Skip to main content

View Diary: I am Tired of the Taxpayers Paying For Food For Rich People (229 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course business can take place (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    elsewhere. But it is equally true that, if a business could not deduct any of the cost of, for example, a business lunch, many of the restaurants in the business districts of cities would shut down their lunch time service and lay off wait staff, because their business -- which is heavily dependent on business lunches - would dry up.

    McDonalds would do fine.  The "nice" restaurants with waiters, not so much.  

    You certainly can argue that, despite that, we still should say a business cannot deduct the expense at all if one of its employees takes a client/customer to lunch.  But you have to make that argument in an honest fashion, which includes recognition of the unintended consequences, and an argument that, despite those consequences, it still is something we should do.

    Pretending the consequences aren't going to happen is what I think is dishonest.  

    •  People still have to eat. The majority of people (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, Chitownliberal7

      eating at a restaurant, even in the business district, are doing so out of their own pocket.  I've worked in downtown Chicago and Phoenix.  We ate at nice restaurants even on the days when the company wasn't fitting the bill.  If we wanted to eat nice, we did.  If I make 200k a year, I'm not eating at McDonald's just because I can't write off my meal as a tax break.  

      No one is saying there will be absolutely no consequences.  But the benefits of a fair tax code far outweigh the consequences of once less catered meal a month.  

    •  Please provide evidence of your argument (0+ / 0-)

      that

      if a business could not deduct any of the cost of, for example, a business lunch, many of the restaurants in the business districts of cities would shut down their lunch time service and lay off wait staff, because their business -- which is heavily dependent on business lunches - would dry up.
      Did this happen when the deduction was reduced to 80% in 1986 then to 50% in 1993? And if it did, by how much and how long did that last? What impact, if any, did the rise of the Internet have on the frequency of business lunches? What percentage of lunches are actually claimed as business entertainment expenses, both pre- and -post 1986 and 1993 changes?

      You're making the claim here, so it's your burden to provide the evidence ....

      Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

      by mikidee on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:25:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The good 'ol reliable "buggy whip" argument. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burlydee, DarkLadyNyara

      Why, we can't allow cars, all of the buggy whip manufacturers will be out of business!  Ban them from the roads!

      The more modern incarnation of the argument says that we can't phase out coal because, what of all of those coal miners?

      Sorry, but if there's an industry that's funded in part or in whole by something that Should Not Be, for whatever reason, that's no reason to continue the thing that Should Not Be in perpetuity.  It's a reason for sympathy and help for those who lose their jobs, but you don't derail doing the right thing because people have built an industry around the wrong thing.

      The sort of waste of this money makes me sick to begin with (I'm not preaching from the bleachers here, I spent years having to do these sort of dinners).  The fact that it's tax deductible?  That's simply encouraging it.

      If it's not deductible, it'll happen less, and that's a good thing.  Buggy whip manufacturers notwithstanding.

      Já þýðir já. Nei þýðir nei. Hvað er svona erfitt við það?

      by Rei on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 01:07:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site