Recently, Jose posted:

You mean, like the weather service? (it's going in that direction).
FSS? (it's already there).

Pork.

AMTRAK (let's not even go there!).

If you haven't "gone there", you should. Some of the most pleasurable
vacations taken by my wife and me incorporated first-class travels on
AmTrak. We crossed the country on each of the routes. Also, for many
citizens, it is the most practical way to cover long distances. AmTrak
*is* a public service either way, and I don't mind my tax dollars going to
support it.

But in
any case, tax money not collected due to abatements counts as "spent"
too, because it has to be collected from elsewhere (us) to make up the
difference.

Oh? What is "the difference" that needs to be made up in the case of
properly administered tax breaks? Usually, there is an *increase* in the
actual money in the coffers due to the taxes of those employed by such
companies.

Airports are general and available to the public, just as are roads
and publicly owned transportation systems serve the common good.
Have you ever seen a publicly owned hotel, and if so, how does that
work?

Good point. But trains are privately owned and serve the public. Why
should airports, highways, and libraries not have the same model?

Privately owned trains are for-profit businesses, not a public service.
Certainly, the line isn't that fuzzy to you?

Farmers compete in the market just as any other business. If they
can't make money growing one crop, they should grow some other crop.

Cocaine and tobacoo come to mind. And I don't know enough about the
subsidies to argue intellegently about them in specific (though that
has never stopped me! but I believe the theory is that if all the
cropland was planted, prices would drop and nobody would survive.
Assuming this is true, I have other solutions for the problem.

The reality is that it would sort itself out in short order, given the
mortgages that must still be paid. Most farmers aren't stupid people.

On a smaller scale, something similar happened in California where all
the apple orchards were replaced by vinyards. While I'm not
advocating forcing people to grow apples, I'm not sure I would want
the entire country to be planted in tobacco instead of wheat. There
would be no food and everybody would be chain smoking. Public good?
(yes, an oversimplification)

I really can't see any of the above happening, Jose. It's likely that the
ability to transport apples globally reduced the profitability in
California below what the land values and subsequent taxes could support.
Vinyards produce a crop that is not as directly tied to market forces, as
the price of a bottle of wine is not linearly related to the cost of
grapes. California farmers did the prudent thing, given that the Sonoma
and other areas are producing world-class wines that have created a demand
for grapes. Perhaps the decline in the popularity of Boones Farm Apple
wine played a role, as well. ;-)

A tax deduction is a reduction in liability; you get to keep your
money rather than receive a handout.

In theory.

If I decide that I will have all my students meet at the next airport
over, and I fly there the long way (filing IFR and getting vectored
from here to kingdom come), and I therefore deduct most of my flying
and most of my airplane purchase against my tutoring income (carrying
forward, of course), is this a legitimate business expense or am I
sucking the government teat?

You'd likely wind up sucking the government teat from behind bars, because
travel expenses don't work that way. ;-)

Neil