Are you OK with all these new taxes to save newspapers.

:pop

posteryoyo wrote: In this case, would it not be a subsidy? Arguing that we need to invest in this particular thing or we may loose it and it may be critical for our future survival (like saving a farm field from development despite lack of demand).

Either way, I see people getting kicked out of their homes and severely limiting their food purchases at this point. About the only thing we should be discussing is reducing taxes. Think of how much cell phones have saved communities money too - 911 systems, etc. Perhaps we should get a rebate for supporting the technology or it would be much more expensive for the government to use had we not?

So I say no tax. Reserve taxes to fund National and Local Defense and loan based relief for the disparate without family support (not even just poor) all other services can be provided provided either privately. via family assistance (which can be required) or by the government via direct charge if there is no basis for a private market for such services (sometimes happens).

Amen!!!

SS109 wrote: Against them. Don't get me wrong, I love my daily paper, but there are much more enviromental ways to bring the news to people than cutting down a forest every day of the week. And to subsidize this destruction is just plain wrong.

BTW, both Japan and France have a long tradition of goverment subsidies. How objective does that make the press?

I think the government can benefit with the green view. Tax to support the newspapers and then tax the newspapers because they are not green!!!! Think of the jobs not only saved, but created. We must stop climate change.

Newspaper bailouts by the taxpayers. Politicians like
bailing out Dinosaurs, very profitable. This is an Era of
wrong is right. Aren't they a reflection of ourselves or
predators taking advantage of our trust. The talk has been going on for some time. What shall we do---as our wallets
lifted, curtailment of Constitutional amendments++++.
We need a political legal flushing, now -not at next elections.
Starts legally at ground roots levels and applies to all
poltical parties bottom-up.

.

I'm against it, also. It's a dumb idea.

I am generally against all taxes with a main purpose of modifying behavior or economy or freedom. Taxes should be simple, broad based, left alone, and just enough to generate the revenues required to fund the gov't. No more no less, no politicking. Screw the newspapers, I havent subscribed to one in decades, waste of pretty trees.