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.

(New York Daily News)   DeBlasio announces grants for the city's fashion industry, which is barely hanging on at $11 billion a year. Corporate welfare - it's okay when progressives do it   (nydailynews.com) divider line 21
    More: Asinine, Blasio, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, DeBlasio, fashions, corporate welfare, Chirlane McCray, concessions  
•       •       •

386 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2014 at 8:24 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-07 08:27:30 AM  
5 votes:
I know the headline is a troll, but let's be honest, it's not okay when anyone does it.
2014-02-07 09:24:55 AM  
2 votes:
It sounds bad - I was about ready to froth at the mouth based on the headline - but now that I've RTFA, this really isn't corporate welfare. One of the things the city does is offer grants to small businesses, like restaurants, startup movie production houses, small manufacturers, technology startups (like one that my friend is a co-founder of, which is why I know about this), and in this case, fashion and clothing designers. Startup costs are high in the city, so the city government offers startup incentives in the form of grants to supplement SBA loans and state tax credits. You don't qualify if you're an existing large business, or if you don't have a solid qualifying business plan. It works out pretty well for us. There's certainly a debate to be had about the propriety of these grants - I think reasonable people can disagree - but this isn't a handout to existing players.
2014-02-07 08:41:23 AM  
2 votes:
Lower taxes would work

Heh... Like a broken farking record.
2014-02-07 03:37:30 PM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Rhaab: Debeo Summa Credo: Rhaab:

Exactly!!! Thank you for posting.

Count how many times the plumbing business' income is taxed before the owner can spend it on personal items,and how many times the shop's income is taxed before the owner can spend it. Now count how many times the banks' income is taxed before the owners can spend it.


Not sure you actually get the point of that comic. Everybody gets taxed on everything, all the time.

Not twice.   The employee makes money, his income is taxed and he can spend the rest, the caddy makes money, his income is taxed and he can spend the rest, the plumbing business makes money, the income is taxed, and the owner can spend the rest, the record store makes money, the income is taxed, and the owner can spend the rest, the bank makes money, its income is taxed, but the owners cant spend the rest until they pay another level of income tax.  "E" actually is the unique phenomenon in that example where earned income is taxed twice!

I find it hilarious that a comic intended to debunk the concept of 'double taxation' actually provides a very clear example of exactly the kind of double taxation it is trying to debunk.


What the fark are property taxes, sales taxes, etc? Farking magic non-tax taxes?
2014-02-07 01:23:36 PM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: dumbobruni: Debeo Summa Credo: Bloody William: Debeo Summa Credo: Bloody William: Debeo Summa Credo: Really? We have some of the highest taxes on the wealthy we've had in decades.

Unless you count how we tax any of the ways the wealthy actually make more money over a certain point. Want to compare capital gains to income taxes?

Want to compare corporate income taxes + dividend taxes to ordinary taxes?

No, because you brought up "the wealthy." I didn't say anything about corporations except note that the wealthy tend to make most of their money from investments.

Also, after 30 seconds of searching... qualified dividends are taxed at the same rate as capital gains, at a maximum of 20%. corporate income tax rates vary from 15% to 35%, similar to personal income tax but obviously with a much higher set of income tiers ($18.3 million per year is the maximum 35% tax rate). And before you bring up state/local corporate income taxes, those are deductible from federal taxes.

And why would we combine those two types of taxes to do anything other than muddy the discussion? And before you talk about "income being taxed twice" or wherever you were going with that, I'm letting you know I'd point out the many, many different kinds of taxes and fees that could be described as "taxing income twice," and that it's a disingenuous argument to isolate those two examples just to try to finagle some slightly higher numbers than the ones I was presenting.

It's not disingenuous at all. Both of those are income taxes on the same income.

100 rich people start a corporation and the income from that corporation is taxed at 35% (effective rates lower, say 25%). Then when the income of that corporation is distributed to the 100 rich people (by rich I mean their other income already gets them into the top rate) their marginal federal rate is 23.9% (including the 3.9% obamacare tax on investment income) which means that the total federal take is about 43%, not including state or local taxes.

