Corportate Tax Breaks Explained for Marixt Idiots

[Brain357]

About tax expenditures.
The Case for Cutting Tax Expenditures

I quit reading to to extreme laughter when a read the 23% sales tax.

This is to due dumbass Libertarians who know shit about mathematics & how taxes actually work.

That's one tax that has been suggested:

Let me point out that this is not a new idea. The FAIR Tax repeals all 73,000 pages of the tax code in favor of a single 23% sales tax. Americans for Tax Reform proposes a single flat income tax. Next week, I’ll be laying out my own proposal for a revenue-neutral tax code with no loopholes.

 

[g5000]

They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

Tax breaks do not grow the economy. That is the flaw in your thinking.

In fact, the biggest individual tax deduction not only causes higher tax rates, it also increases the price of housing. It steals from every taxpayer, and redistributes wealth from their pockets into the pockets of mortgage lenders, home builders, and realtors.

That is why I say no self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government distortion of the markets. No self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government behavioral controls.

Ahhh. . .

So, if you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to work? Or, if you are a producer, and you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to produce?

Seriously, that statement, "Tax breaks do not grow the economy." THat is just about the stupidest thing you have ever written. Do not let those that hate you ever know you have written that.

If you ran a business, and you were taxed at 95%, you would not open up another branch or hire any more people. Yet, if your taxes were cut? C'mon, you seriously can't be that obtuse, really?

When I say "tax breaks", it was in the context of tax expenditures, not lower tax rates for everyone, idiot. That was made even more clear in the example of the MID I then spoke of.

And you should have known that, so you are either being obtuse or disingenuous.

I have said, repeatedly, cutting tax expenditures means lower tax rates for everyone.

That is the right way to stimulate the economy. Tax expenditures are KILLING the economy.

The MID that you just spoke of? I guess that is where you lost me. So then, cutting taxes does grow the economy, except in the case of tax expenditures. Got it. I don't know what the acronym MID is, clarify.

Mortgage Interest Deduction. The MID increases the cost of housing and causes higher tax rates on everyone. It is both theft and wealth redistribution. Everything any self-respecting libertarian hates.

You are conflating lower tax rates with a tax deduction. Not the same thing. Lower tax rates, good. Tax expenditures, bad.

All caught up now?

 

[g5000]

About tax expenditures.
The Case for Cutting Tax Expenditures

I quit reading to to extreme laughter when a read the 23% sales tax.

This is to due dumbass Libertarians who know shit about mathematics & how taxes actually work.

A 23% sales tax is a lot less than a 39% income tax. The writer was referring to the Fair Tax.

But as I said earlier in this topic, as far as tax expenditures go, it does not matter what tax scheme you have. Any of them can be thoroughly corrupted by tax expenditures. A sales tax can just as easily be corrupted with exemptions for milk, yachts, Trump steaks, etc. This would then require an even higher sales tax.

Tax expenditures need to be killed dead.

 

[g5000]

For the record, I like the Fair Tax a lot. The only serious problem is how to treat savings which have already been income taxed. If someone under the current scheme has paid income taxes, and puts some of their remaining money in the bank, and then the Fair Tax replaces the income tax, those people will be taxed again when they spend their savings.

The main reason I like the Fair Tax is that everyone has skin in the game, and it is much harder to hide a tax hike.

"You want the government to give free puppies to hookers? Fine. But we will have to raise the Fair Tax another 200 basis points."

"Oh, wait!"


I am so sick of this "gimme gimme gimme and make that guy over there pay for it" bullshit which has become the American political system. The Fair Tax ensures everyone pays the freight for more government spending.

Sorry, folks, but tax expenditures are another "gimme gimme gimme and make that guy over there pay for it" bullshit scheme.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Say for instance there's a large boat harbor on the seaside. The harbormaster's name is Mr. Sam and he owns the landing and the boat docks.

There are ten ships docked in the harbor. Each of the ship-owners pays Mr. Sam a yearly fee that goes into maintenance of the harbor, and to protect them from pirates.

One of the ship-owners is an enterprising man named Mr. Hat. He tells the harbormaster that he will do some minor renovations to the docks and will give jobs to some of the riff-raff hanging around the docks, if Mr. Sam will forgo the harbor fee for a year.

