[DoctorDulitlBest]

He's targeting coal power plants, oil pipelines, oil companies and they're grousing about fracking.

This is why you can't have an "All of the above" energy policy.. Private capital will not support worthless, stupid forms of energy.

Therefore, the stupids have to be subsidized with tax dollars (Never tax BREAKS.. Because you have to have a PROFIT before a tax break means a fucking thing) when the tax dollars run out, alternative energies fail.. To keep them from failing, they always attempt to drive up the costs of traditional energy, in an attempt to make stupid energy more attractive, and drive private investment into alternatives.

Any time you hear someone say "All of the above" what you should hear is "We're going to drive up the cost of coal, oil and natural gas..!"

[Lerpenoaneway]

Typical nigger stupidity, try to get prices at the pump down by increasing the oil companies operating costs and hoping that those increases will not be passed on to the consumer.

Stupid fucking nigger.

[Dreaming]

He's targeting coal power plants, oil pipelines, oil companies and they're grousing about fracking.

This is why you can't have an "All of the above" energy policy.. Private capital will not support worthless, stupid forms of energy.

Therefore, the stupids have to be subsidized with tax dollars (Never tax BREAKS.. Because you have to have a PROFIT before a tax break means a fucking thing) when the tax dollars run out, alternative energies fail.. To keep them from failing, they always attempt to drive up the costs of traditional energy, in an attempt to make stupid energy more attractive, and drive private investment into alternatives.

Any time you hear someone say "All of the above" what you should hear is "We're going to drive up the cost of coal, oil and natural gas..!"

Help me out here, you support government subsidy to oil companies, yet you oppose government subsidy to other energy companies, because you say they can not survive on private capital alone.
By that logic, shouldn't we cut subsidy to all energy companies, and let the market dictate the outcome?

[Hetgvwic]

Help me out here, you support government subsidy to oil companies, yet you oppose government subsidy to other energy companies, because you say they can not survive on private capital alone.
By that logic, shouldn't we cut subsidy to all energy companies, and let the market dictate the outcome?

So if we raise the oil co. taxes, then we can eliminate the federal and state taxes at the pump right?

Surely a "libertarian" can't agree to allow the "government" to screw the people three and four times for the same item?

[PriernPayorse]

Help me out here, you support government subsidy to oil companies, yet you oppose government subsidy to other energy companies, because you say they can not survive on private capital alone.
By that logic, shouldn't we cut subsidy to all energy companies, and let the market dictate the outcome?

Tax breaks, are a subsidy are they?

[soonahonsefalh]

So if we raise the oil co. taxes, then we can eliminate the federal and state taxes at the pump right?

Surely a "libertarian" can't agree to allow the "government" to screw the people three and four times for the same item?

First, please don't try to slip in logical fallacy. Been there, done that, got a tee shirt. Eliminating a subsidy disguised as a tax credit is not "raising taxes"
Second, the two issues are unrelated.
No taxes are "good" and I in a perfect world would revert to user fees and consumption taxes across the board. Taxes on gas are discretionary, no one is compelled to pay them. They come very close to a user fee model. The problem is, they are supposed to be earmarked for transportation costs, and no one is sure if that actually happens

[hLabXZlK]

Tax breaks, are a subsidy are they?

Of course they are.
Forgiving a $1000 debt has the same effect on a bottom line as writing a $1000 check

[Johnny]

First, please don't try to slip in logical fallacy. Been there, done that, got a tee shirt. Eliminating a subsidy disguised as a tax credit is not "raising taxes"
Second, the two issues are unrelated.
No taxes are "good" and I in a perfect world would revert to user fees and consumption taxes across the board. Taxes on gas are discretionary, no one is compelled to pay them. They come very close to a user fee model. The problem is, they are supposed to be earmarked for transportation costs, and no one is sure if that actually happens

Spoken like a true liberal, maybe you can invent another way to tax them on top of raising their taxes.

[DextExexy]

Of course they are.
Forgiving a $1000 debt has the same effect on a bottom line as writing a $1000 check

So we all owe the "government" 100% of our pay, and anything they allow us to keep is simply them writing us a check.

[JoZertekAdv]

Spoken like a true liberal, maybe you can invent another way to tax them on top of raising their taxes.

What Liberals have you been talking to? The ones I know what to raise taxes on gas so that the price at the pump goes up to $8 a gallon. What I am supporting is a voluntary way to fund infrastructure without raising or creating taxes, and to end corporate welfare, which is classic Marxist redistribution of wealth.

[mpegdvdclip]

So we all owe the "government" 100% of our pay, and anything they allow us to keep is simply them writing us a check.

