on. Unless you want to go all "FairTax"(tm) -- I disagree with that, but that's a different subject.

But obviously, to get back to the original subject, Kucinich was talking about taking away the deduction just for junk food companies, not for all industries equally. I don't care to discuss whether you can label that "legislating morality," but in any event it would epitomize everything that's wrong with the tax code today. If this bill were to go through, you'd have lobbyists descending on the Hill to argue about what is and isn't junk food. English muffins? Red Bull? Pancakes are pretty low in nutrients and high in simple carbs, so let's say those are junk food. And there will be pages and pages of regulations on this, with thousands of tax lawyers billing hours and hours to go through them. How do we deal with Denny's Grand Slam commercials, which feature pancakes (junk food), eggs (not junk), fruit (not junk), whipped cream (junk) and c ...


That's a fair argument, given that we don't negate advertising expenses for tobacco and alcohol companies.
 
2012-11-17 12:10:37 PM  
Wait wait wait. Companies that produce bullshiat for children were getting tax deductions for it? Cut them off the teat then nuke them from orbit.
 
2012-11-17 12:18:30 PM  

mongbiohazard: Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.


Is that so? Why? It's ridiculous that advertising and promotional expenses would be tax deductible at all. Those are the normal costs of doing business, and the US government is subsidizing them? So much for the free market...


Umm, yeah that's the point. Profit is revenue minus cost of duing business. Taxes are based on profit, not revenue.
 
2012-11-17 12:20:46 PM  

Fart_Machine: Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.

So we've come to the point when the government doesn't give special consideration to companies it's "legislating morality"?


If the government is using the tax code to pick winners and losers, the yes, it is legislating morality.
 
2012-11-17 12:22:43 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Wait wait wait. Companies that produce bullshiat for children were getting tax deductions for it? Cut them off the teat then nuke them from orbit.


Not clear if the deductions were just basic deductions for operating expenses. Obviously, a company deducts everything they spend to run their business. Pay for advertising or employees or sugar, that's a deduction. I don't think any company gets an extra special deduction for advertising. Unless I'm missing something. I only barely read TFA.
 
2012-11-17 12:25:03 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.

So we've come to the point when the government doesn't give special consideration to companies it's "legislating morality"?

If the government is using the tax code to pick winners and losers, the yes, it is legislating morality.


"Pick winners and losers" is one of my favorite mealy-mouthed, pointless, empty phrases. It's hilariously substance-less.
 
2012-11-17 12:25:37 PM  

mongbiohazard: It's ridiculous that advertising and promotional expenses would be tax deductible at all. Those are the normal costs of doing business, and the US government is subsidizing them? So much for the free market...


Awesome. You have encapsulated the stunning ignorance of a large portion of the American electorate with one short Fark post. Well done.
 
2012-11-17 12:32:59 PM  

Super Chronic: Exactly. Kucinich was making it sound like there is some kind of special, bought-and-paid-for loophole or "tax break" for the junk food industry. There isn't. Junk food companies just compute their net income like most other companies, by taking gross income, subtracting expenses in producing that income and paying tax on the net. Advertising is clearly a deductible expense, for every business.



Why would Kucinich have spun this to make it sound as though only the snack food industry was the getting this deduction? What's his angle?
 
2012-11-17 12:48:07 PM  

HeartBurnKid: clowncar on fire: There was a news article released yesterday downplaying the likelihood in the demise of the twinkie as it has proven to be both cuturally as well as profitably worth saving. Someone will most likely step up to the plate and purchase the rights, and recipe, to continue manufacturing twinkies and like profitable brand names.

I'm thinking the whole Hostess thing is just a ploy to reorganize the company and break the union. They're going to "sell" all the assets to themselves.


Correct.

BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.


This is a classic corporate looting. And the media is falling for the "OH TEH NOES, THOSE UNION THUGGOCRATS DESTROYED TWINKIES!!! HOW DARE THEY DEMAND DECENT PAY FOR HARD WORK!!!!" bullshiat. Again.
 
2012-11-17 12:49:03 PM  

LasersHurt: If the government is using the tax code to pick winners and losers, the yes, it is legislating morality.

"Pick winners and losers" is one of my favorite mealy-mouthed, pointless, empty phrases. It's hilariously substance-less.