Now tell me: How much did the other nine ship-owners have to fork over to cover Mr. Hat's yearly fee?

If the harbormaster still spent the same amount of money, he would need to charge more to the others to maintain his income.

/----/ The reason you need adult supervision to run your Kool Aid stand.

 

[g5000]

About tax expenditures.
The Case for Cutting Tax Expenditures

I quit reading to to extreme laughter when a read the 23% sales tax.

This is to due dumbass Libertarians who know shit about mathematics & how taxes actually work.

That's one tax that has been suggested:

Let me point out that this is not a new idea. The FAIR Tax repeals all 73,000 pages of the tax code in favor of a single 23% sales tax. Americans for Tax Reform proposes a single flat income tax. Next week, I’ll be laying out my own proposal for a revenue-neutral tax code with no loopholes.

Ted Cruz had a flat income tax in his tax plan.

And then he told the rubes he would abolish the IRS.

You can see the inherent contradiction.

 

[SmokeALib]

You worthless leftist clowns hate corporations. You traitors hate capitalism. You lazy ass marxist fools hate the free market. Hell, you pukes hate work, period. If I had it my way, corporations would pay ZERO taxes. NONE. NADA. Take that to Caracas with you - you worthless government-bowing communist fucks.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

Tax breaks do not grow the economy. That is the flaw in your thinking.

In fact, the biggest individual tax deduction not only causes higher tax rates, it also increases the price of housing. It steals from every taxpayer, and redistributes wealth from their pockets into the pockets of mortgage lenders, home builders, and realtors.

That is why I say no self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government distortion of the markets. No self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government behavioral controls.

Ahhh. . .

So, if you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to work? Or, if you are a producer, and you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to produce?

Seriously, that statement, "Tax breaks do not grow the economy." THat is just about the stupidest thing you have ever written. Do not let those that hate you ever know you have written that.

If you ran a business, and you were taxed at 95%, you would not open up another branch or hire any more people. Yet, if your taxes were cut? C'mon, you seriously can't be that obtuse, really?

When I say "tax breaks", it was in the context of tax expenditures, not lower tax rates for everyone, idiot. That was made even more clear in the example of the MID I then spoke of.

And you should have known that, so you are either being obtuse or disingenuous.

I have said, repeatedly, cutting tax expenditures means lower tax rates for everyone.

That is the right way to stimulate the economy. Tax expenditures are KILLING the economy.

The MID that you just spoke of? I guess that is where you lost me. So then, cutting taxes does grow the economy, except in the case of tax expenditures. Got it. I don't know what the acronym MID is, clarify.

Mortgage Interest Deduction. The MID increases the cost of housing and causes higher tax rates on everyone. It is both theft and wealth redistribution. Everything any self-respecting libertarian hates.

You are conflating lower tax rates with a tax deduction. Not the same thing. Lower tax rates, good. Tax expenditures, bad.

All caught up now?

I get your idea that tax expenditures are bad in the sense that they are nothing more than government 'spending programs' steered through the tax system versus direct spending programs. However, i don't understand how you can necessarily link tax expenditures to increased taxes.......unless those tax exp. programs are 'paid for' by more taxes when initiated....can u explain?

 

[g5000]

Tax breaks do not grow the economy. That is the flaw in your thinking.

In fact, the biggest individual tax deduction not only causes higher tax rates, it also increases the price of housing. It steals from every taxpayer, and redistributes wealth from their pockets into the pockets of mortgage lenders, home builders, and realtors.

That is why I say no self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government distortion of the markets. No self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government behavioral controls.

Ahhh. . .

So, if you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to work? Or, if you are a producer, and you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to produce?

Seriously, that statement, "Tax breaks do not grow the economy." THat is just about the stupidest thing you have ever written. Do not let those that hate you ever know you have written that.

If you ran a business, and you were taxed at 95%, you would not open up another branch or hire any more people. Yet, if your taxes were cut? C'mon, you seriously can't be that obtuse, really?

When I say "tax breaks", it was in the context of tax expenditures, not lower tax rates for everyone, idiot. That was made even more clear in the example of the MID I then spoke of.

And you should have known that, so you are either being obtuse or disingenuous.

