Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2015 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Do they have different definitions for any other worlds on your home planet?

LOL. You admitted that this is an indirect government subsidy.

I'm guessing moy lost a relative to lung cancer.   Because he always brings up the percentage of smokers below the poverty line.   Or maybe he hate North Carolina.   Or some dude named R J Reynolds. 

Moy, I agree with your entire first paragraph.

There are many Americans who also can't "work hard and figure it out themselves" and need more help than you probably realize. I agree that if they don't use that help to better themselves, then that person shouldn't be getting that help any longer. But that help needs to be available. I'd be in favor of spending money to fund initiatives to help Americans before I spend money to give Ukraine weapons. Maybe it's on education on those on welfare on how to budget their money. Maybe it's on patches for smokers to help them quit. 

Where should we send our troops?

http://www.globalintake.com/world_risk_map.php?wrmtype=d

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2015 10:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2015 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Do they have different definitions for any other worlds on your home planet?

LOL. You admitted that this is an indirect government subsidy.

LOL @ yourself, dumbass.  I admitted that some definitions define it as such.  I also added that it's retarded to do so.

Try to keep up with what's being said.

moy, what percentage of people below the poverty line drink?   Have $100 sneakers?   Eat candy bars?   Own pets?   Go to the movies?

Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2015 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2015 10:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2015 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Do they have different definitions for any other worlds on your home planet?

LOL. You admitted that this is an indirect government subsidy.

LOL @ yourself, dumbass.  I admitted that some definitions define it as such.  I also added that it's retarded to do so.

Try to keep up with what's being said.

Yes, it is defined as an indirect government subsidy. You wouldn't need to be from another planet to define it that way.

Any time the government tries to encourage a certain behavior by making that behavior less expensive, it's a subsidy. Even if it's indirect.

Government wants people to buy houses? Homeowners get to deduct the mortgage interest from their income tax calculation.

Government wants people to go to college? People who open 529 plans don't have to pay taxes on the income generated in those accounts.

Those aren't direct subsidies. The government isn't cutting a check to the homeowners or the people paying tuition but, as explained by the Global Subsidies Initiative:

In countries with well-developed tax systems, subsidies provided by reducing tax burdens are commonplace. Examples include tax exemptions (when a tax is not paid), tax credits (which reduce a tax otherwise due), tax deferrals (which delay the payment of a tax) and a host of other instruments. In common language these preferential tax treatments are called tax breaks or tax concessions; public-finance economists refer to them as tax expenditures. They should not, however, be confused with general tax reductions.

Generally, when a government provides a tax break its budget is affected in much the same way as if it had spent some of its own money.

 

it is still a subsidy.

I'm just making fun of you over "27% of below poverty smoke" you always bring up.

People, all of us, make bad decisions with our money.   I bet 100% of those below the poverty line make bad decisions.  As do 100% over the poverty line.   I just think "1/4 OF THEM SMOKE!!!!" is silly.   And, no, I don't smoke.  Never have.