And "deductible" doesn't mean "credit". So if the person is taxed $100 state it doesn't reduce their federal tax liability by $100, but their taxable income is reduced. Assuming the $100 in state taxes was fully deductible (ignoring phase outs and limits that reduce deductibility), the reduction in federal taxes in the above scenario would be only $23.90.

When you consider the two bites at the apple that government has at corporate income, depending on jurisdiction you can end up with less than 50% of pretax corporate income ending up in the pockets of the corporations owners, with a total income tax take of over 50%. THATs the rate you should be comparing to ordinary tax rates.

Congrats on mixing marginal rates with effective tax rates.

Your argument is entirely theoretical, as there is little to prevent the intended dividend yield to be paid out pretax as part of SGA expenses.

Except for of course tax law which doesnt treat dividends as reductions to taxable income and accounting standards which don't allow dividends to be included in SG&a. Other than that, yeah nothing.


Business owners, including mom & pop llcs, don't put themselves on the payroll and instead only take dividends?

What planet are you on?
2014-02-07 01:09:20 PM  
1 votes:
State corporate income taxes are no more than 10%,marginal.

Effective would be lower.

50% effective tax bite? Nope, not a chance.
2014-02-07 01:02:05 PM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Bloody William: Debeo Summa Credo: Bloody William: Debeo Summa Credo: Really? We have some of the highest taxes on the wealthy we've had in decades.

Unless you count how we tax any of the ways the wealthy actually make more money over a certain point. Want to compare capital gains to income taxes?

Want to compare corporate income taxes + dividend taxes to ordinary taxes?

No, because you brought up "the wealthy." I didn't say anything about corporations except note that the wealthy tend to make most of their money from investments.

Also, after 30 seconds of searching... qualified dividends are taxed at the same rate as capital gains, at a maximum of 20%. corporate income tax rates vary from 15% to 35%, similar to personal income tax but obviously with a much higher set of income tiers ($18.3 million per year is the maximum 35% tax rate). And before you bring up state/local corporate income taxes, those are deductible from federal taxes.

And why would we combine those two types of taxes to do anything other than muddy the discussion? And before you talk about "income being taxed twice" or wherever you were going with that, I'm letting you know I'd point out the many, many different kinds of taxes and fees that could be described as "taxing income twice," and that it's a disingenuous argument to isolate those two examples just to try to finagle some slightly higher numbers than the ones I was presenting.

It's not disingenuous at all. Both of those are income taxes on the same income.

100 rich people start a corporation and the income from that corporation is taxed at 35% (effective rates lower, say 25%). Then when the income of that corporation is distributed to the 100 rich people (by rich I mean their other income already gets them into the top rate) their marginal federal rate is 23.9% (including the 3.9% obamacare tax on investment income) which means that the total federal take is about 43%, not including state or local taxes.

And "deductible" doesn't mean "credit". So if the person is taxed $100 state it doesn't reduce their federal tax liability by $100, but their taxable income is reduced. Assuming the $100 in state taxes was fully deductible (ignoring phase outs and limits that reduce deductibility), the reduction in federal taxes in the above scenario would be only $23.90.

When you consider the two bites at the apple that government has at corporate income, depending on jurisdiction you can end up with less than 50% of pretax corporate income ending up in the pockets of the corporations owners, with a total income tax take of over 50%. THATs the rate you should be comparing to ordinary tax rates.


Congrats on mixing marginal rates with effective tax rates.

Your argument is entirely theoretical, as there is little to prevent the intended dividend yield to be paid out pretax as part of SGA expenses.
2014-02-07 12:47:20 PM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: No.  Now I see where you are confused.   When a corporation pays an employee, the employee is taxed on the income but the corporation deducts that expense in arriving at their taxable income.  So a corporation has $100 in revenue and $50 in raw materials expenses and pays employees $30, it pays tax on the remaining $20 (it deducts its costs in arriving at taxable income), and the employees are taxed on the $30.  That $30 is only taxed once, at the employee level.