I have said, repeatedly, cutting tax expenditures means lower tax rates for everyone.

That is the right way to stimulate the economy. Tax expenditures are KILLING the economy.

The MID that you just spoke of? I guess that is where you lost me. So then, cutting taxes does grow the economy, except in the case of tax expenditures. Got it. I don't know what the acronym MID is, clarify.

Mortgage Interest Deduction. The MID increases the cost of housing and causes higher tax rates on everyone. It is both theft and wealth redistribution. Everything any self-respecting libertarian hates.

You are conflating lower tax rates with a tax deduction. Not the same thing. Lower tax rates, good. Tax expenditures, bad.

All caught up now?

I get your idea that tax expenditures are bad in the sense that they are nothing more than government 'spending programs' steered through the tax system versus direct spending programs. However, i don't understand how you can necessarily link tax expenditures to increased taxes.......unless those tax exp. programs are 'paid for' by more taxes when initiated....can u explain?

A tax deduction results in lower revenues. Common sense. You pay less taxes means less money to the government.

To raise revenues back up, tax rates must be raised on everyone. Simple mathematics. This is how tax expenditures are theft from every taxpayer. We are all paying higher tax rates to compensate for tax expenditures handed out to those who receive deductions, exemptions and credits.

However, if tax rates were raised to the level necessary to cancel out the $1.4 trillion in government gifts handed out in the form of tax expenditures each year, those rates would be thoroughly intolerable politically.

So in actuality, the lost revenues caused by tax expenditures are made up for by raising tax rates as high as can be politically tolerated, and then borrowing the rest.

And that is why tax expenditures are by far the biggest contributor to both our high individual and corporate tax rates and our state and national debts.

They MUST be killed to save our economy and our country.

 

[g5000]

Tax breaks do not grow the economy. That is the flaw in your thinking.

In fact, the biggest individual tax deduction not only causes higher tax rates, it also increases the price of housing. It steals from every taxpayer, and redistributes wealth from their pockets into the pockets of mortgage lenders, home builders, and realtors.

That is why I say no self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government distortion of the markets. No self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government behavioral controls.

Ahhh. . .

So, if you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to work? Or, if you are a producer, and you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to produce?

Seriously, that statement, "Tax breaks do not grow the economy." THat is just about the stupidest thing you have ever written. Do not let those that hate you ever know you have written that.

If you ran a business, and you were taxed at 95%, you would not open up another branch or hire any more people. Yet, if your taxes were cut? C'mon, you seriously can't be that obtuse, really?

When I say "tax breaks", it was in the context of tax expenditures, not lower tax rates for everyone, idiot. That was made even more clear in the example of the MID I then spoke of.

And you should have known that, so you are either being obtuse or disingenuous.

I have said, repeatedly, cutting tax expenditures means lower tax rates for everyone.

That is the right way to stimulate the economy. Tax expenditures are KILLING the economy.

The MID that you just spoke of? I guess that is where you lost me. So then, cutting taxes does grow the economy, except in the case of tax expenditures. Got it. I don't know what the acronym MID is, clarify.

Mortgage Interest Deduction. The MID increases the cost of housing and causes higher tax rates on everyone. It is both theft and wealth redistribution. Everything any self-respecting libertarian hates.

You are conflating lower tax rates with a tax deduction. Not the same thing. Lower tax rates, good. Tax expenditures, bad.

All caught up now?

I get your idea that tax expenditures are bad in the sense that they are nothing more than government 'spending programs' steered through the tax system versus direct spending programs. However, i don't understand how you can necessarily link tax expenditures to increased taxes.......unless those tax exp. programs are 'paid for' by more taxes when initiated....can u explain?

Also, see post 5 for a textbook example of tax expenditures being paid for by higher tax rates. Listen very carefully to Congressman Nunes as he explains. You can tell his patience is being stretched to the limit by these assholes who are stealing from all of us.

In that case, tax expenditures are being paid for by a whole new tax, too!

 

[Tehon]

unless those tax exp. programs are 'paid for' by more taxes when initiated....can u explain?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ahhh. . .

So, if you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to work? Or, if you are a producer, and you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to produce?

Seriously, that statement, "Tax breaks do not grow the economy." THat is just about the stupidest thing you have ever written. Do not let those that hate you ever know you have written that.