It's hardly an empty phrase. For instance many government contracts have stipulations that any work has to be done by union contractors. Wind generation plants are given a $22/megawatt tax rebate. Various sin taxes exist with the ostensible purpose of reducing consumption of alchol or tobacco. Your local zoning commision probably has rules preventing me from opening a gentleman's club in your downtown area.

So how is this substance-less or mealy-mouthed?
 
2012-11-17 12:52:11 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: LasersHurt: If the government is using the tax code to pick winners and losers, the yes, it is legislating morality.

"Pick winners and losers" is one of my favorite mealy-mouthed, pointless, empty phrases. It's hilariously substance-less.

It's hardly an empty phrase. For instance many government contracts have stipulations that any work has to be done by union contractors. Wind generation plants are given a $22/megawatt tax rebate. Various sin taxes exist with the ostensible purpose of reducing consumption of alchol or tobacco. Your local zoning commision probably has rules preventing me from opening a gentleman's club in your downtown area.

So how is this substance-less or mealy-mouthed?


Because having rules is not picking winners and losers? People can succeed or fail under any rules. Some will succeed, some will fail. It's incumbent on the businesses/individuals/whatever to adapt or perish.

"Picking winners and losers" is just used as a way to blame the government for private failure.
 
2012-11-17 12:56:25 PM  

GilRuiz1: Super Chronic: Exactly. Kucinich was making it sound like there is some kind of special, bought-and-paid-for loophole or "tax break" for the junk food industry. There isn't. Junk food companies just compute their net income like most other companies, by taking gross income, subtracting expenses in producing that income and paying tax on the net. Advertising is clearly a deductible expense, for every business.


Why would Kucinich have spun this to make it sound as though only the snack food industry was the getting this deduction? What's his angle?


Whipping up popular support for his bill, of course.
 
2012-11-17 01:00:08 PM  

LasersHurt: Mr. Eugenides: LasersHurt: If the government is using the tax code to pick winners and losers, the yes, it is legislating morality.

"Pick winners and losers" is one of my favorite mealy-mouthed, pointless, empty phrases. It's hilariously substance-less.

It's hardly an empty phrase. For instance many government contracts have stipulations that any work has to be done by union contractors. Wind generation plants are given a $22/megawatt tax rebate. Various sin taxes exist with the ostensible purpose of reducing consumption of alchol or tobacco. Your local zoning commision probably has rules preventing me from opening a gentleman's club in your downtown area.

So how is this substance-less or mealy-mouthed?

Because having rules is not picking winners and losers? People can succeed or fail under any rules. Some will succeed, some will fail. It's incumbent on the businesses/individuals/whatever to adapt or perish.

"Picking winners and losers" is just used as a way to blame the government for private failure.


If you allow sellers of healthy food to deduct expenses and do not allow sellers of unhealthy food to deduct the same expenses, you've given the healthy food sellers an advantage. And if those expenses are advertising, you've given them an advantage in reaching consumers. And you can say that's a good thing because healthy food has greater societal value than unhealthy food, but it is very much picking winners and losers.
 
2012-11-17 01:02:09 PM  

GilRuiz1: Super Chronic: Exactly. Kucinich was making it sound like there is some kind of special, bought-and-paid-for loophole or "tax break" for the junk food industry. There isn't. Junk food companies just compute their net income like most other companies, by taking gross income, subtracting expenses in producing that income and paying tax on the net. Advertising is clearly a deductible expense, for every business.


Why would Kucinich have spun this to make it sound as though only the snack food industry was the getting this deduction? What's his angle?


Liberal d-bag. Trolling. Clueless. He's a vegetarian and thinks we all should be too. Pick any or all.
 
2012-11-17 01:06:58 PM  

Super Chronic: If you allow sellers of healthy food to deduct expenses and do not allow sellers of unhealthy food to deduct the same expenses, you've given the healthy food sellers an advantage. And if those expenses are advertising, you've given them an advantage in reaching consumers. And you can say that's a good thing because healthy food has greater societal value than unhealthy food, but it is very much picking winners and losers.


