Georgia lawmakers yank tax break for Delta after airline cuts ties with NRA

[cm_osu]

They never should have had the tax break to begin with. That being said, I think it's a bad idea to use tax law to punish your political opponents. I had no idea the NRA discount existed to begin with.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Fyrtwuck]

“Deal said he would still pursue a jet fuel tax exemption separately.”


This makes me think that something else is going on. They give the public something they want to hear, backing the NRA, but what other deal are they working on?

 

[donner]

Um... don't Liberal states already punish small business and gun owners? Not to mention businesses like YouTube currently banning content left and right. This is a push back and it's nice to see.

How so? I'm sure it goes on but i don't know of any specific instances where liberal states have used their power to 'punish' a business for making a decision with which it disagreed. And youtube can do whatever it wants to gun channels as it's a private company.

I'm not arguing a 'side' on this. I'm simply saying that we shouldn't be celebrating using the power of government to punish groups we disagree with because it opens up the possibility of it going both ways. Should california threaten google if youtube doesn't ban gun channels?

 

[JD8]

How so? I'm sure it goes on but i don't know of any specific instances where liberal states have used their power to 'punish' a business for making a decision with which it disagreed. And youtube can do whatever it wants to gun channels as it's a private company.

I'm not arguing a 'side' on this. I'm simply saying that we shouldn't be celebrating using the power of government to punish groups we disagree with because it opens up the possibility of it going both ways. Should california threaten google if youtube doesn't ban gun channels?

You're not sure how liberal states punish gun owners? Seriously? In terms of small businesses.... have we forgotten about the wedding cake? Youtube can ban people all they want, that's fine..... but by god you dare to refuse to make a wedding cake for a couple? How about gun shops in liberal states and all the BS they have to deal with? How about states passing laws for mag restrictions, when a large magazine maker is currently based there. We have been constantly punished as 2A owners every fawking time this happens and it's getting old.

Now two wrongs don't make a right, I get it.... .but here it seems that Delta pissed off a HUGE demographic of that particular state and the government acted on their behalf. Am I wrong?

 

[Dave70968]

You're not sure how liberal states punish gun owners? Seriously? In terms of small businesses.... have we forgotten about the wedding cake? Youtube can ban people all they want, that's fine..... but by god you dare to refuse to make a wedding cake for a couple? How about gun shops in liberal states and all the BS they have to deal with? How about states passing laws for mag restrictions, when a large magazine maker is currently based there. We have been constantly punished as 2A owners every fawking time this happens and it's getting old.

Now two wrongs don't make a right, I get it.... .but here it seems that Delta pissed off a HUGE demographic of that particular state and the government acted on their behalf. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are. It's not the government's place to exact punishment on behalf of people who are "pissed off;" governments are instituted to secure certain rights, not to make sure you're not "pissed off," and you certainly don't have a right to a discount from Company X because you happen to do business with Company Y.

The wedding cake issue (and the similar photographer and florist cases) aren't directly comparable because, in those jurisdictions, there are specific statutes making sexual orientation a protected class. Personally, I think that such statutes are a bad idea--businesses ought to be free to choose with whom they'll do businesses, and on what terms--but like it or not, they are valid, duly-enacted law. Show me the statute making a protected class out of NRA members, and show me how treating them exactly the same as non-members (that is, not giving special treatment in the form of a discount) violates that statute, and you'll be on to something.

Otherwise, you're just trying to use the tax code to punish what can probably be classified as "core politlcal speech," which enjoys the very highest degree of protection under the First Amendment.

 

[JD8]

The wedding cake issue (and the similar photographer and florist cases) aren't directly comparable because, in those jurisdictions, there are specific statutes making sexual orientation a protected class. Personally, I think that such statutes are a bad idea--businesses ought to be free to choose with whom they'll do businesses, and on what terms--but like it or not, they are valid, duly-enacted law. Show me the statute making a protected class out of NRA members, and show me how treating them exactly the same as non-members (that is, not giving special treatment in the form of a discount) violates that statute, and you'll be on to something.

Otherwise, you're just trying to use the tax code to punish what can probably be classified as "core politlcal speech," which enjoys the very highest degree of protection under the First Amendment.

So you say "like it or not it's a duly-enacted law." Fair enough. Was the law broken here? I say this as an honest question and not rhetorical.

 

[Dave70968]

So you say "like it or not it's a duly-enacted law." Fair enough. Was the law broken here? I say this as an honest question and not rhetorical.

