NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Doctor Olds
Re: This says it all Value != $$$. No money was given to the telcos. Just that none was taken, either.
Tax is just money that we pay the government so the government can meet its operating expenses.
Getting to keep money, instead of paying taxes can't be considered "being paid" money. Nobody gave a dime to the telcos.
Now, if you want to complain that the telcos failed to keep a promise, and did not expend capital on their infrastructure, that is another matter, and much more accurately portrays what happened. The telcos promised to expend capital on infrastructure improvement in exchange for a tax break. They then did not follow through.
But no money changed hands, which is the implication behind the claims that the telcos were "paid" money to do something. They were not "given" one red cent.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 Doctor OldsI Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18 | I can agree with most all of that.  But, they should now have to pay the back all taxes, pay all the funds they were released from originally paying back to the government plus every concession they were allowed under law should be revoked immediately for failure to produce. The full restitution of all breaks and the revocation of all concessions is something they should be charged with returning by Congress.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Doctor Olds:I can agree with most all of that. But, they should now have to pay the back all taxes, pay all the funds they were released from originally paying back to the government plus every concession they were allowed under law should be revoked immediately for failure to produce. The full restitution of all breaks and the revocation of all concessions is something they should be charged with returning by Congress. Wouldn't those be retroactive penalties? Sort of like outlawing private possession of firearms, retroactive to Jan. 1, 1959, then throwing me in jail for possession of firearms purchased in 1976, or the like.
The penalties for non-performance should have been in place when the breaks were given. The problem with the way the government handled the situation was their failure to impose a performance penalty in the first place.
Otherwise, just jack up the current tax rate a notch, or three, and leave it at that.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Doctor OldsI Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18
1 edit | No, they would be paying back/giving back/losing continued access to what they were not entitled to in the first place since they didn't keep their end of the bargained agreement that allowed them to gain so many benefits and increased income/profits.
No, I don't equate a individuals right to bear arms given by the Constitution (you will easily notice that we as individuals did not give up or trade anything for that right nor did we make huge profits either) to any tax credit or concession given to a Corporation so they can get out of a bill that they would have had to pay or to get income/profits from selling features or services they were not entitled/not allowed to (like selling Long Distance when they were previously precluded from it) until they made that future promised in exchange concession as anywhere near the same level.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| That was supposed to be an example of retroactive legislation. I.e., making something (anything would have worked as an example) illegal at some date well before the law takes effect, then imposing penalties for violations which were not in violation at the time they were committed.
And the point is, the government did not demand a performance penalty before agreeing to giving breaks. Ex post facto penalties seem wrong on so many levels. If you make a deal, make a binding deal. That is why we have contract law in the first place.
Or just follow Obama's lead, and nationalize the telcos.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