If you ran a business, and you were taxed at 95%, you would not open up another branch or hire any more people. Yet, if your taxes were cut? C'mon, you seriously can't be that obtuse, really?

When I say "tax breaks", it was in the context of tax expenditures, not lower tax rates for everyone, idiot. That was made even more clear in the example of the MID I then spoke of.

And you should have known that, so you are either being obtuse or disingenuous.

I have said, repeatedly, cutting tax expenditures means lower tax rates for everyone.

That is the right way to stimulate the economy. Tax expenditures are KILLING the economy.

The MID that you just spoke of? I guess that is where you lost me. So then, cutting taxes does grow the economy, except in the case of tax expenditures. Got it. I don't know what the acronym MID is, clarify.

Mortgage Interest Deduction. The MID increases the cost of housing and causes higher tax rates on everyone. It is both theft and wealth redistribution. Everything any self-respecting libertarian hates.

You are conflating lower tax rates with a tax deduction. Not the same thing. Lower tax rates, good. Tax expenditures, bad.

All caught up now?

I get your idea that tax expenditures are bad in the sense that they are nothing more than government 'spending programs' steered through the tax system versus direct spending programs. However, i don't understand how you can necessarily link tax expenditures to increased taxes.......unless those tax exp. programs are 'paid for' by more taxes when initiated....can u explain?

A tax deduction results in lower revenues. Common sense. You pay less taxes means less money to the government.

To raise revenues back up, tax rates must be raised on everyone. Simple mathematics.

However, if tax rates were raised to the level necessary to cancel out the $1.4 trillion in government gifts handed out in the form of tax expenditures each year, those rates would be thoroughly intolerable politically.

So in actuality, the lost revenues caused by tax expenditures are made up for by raising tax rates as high as can be politically tolerated, and then borrowing the rest.

And that is why tax expenditures are by far the biggest contributor to both our high individual and corporate tax rates and our state and national debts.

They MUST be killed to save our economy and our country.

I see.....you are assuming we must maintain the same amount of tax income which then in turn would cause tax increases/debt.....however that is not necessarily a prerequisite for a tax exp. program as not all tax breaks are bad...... conservatives want to decrease spending any way they can so I don't see all tax exp. programs being all bad as long as they are not 'paid for'.....

Of course the number of those tax exp. programs has increased alot over the past couple decades so I agree with you that they are definitely helping to cause financial problems along with regular direct program spending....it's amazing how creative our politicians can be when it comes to spending....

 

[g5000]

I see.....you are assuming we must maintain the same amount of tax income which then in turn would cause tax increases/debt.....however that is not necessarily a prerequisite for a tax exp. program as not all tax breaks are bad......

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...

conservatives want to decrease spending any way they can so I don't see all tax exp. programs being all bad as long as they are not 'paid for'.....

Of course the number of those tax exp. programs has increased alot over the past couple decades so I agree with you that they are definitely helping to cause financial problems along with regular direct program spending....it's amazing how creative our politicians can be when it comes to spending....

As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

 

[g5000]

We have this insane system where two people or entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of tax.

One entity pays less, and the other has to make up the difference.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not taking out a mortgage.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not having kids.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not buying the right kind of refrigerator.

This is why I call tax expenditures one of the most massive government behavioral control programs in history. How can any right thinking libertarian support this?

They can't. Those who think they are conservatives or libertarians who support this insanity are pseudocons.

It was no leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

Everyone who defends tax expenditures is to blame for the individual mandate tax.

 

[Indeependent]

Say for instance there's a large boat harbor on the seaside. The harbormaster's name is Mr. Sam and he owns the landing and the boat docks.

There are ten ships docked in the harbor. Each of the ship-owners pays Mr. Sam a yearly fee that goes into maintenance of the harbor, and to protect them from pirates.

One of the ship-owners is an enterprising man named Mr. Hat. He tells the harbormaster that he will do some minor renovations to the docks and will give jobs to some of the riff-raff hanging around the docks, if Mr. Sam will forgo the harbor fee for a year.

Now tell me: How much did the other nine ship-owners have to fork over to cover Mr. Hat's yearly fee?

