Yesterday, 09:52 AM
Of course Zippy is wrong again. As stated earlier, being able to keep your own earnings is not a subsidy.
Sure you are penalized with taxes if you do not purchase X; reducing the amount of earnings stolen however, is not a subsidy, period. Letting you keep your own earnings is not a subsidy.
If a gang of thugs comes along and forcibly takes half your earnings every week "for em protection and other stuff" and then says if you use your own money to go buy x, I'll only steal 40% of your earnings this week, is the thief subsidizing the victim? Of course not. It is absurd, but absurdity is no obstacle for the Zippy.
If a bully says I'm going to break both your hands, but if you go buy XYZ, I'll only break one of your hands, has the poor sufferer been subsidized by the bully? No. Its the same thing financially. The bully is breaking a portion of your financial earnings and decides to break a little less if you buy x using your own earnings.
A tax credit is simply a promise that I wont financially torment you as much this time. The alleviation of such financial harassment can also be used to socially engineer the population into certain behaviors to manipulate and control the population - bully them into compliance by promising to alleviate the financial harassment if the do x. For that reason there can sometimes reasons to oppose certain tax credits, but NOT because they are a subsidy for the taxpayer. Having your own earnings not stolen from you is unequivocally NOT a subsidy. But the core issue is the ability of the political elite to financially bully and manipulate the populace at all by stealing income, which power resides in the income tax. The answer of course is to end the income tax.