Only if you assume it is utterly impossible to survive without this particular tax break, and all unhealthy food companies will fail/lose. I posit that this is ridiculous, and a clever businessman could easily survive without the breaks.

It's worth nothing that I didn't initially intend to comment specifically on this matter. I'm not sure where I fall here - it's just deducting business expenses like everyone else, and singling them out does seem weird to me.
 
2012-11-17 01:08:45 PM  
By the way, total fail on posting pics of his wife guys. Looks like that thing is over with.

Washington State tried a "tax on junk food" a few years ago, and it failed miserably. Why? Because of the nitwit ticky tacky ways the defined it. Candy bars with wheat were determined to have food value, but candy bars without wheat grain grown in Washington State were not. So A Kit Kat bar was exempt, but a health bar without wheat (but that had chocolate chips!) was considered candy. There were many other examples. Merchants had to wait for the list of what was and what was not considered a junk food, and therefore subject to the higher sales tax. The list was 20 pages long. Legislators were deciding based on this combination of lobbyist influence (in the case of Washington Wheat) and random weird opinion. In the end the people said EFF THIS SH*T and a special item on the next election repealed it. Thats right. We the People voted to tell every legislator in the state you are all idiots and stop it. You can tax my junk food over my dead sugar bloated diabetic body.

I suspect Kucinich (who was out here trolling around trying to decide if he wanted to move here and bless us with his presence at the time) caught wind of this and now wants to introduce it to the country. Kucinich just wants the spotlight on Kucinich. And his wife, as cute as she is and all, is a vegan like he is and I suspect has an agenda to try to kill off eating she does not agree with. One of them clearly does.

But since I set the rules (not much followed) here:

upload.wikimedia.org

Classy beautiful redhead FTW. Even if she's nuts.
 
2012-11-17 01:12:02 PM  

LasersHurt: Mr. Eugenides: LasersHurt: If the government is using the tax code to pick winners and losers, the yes, it is legislating morality.

"Pick winners and losers" is one of my favorite mealy-mouthed, pointless, empty phrases. It's hilariously substance-less.

It's hardly an empty phrase. For instance many government contracts have stipulations that any work has to be done by union contractors. Wind generation plants are given a $22/megawatt tax rebate. Various sin taxes exist with the ostensible purpose of reducing consumption of alchol or tobacco. Your local zoning commision probably has rules preventing me from opening a gentleman's club in your downtown area.

So how is this substance-less or mealy-mouthed?

Because having rules is not picking winners and losers? People can succeed or fail under any rules. Some will succeed, some will fail. It's incumbent on the businesses/individuals/whatever to adapt or perish.

"Picking winners and losers" is just used as a way to blame the government for private failure.


I wonder if we can extend the winners and losers argument to deductions for mortgage interest and child credits.
 
2012-11-17 01:19:45 PM  

Generation_D: total fail on posting pics of his wife guys.


I would like to suggest that posting of any red-heads in this thread should be somehow expected/appropriate.
 
2012-11-17 01:32:31 PM  

LasersHurt: Super Chronic: If you allow sellers of healthy food to deduct expenses and do not allow sellers of unhealthy food to deduct the same expenses, you've given the healthy food sellers an advantage. And if those expenses are advertising, you've given them an advantage in reaching consumers. And you can say that's a good thing because healthy food has greater societal value than unhealthy food, but it is very much picking winners and losers.

Only if you assume it is utterly impossible to survive without this particular tax break, and all unhealthy food companies will fail/lose. I posit that this is ridiculous, and a clever businessman could easily survive without the breaks.

It's worth nothing that I didn't initially intend to comment specifically on this matter. I'm not sure where I fall here - it's just deducting business expenses like everyone else, and singling them out does seem weird to me.


Come on, you know this is silly. There is a spectrum that falls well short of "utterly impossible to survive," and "significantly disadvantaged" is one of those places along the spectrum. What would happen is some businesses that otherwise could survive would fail, others would continue to survive but be less profitable, and others would continue to thrive. In the aggregate, what we'd see is less unhealthy food being sold and more healthy food being sold, which - again - you can argue is a societal benefit, but I'd argue that the tax code is not the way to go about it (as you seem to agree, pointing out that it's just deducting business expenses like everyone else).
 
2012-11-17 01:49:35 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.


