Amash wades into tax break debate

[Brian4Liberty]

He probably didn't realize how controversial this would be...

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...42573494329346

[timosman]

Is he a simpleton?

[jkr]

RUH OH

[Occam's Banana]

This person doesn’t believe in economics. State budgets are balanced. A special tax break for one entity means other taxpayers must pay higher taxes for the same services or receive fewer services for the same tax dollars. A special break is economically equivalent to a subsidy.

Taking money from Smith (e.g., taxes) and then giving that money to Jones (e.g., more services) is a subsidy for Jones.

Not taking money from Smith (e,g,. "a special tax break") and then not giving that money to Jones (e.g., "receive fewer services") is not a subsidy for Smith or Jones.

[timosman]

Taking money from Smith (e.g., taxes) and then giving that money to Jones (e.g., more services) is a subsidy for Jones.

Not taking money from Smith (e,g,. "a special tax break") and then not giving that money to Jones (e.g., "receive fewer services") is not a subsidy for Jones.

What is not taking money from Smith and then giving money to Jones?

[Occam's Banana]

What is not taking money from Smith and then giving money to Jones?

*shrug* I don't know. A birthday present, maybe?

[Swordsmyth]

He is right that everyone should play by the same rules but he is pitching it all wrong.

[Matt Collins]

What a stupid thing to say

[timosman]

I'll be in the other castle if you need me.

[Swordsmyth]

I'll be in the other castle if you need me.

[timosman]

Sometimes even I get lucky.

[TheTexan]

Amash is right on point. Every dollar that we don't take in taxes, is a road somewhere that won't be built.

[The Rebel Poet]

State budgets are balanced. A special tax break for one entity means other taxpayers must pay higher taxes for the same services or receive fewer services for the same tax dollars.

Every state except VT has a balanced budget amendment. That means that every tax break to a special company requires a tax increase to another company unless they cut spending, in which case the other company is receiving fewer benefits but still paying the higher tax.

[loveshiscountry]

"One entity" Amash is against cronyism. Could have phrased his tweet better I suppose.

[Occam's Banana]

"One entity" Amash is against cronyism. Could have phrased his tweet better I suppose.

He's still wrong. There may be good reasons to oppose special or targeted tax breaks and the cronyism associated with them, but the "it's a subsidy" angle is not one of them.

Taking less money from Acme Corp. while providing fewer services to taxpayers is not a subsidy for anyone.

Furthermore, the logic of Amash's statement necessarily implies that not taking more money from Acme Corp. must also be considered "economically equivalent to a subsidy."

Consider: if X is greater than Y, and if moving "one entity's" tax rate from X to Y is a "subsidy," then it follows that not moving "one entity's" tax rate from Y to X is also a "subsidy."

(IOW: If reducing Acme's rate from 35% to 30% is "economically equivalent to a subsidy," then not increasing Acme's rate from 30% to 35% must also be "economically equivalent to a subsidy" - and this will be true of any rate less than 100%.)

ETA: Words have meanings. Amash is helping to corrupt the word "subsidy" just as the word "cut" (as in "spending cut") has already been corrupted. Mark this well - if the "it's a subsidy" approach becomes prevalent, then we will end up routinely seeing opposition to tax increases being denounced as support for "subsidies" ... (and Amash et al. will end up being hoisted on their own petard ...)

[acptulsa]

Taking money from Smith (e.g., taxes) and then giving that money to Jones (e.g., more services) is a subsidy for Jones.

Not taking money from Smith (e,g,. "a special tax break") and then not giving that money to Jones (e.g., "receive fewer services") is not a subsidy for Jones.

Nice to know I'm not the only person who finds his teeth on edge when this propaganda is propagated.

Caught a few seconds of Seeker Now waiting for the soccer game and heard this crap being spewed. They were complaining about oil companies getting subsidies by having their messes cleaned up at taxpayer expense. And I was agreeing. Then the hipster clown actually said that it was a subsidy when the oil companies write off the cost of a dry well. No, it's not. They get profits, they sink those profits in a new well, and if it comes up dry, they write that cost off and don't pay taxes on those wasted profits. If they had to pay taxes on all profits, and couldn't subtract costs like dry wells from those profits before they paid taxes, they might not spend money drilling new wells. That's not a subsidy. It's called only paying taxes on net profits. It isn't even close to being a subsidy.