If the corporation then pays $10 to shareholders, the shareholders pay tax, but the corporation doesn't get to deduct that dividend from income.   So that $10 is taxed at both the shareholder level, and the corporate level.  Hence 'double' taxation exists with dividends, but not in your employee example.

You can argue that an extra level of tax at the corporate level is an appropriate quid pro quo for limited liability (although there is not and never has been any sort of legal connection between limited liability and corporate taxation), but don't try to argue that there isn't an extra level of tax.


I'll argue it's an appropriate level of quid pro quo simply because the shareholders and the corporation itself are completely different entities. The shareholders own stakes in the corporation, but they are NOT the corporation. It's not money going into the corporation that's taxed twice within the corporation's assets. One is going in, one is going out. Now, if you want to argue that dividends should also be deductions, go ahead.

I'm not going to shed tears because the people receiving money for their investments and otherwise doing nothing (how's that dignity of work, by the way?) are getting taxed just as the corporation from which they benefit is getting taxed. Their taxes are only "the highest in decades" if you 1: define decades only as halfway through the Reagan years onwards... and ignore the Clinton years and 2: perform that bullshiat number juggling of combining corporate income taxes and dividends and 3: ignore the incredibly low capital gains tax rates we have in comparison to actual income tax, the rate which most americans pay for their income.
2014-02-07 12:12:51 PM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: It's not disingenuous at all. Both of those are income taxes on the same income.

100 rich people start a corporation and the income from that corporation is taxed at 35% (effective rates lower, say 25%). Then when the income of that corporation is distributed to the 100 rich people (by rich I mean their other income already gets them into the top rate) their marginal federal rate is 23.9% (including the 3.9% obamacare tax on investment income) which means that the total federal take is about 43%, not including state or local taxes.

When you consider the two bites at the apple that government has at corporate income, depending on jurisdiction you can end up with less than 50% of pretax corporate income ending up in the pockets of the corporations owners, with a total income tax take of over 50%. THATs the rate you should be comparing to ordinary tax rates.


I'm gonna lump these three posts together, because they all have the same response.

No, they are not income taxes on the same income. When a corporation is started, the founders decide they want to enjoy the limited liability and other benefits of a corporation, so they found a separate legal entity to function as the business instead of simply being them directly controlling it in every way. Since it's a separate entity, the transactions of income going into the corporation and that income paying dividends to shareholders are two separate transactions to two separate parties. It's a share of the profits being paid out, but it's a separate transaction.

It's like complaining that personal income tax and corporate income tax are double taxation because the corporation's profits are used to pay employees. Or that personal income tax and sales tax are double taxation because the person's income is used to pay for goods. It's a lot of whining from the well-heeled wanting all of the benefits of having a corporation (a separate legal entity with limited liability) but none of the responsibilities (it being a  separate legal entity).

And "deductible" doesn't mean "credit". So if the person is taxed $100 state it doesn't reduce their federal tax liability by $100, but their taxable income is reduced. Assuming the $100 in state taxes was fully deductible (ignoring phase outs and limits that reduce deductibility), the reduction in federal taxes in the above scenario would be only $23.90.

And? My point was that taxation on all three levels has methods to ameliorate that taxation so all income is not taxed in full at all three levels.

Debeo Summa Credo: Is there some sort of macro in the minds of farklibs that confuses "right" with "wrong"?

I'm correct in every thread.


Not gonna lie, I snortlaughed at that. Want to get back into the argument about "disincentivizing work," where you ignored every single thing I said during your epic whinefest?
2014-02-07 11:32:51 AM  
1 votes:
I see OligarchDefenderBot is here to be wrong about everything again.
2014-02-07 11:05:42 AM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Bloody William: Debeo Summa Credo: Really? We have some of the highest taxes on the wealthy we've had in decades.

Unless you count how we tax any of the ways the wealthy actually make more money over a certain point. Want to compare capital gains to income taxes?

Want to compare corporate income taxes + dividend taxes to ordinary taxes?