I agree with this. However, I don't see why advertising and promotion should be deductible for anything but very new start-ups (Don't ask me how to properly legislate that; I have no idea, but I can see why it might be a good idea to give new start-ups a bit of extra help).

Then again, I think we have way too many tax breaks, tax credits, and subsidies for already successful industries.

And of course, I don't see anything wrong with explicitly taxing certain luxury foods. The inverse is another option (subsidies for those who produce more healthful foods), but then you get into the problem of defining "what's healthy enough."
 
2012-11-17 01:50:30 PM  

Super Chronic: LasersHurt: Super Chronic: If you allow sellers of healthy food to deduct expenses and do not allow sellers of unhealthy food to deduct the same expenses, you've given the healthy food sellers an advantage. And if those expenses are advertising, you've given them an advantage in reaching consumers. And you can say that's a good thing because healthy food has greater societal value than unhealthy food, but it is very much picking winners and losers.

Only if you assume it is utterly impossible to survive without this particular tax break, and all unhealthy food companies will fail/lose. I posit that this is ridiculous, and a clever businessman could easily survive without the breaks.

It's worth nothing that I didn't initially intend to comment specifically on this matter. I'm not sure where I fall here - it's just deducting business expenses like everyone else, and singling them out does seem weird to me.

Come on, you know this is silly. There is a spectrum that falls well short of "utterly impossible to survive," and "significantly disadvantaged" is one of those places along the spectrum. What would happen is some businesses that otherwise could survive would fail, others would continue to survive but be less profitable, and others would continue to thrive. In the aggregate, what we'd see is less unhealthy food being sold and more healthy food being sold, which - again - you can argue is a societal benefit, but I'd argue that the tax code is not the way to go about it (as you seem to agree, pointing out that it's just deducting business expenses like everyone else).


Yeah I really don't want to take a strong stand here because I agree with you - if the net effect was less shiatty food sold, more healthy food sold, this IS a good thing, but I doubt we want to do that through bizarrely specific tax changes.

Granted taxing Cigarettes, coupled with education, has reduced the number of smokers greatly.

I just really don't like the "picking winners and losers" thing - it's usually just a transparent whining, or an excuse to fight change no matter how worthy, or a scapegoat for shiatty businessmen. Ultimately my complaints about are only partially related here.
 
2012-11-17 01:52:17 PM  

Super Chronic: There is a spectrum that falls well short of "utterly impossible to survive," and "significantly disadvantaged" is one of those places along the spectrum. What would happen is some businesses that otherwise could survive would fail, others would continue to survive but be less profitable, and others would continue to thrive. In the aggregate, what we'd see is less unhealthy food being sold and more healthy food being sold, which - again - you can argue is a societal benefit, but I'd argue that the tax code is not the way to go about it (as you seem to agree, pointing out that it's just deducting business expenses like everyone else).


I'm curious what other solution you might have that doesn't involve the tax code.
 
2012-11-17 01:53:18 PM  

Generation_D: No and Hell No.

And what better way to get the left-wing loonies like Kucinich back in the public eye negatively than for them to try to start legislating morality.

Post some pics of his wife or ignore him, those are the choices.


I am going to buy snack cakes and more ammunition.

/they'll have to take my immigration twinkies from my cold, dead, hands.
 
2012-11-17 01:54:07 PM  

way south: Generation_D: No and Hell No.

And what better way to get the left-wing loonies like Kucinich back in the public eye negatively than for them to try to start legislating morality.

Post some pics of his wife or ignore him, those are the choices.

I am going to buy snack cakes and more ammunition.

/they'll have to take my immigration imitation twinkies from my cold, dead, hands.


/damn you, ipad.
 
2012-11-17 01:58:08 PM  

way south: Generation_D: No and Hell No.

And what better way to get the left-wing loonies like Kucinich back in the public eye negatively than for them to try to start legislating morality.

Post some pics of his wife or ignore him, those are the choices.

I am going to buy snack cakes and more ammunition.

/they'll have to take my immigration twinkies from my cold, dead, hands.


You want to turn this into a fat guys with guns thread?
 
2012-11-17 02:10:12 PM  
Once again I support Kucinich. I don 't think he has ever said anything I disagree with. He would make a fine president.
 