I wanted to explain this to them, but couldn't find any way to contact them on their website. I was going to suggest that if they wanted to make a valid point, they might stop calling things subsidies that aren't, and talk about actual subsidies. Like, for instance, the armed forces 'democratizing' nations that won't allow the oil companies to come drill there, or charge them more for the honor than they want to pay. Now there's a subsidy the oil companies get, and one hell of an expensive one in terms of both blood and treasure.

Not that Seeker Now would ever actually say that. They know how not to get censored on the Brave New Internet. Call simple tax cuts 'subsidies' and don't talk about how imperialism is corporate welfare--that's how you survive the New Age of Censorship.

[The Rebel Poet]

He's still wrong. There may be good reasons to oppose special or targeted tax breaks and the cronyism associated with them, but the "it's a subsidy" angle is not one of them.

Taking less money from Acme Corp. while providing fewer services to taxpayers is not a subsidy for anyone.

Furthermore, the logic of Amash's statement necessarily implies that not taking more money from Acme Corp. must also be considered "economically equivalent to a subsidy."

Consider: if X is greater than Y, and if moving "one entity's" tax rate from X to Y is a "subsidy," then it follows that not moving "one entity's" tax rate from Y to X is also a "subsidy."

(IOW: If reducing Acme's rate from 35% to 30% is "economically equivalent to a subsidy," then not increasing Acme's rate from 30% to 35% must also be "economically equivalent to a subsidy" - and this will be true of any rate less than 100%.)

ETA: Words have meanings. Amash is helping to corrupt the word "subsidy" just as the word "cut" (as in "spending cut") has already been corrupted. Mark this well - if the "it's a subsidy" approach becomes prevalent, then we WILL end up seeing opposition to tax increases being denounced as support for "subsidies" ... (and Amash et al. will end up being hoisted on their own petard ...)

The problem is that he was specifically referring to states with a balanced budget amendment (every state except Vermont). Taxes in principle are not a zero sum game, but taxes in a BB state are.

Let's say I sell lemonade, only, you don't get to choose if you buy it, or what the price is (like taxes and government services). I charge $1 per 12 oz cup. Every morning you and your neighbor Ralph line up and give me $1 and each get your 12 oz of lemonade. Now, if I only charge your neighbor Ralph 50¢, that doesn't harm you in any way, and helps Ralph. It is not a subsidy, and you really ought to be happy for Ralph, and happy to reduce the size of Big Lemon. I think we all agree on these points.

But actually, in 49 states, the analogy isn't true. Let's say Big Lemon made a new rule that the sum of all prices minus the sum of all lemonade must equal zero (like a balanced budget amendment). This time, when Ralph pays 50¢, Big Lemon has to either charge you $1.50, or give you only 6 oz of lemonade. They either give 50¢ to Ralph by taking an extra 50¢ from you, or by taking 6 oz of lemonade from you.

[Krugminator2]

What Amash said is 100% correct.

[Aratus]

He probably didn't realize how controversial this would be...

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...42573494329346

Let's say that TRUMP's tax break for corporations was 5% not 15% and he made
a manful effort to balance his budget rather than going jingoisticly with our military,
would we be better off? He borrowed heavily and ballooned out our national debt.
What Justin Amash said on Twitter makes perfect sense. Trump runs things into the
ground, he is never reliable, fiscally responsible, or administratively competent!!!

[Krugminator2]

Government Privilege: Using and Abusing the Tax Code

Since targeted tax breaks are often no more than subsidies in disguise, policy experts refer to them as “tax expenditures.”

As Mercatus scholars and other experts have explained, tax privileges create a bevy of problems. The most obvious one is that when a particular firm is given a tax break, all other taxpayers – including non-privileged businesses – are effectively forced to pay higher taxes to make up the difference. Consumers are hurt when businesses spend time and money focusing on securing favorable tax treatment from policymakers instead of using those resources to create new and better products. Indeed, this corruptive “rent-seeking” deepens the morass that the tax codes have become as commercial interests fight to gain or maintain their privileges.

https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/comm...using-tax-code

Amash- Very smart.

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's say that a company or industry has additional taxes that don't apply anywhere else. Let's use cigarette or soda taxes as an example. Is that a subsidy to everyone except for those two industries?

[Aratus]

Amash is right on point. Every dollar that we don't take in taxes, is a road somewhere that won't be built.

Yes...

Giving an advantage
to keep a plant in a
given community can
have indirect costs..

Yes...

[gaazn]

Just give Amazon their tax breaks and Post Office subsidies because the Washington Post says so!

[AuH20]

Amash doing the Amash thing. God he sucks. I think he stays up late at night thinking how contrarian he can be.

[AuH20]

McAdams is spot on.