Which might be exactly how we wound up with 30+ million Illegals.
Yes, the Free Market is great...to a point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Based on the thread title, maybe someone should explain English to the OP.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I see.....you are assuming we must maintain the same amount of tax income which then in turn would cause tax increases/debt.....however that is not necessarily a prerequisite for a tax exp. program as not all tax breaks are bad......

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...

conservatives want to decrease spending any way they can so I don't see all tax exp. programs being all bad as long as they are not 'paid for'.....

Of course the number of those tax exp. programs has increased alot over the past couple decades so I agree with you that they are definitely helping to cause financial problems along with regular direct program spending....it's amazing how creative our politicians can be when it comes to spending....

As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

Of course I know government doesn't operate on a strict budget like businesses do......which is why we need to pare down ALL spending and taxes and limit government to basic necessities....

 

[Brain357]

I see.....you are assuming we must maintain the same amount of tax income which then in turn would cause tax increases/debt.....however that is not necessarily a prerequisite for a tax exp. program as not all tax breaks are bad......

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...

conservatives want to decrease spending any way they can so I don't see all tax exp. programs being all bad as long as they are not 'paid for'.....

Of course the number of those tax exp. programs has increased alot over the past couple decades so I agree with you that they are definitely helping to cause financial problems along with regular direct program spending....it's amazing how creative our politicians can be when it comes to spending....

As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

Of course I know government doesn't operate on a strict budget like businesses do......which is why we need to pare down ALL spending and taxes and limit government to basic necessities....

So you would cut the military and not build a wall?

 

[g5000]

I see.....you are assuming we must maintain the same amount of tax income which then in turn would cause tax increases/debt.....however that is not necessarily a prerequisite for a tax exp. program as not all tax breaks are bad......

Actually, all tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, credits) ARE bad. To be more precise, only one tax expenditure has ever been proven to increase productivity: the EITC. And we know how pseudocons feel about tax breaks for the poor, so...

conservatives want to decrease spending any way they can so I don't see all tax exp. programs being all bad as long as they are not 'paid for'.....

Of course the number of those tax exp. programs has increased alot over the past couple decades so I agree with you that they are definitely helping to cause financial problems along with regular direct program spending....it's amazing how creative our politicians can be when it comes to spending....

As I said earlier, as far as increasing spending or cutting spending or not changing spending goes, that is irrelevant to the issue of tax expenditures.

Even if you cut government down to the bare bones, that does not mitigate the theft that is tax expenditures.

Let me explain.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $70 while you are paying $30.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


Now to your point about cutting government spending:

After complaints about the cost of a steak, the restaurant fires half its staff, buys cheaper cuts of meat, and makes other cost cutting measures.

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

Now the tab comes to only $50. You two owe $25 each.

But the restaurant has a behavioral control policy that says if you bought a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $50, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $45 instead of $25.

Even though you had identical steaks, he is paying $45 while you are paying $5.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.


That is how government works. The loss of revenue incurred by every deduction is shifted to every taxpayer in the form of higher tax rates.

Actually, only part of that loss of revenue is made up for by higher tax rates. A big percentage is made up for by borrowing heavily from China and other countries.

That steak discount could have come from the restaurant's advertising budget for that month.......doesn't necessarily mean the other guy is going to pay more for his steak.....

In actuality, the restaurant charges everyone more for steaks to make up for the discounts for people who wear the right tie. My analogy is dead on.

In real life, that is exactly what happens. I have provided the evidence directly from the people who writes the tax laws for our country in this topic SEVERAL times.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

We have this insane system where two people or entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of tax.

One entity pays less, and the other has to make up the difference.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not taking out a mortgage.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not having kids.

You are punished with higher taxes than your neighbor for not buying the right kind of refrigerator.

This is why I call tax expenditures one of the most massive government behavioral control programs in history. How can any right thinking libertarian support this?

They can't. Those who think they are conservatives or libertarians who support this insanity are pseudocons.

It was no leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

Everyone who defends tax expenditures is to blame for the individual mandate tax.

All spending programs, whether tax expenditure programs or direct spending programs, target various groups who benefit.....'tis the nature of politics and big government....

Solution: reduce both taxes and spending and create a smaller government.....no real conservative supports big government....