2012-11-17 02:10:15 PM  
Touch Little Debbie and you die. 


/eating them too much may make you die too, but....
 
2012-11-17 02:16:13 PM  
Mr. Eugenides:

Out of curiosity, is it legislating morality to say I should stop getting certain tax deductions if I give $10000 to a needy friend or a corporation I like vs normally giving it to a charity this year?
 
2012-11-17 02:26:07 PM  

GranoblasticMan: However, I don't see why advertising and promotion should be deductible for anything but very new start-ups (Don't ask me how to properly legislate that; I have no idea, but I can see why it might be a good idea to give new start-ups a bit of extra help).


Because taxing businesses on anything but their profit would be pants on head retarded. Income taxes are taxes on income, not revenue.

I don't know why you can't wrap your head around this. It's a very simple concept.
 
2012-11-17 02:38:17 PM  
I bet Kucinich is willing to exempt Keebler from his crusade.

fc06.deviantart.net
 
2012-11-17 02:38:38 PM  
These strong arm tactics by the Elves to eliminate their competition shall not stand. I say we all storm his tree. Who is with me?
 
2012-11-17 02:38:46 PM  

jbuist: GranoblasticMan: However, I don't see why advertising and promotion should be deductible for anything but very new start-ups (Don't ask me how to properly legislate that; I have no idea, but I can see why it might be a good idea to give new start-ups a bit of extra help).

Because taxing businesses on anything but their profit would be pants on head retarded. Income taxes are taxes on income, not revenue.

I don't know why you can't wrap your head around this. It's a very simple concept.


I'm not entirely sure you understand what "income" means.
 
2012-11-17 02:55:54 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I bet Kucinich is willing to exempt Keebler from his crusade.

[fc06.deviantart.net image 255x362]


Hot wife reference/pic and elf joke. I'd say we are done here. LOL.
 
2012-11-17 03:27:45 PM  

mrshowrules: Lionel Mandrake: I bet Kucinich is willing to exempt Keebler from his crusade.

[fc06.deviantart.net image 255x362]

Hot wife reference/pic and elf joke. I'd say we are done here. LOL.


No, we're not done until someone reminds us that Kucinich once held up pie-charts during a radio-only debate.

NOW we're done.
 
2012-11-17 04:25:43 PM  

mongbiohazard: Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.


Is that so? Why? It's ridiculous that advertising and promotional expenses would be tax deductible at all. Those are the normal costs of doing business, and the US government is subsidizing them? So much for the free market...



if you tax all revenue, even revenue spent on costs associated with running a business, then there will literally be no reason to go into business in the vast majority of industries.
the margin for most successful companies is below 15% of revenue.
for example, a company that has a profit margin of 10% on 1 million in revenue is banking 100k a year. this is a well performing company in most industries.

if you tax that entire 1 million dollar revenue stream like you feel *just makes sense* at the very bottom corporate tax rate of 15% (it goes all the way up to 35% for big companies) the company would have its profit wiped out and it would then owe $50k to the government.

here's a list of all the industries that would close up shop if you were in charge.