That's retarded. No one said any such thing.

[Zjohkrbi]

That's retarded. No one said any such thing.

No, it's your logic.

[Fetowip]

Of course they are.
Forgiving a $1000 debt has the same effect on a bottom line as writing a $1000 check

So we all owe the "government" 100% of our pay, and anything they allow us to keep is simply them writing us a check.

Thanks Mr. White.......you made my point.

[Pashtet]

Help me out here, you support government subsidy to oil companies, yet you oppose government subsidy to other energy companies, because you say they can not survive on private capital alone.
By that logic, shouldn't we cut subsidy to all energy companies, and let the market dictate the outcome?

First.. I don't support subsidies.. But I don't support corporate taxes, either.

At all..

What happens is, the corporation never pays them. They flow through and end up entwined in the cost of gods and services.

People pay taxes, not corporations.

And, as I pointed out, tax breaks are fundamentally different from writing checks..

[Cibirrigmavog]

Of course they are.
Forgiving a $1000 debt has the same effect on a bottom line as writing a $1000 check

No, no...

If the only subsidies green energy received were tax breaks, they'd be broke.. Because it's the profit that is taxed.

The difference to the bottom line is:

Oil: A profitable, successful enterprise is taxed on its profits.. They pay a thousand dollars.. THEN pass it on to their customers and giggle.

Green Stuff: There is no, or very little, profit.. If there's no check, they may well be out of business..

[Antelpebabe]

No, it's your logic.

No it's not, not even close. First, "WE", at least most of us are not corporations, and corporations are whom and what we were discussing. Second, no where in any tax code is there a 100% tax rate.
However, in your failed attempt at a straw man is found a mathematical truth. If indeed we received a lump some check for 80% of our income or if we paid a 20% net tax, the outcome is identical.
If however we received a lump some check for say 85% of our income because the Government decided we needed it to survive, that 5% would be, a subsidy

[xqkAY7Lg]

Again.. I personally think all corporations, including traditional and "alternative" energy producers should be given a 100% tax break..

It's hardly a subsidy.. It's eliminating a hidden tax on consumers.. Because they're the ones who end up paying it.

[jerzeygymwolf]

First.. I don't support subsidies.. But I don't support corporate taxes, either.

At all..

What happens is, the corporation never pays them. They flow through and end up entwined in the cost of gods and services.

People pay taxes, not corporations.

And, as I pointed out, tax breaks are fundamentally different from writing checks..

You are correct. corporate taxes under the current system are consumption taxes. This is why I suggested a post P&L flat corporate tax rate, or simply roll cooperate expenditures into a universal VAT type consumption tax. Let the coperation decide how much tax they pay.
You are however, dead wrong to claim forgiving a debt is any different at the end of the fiscal year from writing a check.

[drmarshallusa]

However, in your failed attempt at a straw man is found a mathematical truth. If indeed we received a lump some check for 80% of our income or if we paid a 20% net tax, the outcome is identical.

No.. Actually, if you make a hundred bucks, it's the difference between getting a check for another $80.00 (for a total of $180.00) or paying $20.00 in tax on your $100.00 of income.

[Oswczrdz]

No it's not, not even close. First, "WE", at least most of us are not corporations, and corporations are whom and what we were discussing. Second, no where in any tax code is there a 100% tax rate.
However, in your failed attempt at a straw man is found a mathematical truth. If indeed we received a lump some check for 80% of our income or if we paid a 20% net tax, the outcome is identical.
If however we received a lump some check for say 85% of our income because the Government decided we needed it to survive, that 5% would be, a subsidy

Question
Do you support the Fair Tax?

Answer
Libertarians believe that all taxes are immoral, so none could really be described as "fair."

However, some libertarians support a national sales tax (which is what the so-called Fair Tax is) as a replacement for the income tax. Some of these libertarian Fair Tax advocates feel that people will be much more enraged by a tax that they experience with every purchase, rather than one that is taken from their paycheck before they even see it. With each tax raise, everyone will become acutely aware of how much money is being taken from them. They will hopefully protest, taxes will be lowered, and what we render to Caesar will be lessened.

(Other arguments are also made by some libertarians in defense of the Fair Tax, including claims that it would be less intrusive and less costly than the income tax.)

While the above scenario is a plausible one, I suspect that the Fair Tax will one day be implemented without doing away with the income tax -- thus giving us the worst of both worlds.

I hesitate to support any tax for any reason. Harry Browne and Ron Paul said it best: "Abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing!" http://www.libertarianism.com/