I think I may have been unclear. I'm saying those anti-discrimination statutes (on the basis of sexual orientation) were duly-enacted laws, and when the businesses in question discriminated against members of a protected class, they broke that law.

Here, I see no law broken, because I don't see the protected class. Moreover, even if NRA membership were a protected class, I don't see where not giving them special treatment--that is, treating them exactly the same as those not in the class--would violate anti-discrimination laws.

I do see potential problems with the government using the tax code as a punishment for taking a stance on a hot-button political issue, though. Not a guaranteed win, necessarily, but coming out and saying on the TV that "we're going to raise your taxes because you offended people on a political issue" is just plain dumb, and absolutely something the court can consider in any sort of challenge.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my meaning.

 

[RETOKSQUID]

On another note, we should eliminate corporate tax breaks all together, and require an audit every five years.

 

[Glocktogo]

Yes, you are. It's not the government's place to exact punishment on behalf of people who are "pissed off;" governments are instituted to secure certain rights, not to make sure you're not "pissed off," and you certainly don't have a right to a discount from Company X because you happen to do business with Company Y.

The wedding cake issue (and the similar photographer and florist cases) aren't directly comparable because, in those jurisdictions, there are specific statutes making sexual orientation a protected class. Personally, I think that such statutes are a bad idea--businesses ought to be free to choose with whom they'll do businesses, and on what terms--but like it or not, they are valid, duly-enacted law. Show me the statute making a protected class out of NRA members, and show me how treating them exactly the same as non-members (that is, not giving special treatment in the form of a discount) violates that statute, and you'll be on to something.

Otherwise, you're just trying to use the tax code to punish what can probably be classified as "core politlcal speech," which enjoys the very highest degree of protection under the First Amendment.

I'm of two minds on this one. First, I don't think we should use taxes to penalize or favor certain people or entities, ever. Taxes should ALWAYS be fair and equitable upon everyone. Now if you can tell me the last time that was actually the case, I'd sure love to hear it? We punish all sorts of people and sub-groups with taxes, on every level of government, every day for as long as I can remember. We create favoritism within tax codes equally as often.

In this particular case, you're arguing that a business should get a tax break not offered to every business in the state. For sure the reason they're not going to get the break is because they took a benefit away from a group of people for political purposes. So how do you defend their retaining a benefit specifically for political purposes? Every component of this issue is political, so I see no good way out of it.

Delta made a choice that comes with consequences. They're not being treated unfairly by not getting a tax break not offered to other businesses in the state. If anything, they're being treated MORE fairly in comparison to other businesses in Georgia, rather than being treated with favoritism. So I fail to see what the issue is?

 

[donner]

I'm of two minds on this one. First, I don't think we should use taxes to penalize or favor certain people or entities, ever. Taxes should ALWAYS be fair and equitable upon everyone. Now if you can tell me the last time that was actually the case, I'd sure love to hear it? We punish all sorts of people and sub-groups with taxes, on every level of government, every day for as long as I can remember. We create favoritism within tax codes equally as often.

In this particular case, you're arguing that a business should get a tax break not offered to every business in the state. For sure the reason they're not going to get the break is because they took a benefit away from a group of people for political purposes. So how do you defend their retaining a benefit specifically for political purposes? Every component of this issue is political, so I see no good way out of it.

Delta made a choice that comes with consequences. They're not being treated unfairly by not getting a tax break not offered to other businesses in the state. If anything, they're being treated MORE fairly in comparison to other businesses in Georgia, rather than being treated with favoritism. So I fail to see what the issue is?

it seems like you're points (while valid) are mixing issues. Whether a company gets incentives or not is a separate issue (as referenced earlier).

Delta was set to receive these incentives before they split with the NRA. The discussion wasn't about fairness of one group over another, it was about using tax breaks to keep a large employer happy. It only became an issue when Delta took a stand on the issue of the NRA. At that point the lawmakers set out to 'punish' delta. The move wasn't about ending favoritism for one business over another, it was purely to teach Delta a lesson. That is the issue i have with it. As i said earlier, doing something like this opens the door to liberal states taking similar actions to 'punish' companies that fail to split with the NRA. Would we be in favor of states offering tax incentives to companies that 'opt' to raise the legal age for ammo purchase to 21 (or higher)?

In many respects i see that as being closer to the lois lerner stuff than i do a discussion of the merits of giving (or not) take incentives. Again, it just seems like we are celebrating steps down a slippery slope. But they did it and time will tell if they punished for their actions, as well as if this sets off discussions in other states.