22 Publishing - Books 16.1
23 Networking and Communication Devices 15.7
24 Drug Manufacturers - Major 15.4
25 Long Distance Carriers 15.2
26 Railroads 15
27 Beverages - Wineries and Distillers 14.9
28 Nonmetallic Mineral Mining 14.6
29 Beverages - Soft Drinks 14.3
30 Wireless Communications 14.1
31 Semiconductor Equipment and Materials 14.1
32 Personal Products 13.9
33 Personal Computers 13.9
34 Medical Instruments and Supplies 13.9
35 Drug Manufacturers - Other 13.6
36 Security Software and Services 13.2
37 Property and Casualty Insurance 13.2
38 Agricultural Chemicals 13
39 Specialty Chemicals 12.7
40 REIT - Residential 12.7
41 Biotechnology 12.7
42 Medical Appliances & Equipment 12.6
43 Technical and System Software 12.5
44 Mortgage Investment 12.5
45 Entertainment - Diversified 12.5
46 Air Services, Other 12.4
47 Diversified Electronics 11.9
48 Processed and Packaged Goods 11.5
49 Foreign Regional Banks 11.5
50 Water Utilities 10.9
51 Semiconductor - Specialized 10.5
52 Money Center Banks 10.5
53 Consumer Services 10.5
54 Broadcasting - TV 10.5
55 Regional - Midwest Banks 10.4
56 Toys and Games 10.1
57 Textile - Apparel Footwear 10.1
58 Restaurants 10
59 Investment Brokerage - National 10
60 Oil and Gas Drilling and Exploration 9.9
61 Paper and Paper Products 9.8
62 Foreign Money Center Banks 9.8
63 Regional - Northeast Banks 9.7
64 Business Software and Services 9.7
65 Synthetics 9.5
66 Scientific and Technical Instruments 9.5
67 Data Storage Devices 9.5
68 Internet Software and Services 9.4
69 CATV Systems 9.3
70 Specialty Eateries 9.2
71 Telecom Services - Domestic 9.1
72 Specialized Health Services 9
73 Diversified Computer Systems 9
74 Savings and Loans 8.9
75 Internet Service Providers 8.9
76 Conglomerates 8.8
77 Research Services 8.7
78 Diversified Machinery 8.7
79 Education and Training Services 8.4
80 Independent Oil and Gas 8.3
81 Industrial Equipment and Components 8.2
82 General Entertainment 8.2
83 Diversified Utilities 8.1
84 Asset Management 8.1
85 Accident and Health Insurance 8.1
86 Information and Delivery Services 8
87 Gas Utilities 8
88 Business Services 8
89 Telecom Services - Foreign 7.9
90 Oil and Gas Equipment and Services 7.9
91 Insurance Brokers 7.8
92 Cleaning Products 7.8
93 Steel and Iron 7.7
94 Drug Related Products 7.7
95 Home Furnishing Stores 7.6
96 Diagnostic Substances 7.6
97 Auto Parts Stores 7.3
98 Industrial Electrical Equipment 7.2
99 Waste Management 7
100 Confectioners 7
101 Aerospace/Defense - Major Diversified 7
102 Publishing - Newspapers 6.9
103 Jewelry Stores 6.9
104 Home Health Care 6.9
105 Computer Based Systems 6.9
106 Pollution & Treatment Controls 6.8
107 Lodging 6.8
108 Communication Equipment 6.7
109 Aerospace/Defense Products & Services 6.6
110 Sporting Activities 6.5
111 Packaging & Containers 6.5
112 Catalog & Mail Order Houses 6.5
113 Drugs - Generic 6.3
114 Major Integrated Oil and Gas 6.2

/this is why people like you should just stay out of these discussions
 
2012-11-17 04:27:38 PM  

Mija: Once again I support Kucinich. I don 't think he has ever said anything I disagree with. He would make a fine president.


he'd make a great president.
but if you never disagree with him, you simply don't have a clue about how the world actually operates.
 
2012-11-17 04:47:22 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: He does whatever his hott wife tells him to do.


So would I.
 
2012-11-17 05:28:43 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Your local zoning commision probably has rules preventing me from opening a gentleman's club in your downtown area.


Naah this is Portland most gentlemen's clubs evar.
 
2012-11-17 05:34:59 PM  

way south: way south: Generation_D: No and Hell No.

And what better way to get the left-wing loonies like Kucinich back in the public eye negatively than for them to try to start legislating morality.

Post some pics of his wife or ignore him, those are the choices.

I am going to buy snack cakes and more ammunition.

/they'll have to take my immigration imitation twinkies from my cold, dead, hands.

/damn you, ipad.


I lol'd at the first iteration.
 
2012-11-17 06:18:32 PM  
I wish America deserved a Kucinich presidency.
 
2012-11-17 07:13:07 PM  
Giving special tax breaks or imposing special tax penalties gives politicians powers to punish their enemies and reward their friends. This is an open invitation to corruption.

Maybe that is really Kucinich's goal.
 
2012-11-17 07:20:02 PM  

EyeballKid: I wish America deserved a Kucinich presidency.


He lost his seat in Congress and will never be elected to anything again (except maybe mayor). I'm guessing President Obama might appoint him to some minor post but basically you've heard the last from Kucinich.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report