No, because you brought up "the wealthy." I didn't say anything about corporations except note that the wealthy tend to make most of their money from investments.

Also, after 30 seconds of searching... qualified dividends are taxed at the same rate as capital gains, at a maximum of 20%. corporate income tax rates vary from 15% to 35%, similar to personal income tax but obviously with a much higher set of income tiers ($18.3 million per year is the maximum 35% tax rate). And before you bring up state/local corporate income taxes, those are deductible from federal taxes.

And why would we combine those two types of taxes to do anything other than muddy the discussion? And before you talk about "income being taxed twice" or wherever you were going with that, I'm letting you know I'd point out the many, many different kinds of taxes and fees that could be described as "taxing income twice," and that it's a disingenuous argument to isolate those two examples just to try to finagle some slightly higher numbers than the ones I was presenting.
2014-02-07 10:49:52 AM  
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: James!: And then some complaints about soccer.

And? The proposed break for the soccer stadium is bigger than the fashion industry break...if there's a subsidy in the city that's begging to be killed it should be that one. This should have been an easy call for the mayor. Instead he whargarbled about carriage horses.


You don't like the soccer stadium therefore DeBlasio is bad also horses.
2014-02-07 10:01:57 AM  
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: Read again more slowly those two words "Both" and "parties".


Look, you claimed that DeBlasio is "in the banks' pocket". Everybody knows what this means, and so do you. It means that he's doing the bidding of the banks because his campaign accepted their donations.

Now read again more slowly the article you cited, and you'll find no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
2014-02-07 09:52:53 AM  
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: Wooly Bully: Is there any evidence to support this claim?

But of course.

The financial industry bought every other major politician in the tri-state area. Both parties. Yes, even Saint Cory Booker. They are nothing if not thorough.


Just to be clear, you're counting donations from individual employees at financial firms, correct? So if an assistant managers at McDonald's donated $5 to the DeBlasio campaign, you could claim that McDonald's bought DeBlasio?
2014-02-07 09:37:24 AM  
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: Wooly Bully: Is there any evidence to support this claim?

But of course.

The financial industry bought every other major politician in the tri-state area. Both parties. Yes, even Saint Cory Booker. They are nothing if not thorough.


Donated to is never the same as bought. You know that, but the part of your brain that could express it was short circuited by "DEM-CRAT BAD!" before it got to your typing fingers.
2014-02-07 09:36:43 AM  
1 votes:
The money goes to 7 small businesses, so on average each one gets about $300K.

But let's pretend this is the same as the $52 billion is oil industry subsidies
2014-02-07 08:47:30 AM  
1 votes:

dantheman195: TheGregiss: Maybe if they bailed out the people the industries won't need the government to keep them afloat as the common man/woman will have spendable income. To you know, spend. On shiat like fashion.

Lower taxes would work


...We've seen that they haven't.

/When the tax rate drops to 0 everywhere and the economy stagnates even further, then will you see that cutting taxes doesn't work?
2014-02-07 08:33:08 AM  
1 votes:
Maybe if they bailed out the people the industries won't need the government to keep them afloat as the common man/woman will have spendable income. To you know, spend. On shiat like fashion.
2014-02-07 08:32:29 AM  
1 votes:

skozlaw: No, it's not.

I like how conservatives have basically given up even trying. You morons are just ridin' out this long, slow death of relevance at this point, aren't you?


When you're an incompetent old scared racist bigoted white guy, you have to blame things on SOMEONE ...besides yourself.
2014-02-07 08:31:21 AM  
1 votes:
FTFA: The industry employs 180,000 people in the city and pays out nearly $11 billion in wages.

 The grants come to $3 million. If this keeps the industry strong, it is probably revenue positive. We are not talking about developing an entire fleet of aircraft that are going straight to the scrapyard.
2014-02-07 08:28:48 AM  
1 votes:
No, it's not.

I like how conservatives have basically given up even trying. You morons are just ridin' out this long, slow death of relevance at this point, aren't you?
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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