Where does food come from?

[Frank Lee]

You need a nap or something.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

You need a nap or something.

Frank,

I often read your comments, and though we don't agree often, I don't tell you what you need.

If you feel a need to tell others what they "need" or feel a need to intimidate them, you might consider becoming a politician. That's the mindset of one.

[Frank Lee]

Fine. I will now respond to what it is I should have responded to in the first place.

Post 11 is quite the leap of logic re: the bush big truck tax incentive. I think the notion isn't so much people shouldn't be ALLOWED to have what they want, be it multiple domiciles or stupid big commuting trucks... rather, it is the taxpayer SUBSIDY for such stupidity i.e. let people be stupid on their own dime.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by XYZ

I've never seen "the SUN" plant my garden for me. I have seen so much sun in recent summer months that I could hardly keep up with the irrigation.

The sunshine is free. But too much of a good thing can actually be detrimental, and sometimes it is. Regardless, when soil becomes dry, watering it costs money.

I'm waiting for the day when the gov't imposes a tax based upon on the days when the sun shines. Or they tax us for the air we breath. After all, the EPA does protect us from our environment, doesn't it? And therefore, they're imposing a service upon us that should be taxable, right?

If they could, they WOULD. Yes, they would.

I'm sorry I mentioned it. Give this idea another year or two and some busybody legislator will have picked up on it and will make it mandatory...

We know how many hours of sun your property got (thanks to Google for monitoring and recording all public information) and you don't dare get caught in public without having that pure air flow meter on your face! (Which is metered and taxable for the air you breath, which we can and do regulate, as it is ours, not yours)

You think that it can't happen here in Amerika? Think again.

No, food doesn't come from any tax structures. I'd say "photosynthesis". And in N. America, much of it comes from corporate "farms", or rather, the agricultural segment. Many of the biggest suppliers of commodities have corporate structures now. But yeah, corporations are people.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Fine. I will now respond to what it is I should have responded to in the first place.

I appreciate that.

Post 11 is quite the leap of logic re: the bush big truck tax incentive. I think the notion isn't so much people shouldn't be ALLOWED to have what they want, be it multiple domiciles or stupid big commuting trucks... rather, it is the taxpayer SUBSIDY for such stupidity i.e. let people be stupid on their own dime.

Let's review the chapter and verse of this "tax break" or subsidy that was cited. I'm not saying it couldn't be true, but without actual proof quoting the details of this so called subsidy, I'm skeptical of it.

[Frank Lee]

Fed Tax Break Encourages SUV Purchases - ABC News

http://4wheeldrive.about.com/cs/driv.../aa041603a.htm

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

But yeah, corporations are people.

Only a bunch of lawyers could have come up with that convoluted idea.

From Wiki:

In the common law tradition, only a person could sue or be sued. This was not a problem in the era before the Industrial Revolution, when the typical business venture was either a sole proprietorship or partnership—the owners were simply liable for the debts of the business. A feature of the corporation, however, is that the owners/shareholders enjoyed limited liability—the owners were not liable for the debts of the company. Thus, when a corporation breached a contract or broke a law, there was no remedy, because limited liability protected the owners and the corporation wasn't a legal person subject to the law. There was no accountability for corporate wrongdoing.

To resolve the issue, the legal personality of a corporation was established to include five legal rights—the right to a common treasury or chest (including the right to own property), the right to a corporate seal (i.e., the right to make and sign contracts), the right to sue and be sued (to enforce contracts), the right to hire agents (employees) and the right to make by-laws (self-governance).

Since the 19th century, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is "capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person." Ten years later, they reaffirmed the result of Letson, though on the somewhat different theory that "those who use the corporate name, and exercise the faculties conferred by it," should be presumed conclusively to be citizens of the corporation's State of incorporation. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by statute, as U.S. jurisdictional statutes specifically address the domicile of corporations.

"First we kill all the lawyers"...

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by XYZ

Only a bunch of lawyers could have come up with that convoluted idea.

Eh- I don't want to pursue that. The main points were the photosynthesis and corporations parts.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Fed Tax Break Encourages SUV Purchases - ABC News

Free SUVs For Small Business Owners - Pros and Cons of New SUV Tax Break

OK, so it was a depreciation tax write-off for small businesses. Every government administration has its pet projects. In politics, no matter which party is in power, that comes with the territory. It's business as usual.

In post #1 the OP said:

I went to the dentist once and the dental assistant was driving such a truck. Chrome dual shocks, jacked up a mile high. Not a spec of dirt.

I don't think that the dental assistant qualified for a tax write-off. At that time some people thought big vehicles were cool and they bought them on a whim. People can and do throw their money away on all sorts of wasteful frivolities. Let 'em. I just wish we wouldn't subsidize fools after they've pissed all their assets away.

[Frank Lee]

It encouraged and further subsidized guzzling, arguably for those that needed it the least. Quite the odd double standard- brushing off subsidy for the wealthy then bemoaning subsidy for the non-wealthy.