FACT: Tax Breaks are NOT Subsidies!

[tooAlive]

What is a difference between:
1) paying 1 million in taxes
2) paying 2 millions and getting 1 million subsidy

The bottom line is the same.

A subsidy is money a corporation receives from the government. In other words, taxpayer dollars going to a corporation.

So what? The bottom line is the same whether you call subsidy or tax break: the corporation is now has a million more, and the government has a million less.

It means that a tax break isn't a subsidy.

And you're wrong, the government does not have "a million less."

That money never belonged to the government in the first place. So they never lost anything.

 

[g5000]

I thought this was common knowledge but apparently it's not. Hopefully this thread will finally put this misconception to rest.

Subsidize - to aid or promote (as a private enterprise) with public money; to purchase the assistance of by payment of a subsidy .

Subsidize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Subsidy - a grant or gift of money.

Subsidy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

As you can see, a tax break could not possibly classify as a subsidy. A tax break is not a gift, nor is it financial assistance; it's simply allowing a person or corporation to keep more of the money that is already theirs.

Here's another great example of why tax breaks are nowhere near being considered subsidies.

The Difference Between a Tax Break and a Subsidy - Reason.com

On Thursday, Virginia Democratic Party executive director David Mills said the oil companies were "getting free money from the government."

Just one problem. Those "subsidies" are not subsidies. They are tax breaks.

Of the $4 billion in alleged subsidies to Big Oil, $1.7 billion derives from a domestic manufacturing tax deduction intended to keep factories in the U.S. It is available to every company, not just oil companies.

Another $850 million comes from another tax provision, also available to every U.S. corporation, that gives a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries—just as you can deduct your state taxes from your federal income taxes.

Yet another $1 billion comes from tax rules that let oil companies treat oil in the ground as capital equipment for write-down purposes, and the rest comes from rules that let oil companies write off certain business costs immediately.

I have already explained why the "keep more of their own money" gambit is so much bullshit in my tax expenditures topic a few weeks back.


If you and I earn $50,000 a year, and you get a tax break because you bought the right kind of refrigerator, or because you happen to have the right kind of government-protected business, that means you pay less taxes than I do.

All that money you got to keep as a result of that tax break? I have to make up the difference. So while you are all self righteous-like about keeping your own money, you are forcing me to have to lose more of my own money. I am subsidizing YOU.

How is that in any way sensible? Tax breaks are government central planning; picking the winners and losers.

Subsidy or tax break; a distinction without a difference.

.

 

[Vast LWC]

The problem is that liberals believe that the government gets first cut.

They don't.

Government is NOT entitled to an income.

It is, if you've already made use of the nations resources.

At that point, you owe them money.

Which is why you need to pay your taxes by the end of the year.

 

[Vast LWC]

LOL.

6 of one, half dozen of the other.

If you are getting a tax break that everyone else isn't getting, then it's a subsidy.

You mean like the child deduction, the earned income tax credit, the tuition credit, etc etc?

You are being given an advantage over other people by having to pay less than your fair share in taxes.

ibid

Yes. All of those things are true.

They are subsidies the government provides in the interest of promoting the care and education of children, and encouraging people to procreate.

 

[tooAlive]

I thought this was common knowledge but apparently it's not. Hopefully this thread will finally put this misconception to rest.

Subsidize - to aid or promote (as a private enterprise) with public money; to purchase the assistance of by payment of a subsidy .

Subsidize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Subsidy - a grant or gift of money.

Subsidy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

As you can see, a tax break could not possibly classify as a subsidy. A tax break is not a gift, nor is it financial assistance; it's simply allowing a person or corporation to keep more of the money that is already theirs.

Here's another great example of why tax breaks are nowhere near being considered subsidies.

The Difference Between a Tax Break and a Subsidy - Reason.com

On Thursday, Virginia Democratic Party executive director David Mills said the oil companies were "getting free money from the government."

Just one problem. Those "subsidies" are not subsidies. They are tax breaks.

Of the $4 billion in alleged subsidies to Big Oil, $1.7 billion derives from a domestic manufacturing tax deduction intended to keep factories in the U.S. It is available to every company, not just oil companies.

Another $850 million comes from another tax provision, also available to every U.S. corporation, that gives a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries—just as you can deduct your state taxes from your federal income taxes.

Yet another $1 billion comes from tax rules that let oil companies treat oil in the ground as capital equipment for write-down purposes, and the rest comes from rules that let oil companies write off certain business costs immediately.

I have already explained why the "keep more of their own money" gambit is so much bullshit in my tax expenditures topic a few weeks back.


If you and I earn $50,000 a year, and you get a tax break because you bought the right kind of refrigerator, that means you pay less taxes than I do.

All that money you got to keep as a result of that tax break? I have to make up the difference. So while you are all self righteous-like about keeping your own money, you are forcing me to have to lose more of my own money.

How is that in any way sensible?

.

How so?

If someone gets a tax break and you don't, how are you subsidizing them?

Aren't you paying the same amount of taxes regardless? It may not be fair, bit it's in no way a subsidy.

Unless the government sends you an extra bill asking you to pay an extra amount to cover what your buddy saved on his taxes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

LOL.

6 of one, half dozen of the other.

If you are getting a tax break that everyone else isn't getting, then it's a subsidy.

You mean like the child deduction, the earned income tax credit, the tuition credit, etc etc?

You are being given an advantage over other people by having to pay less than your fair share in taxes.

ibid

Yes. All of those things are true.

They are subsidies the government provides in the interest of promoting the care and education of children, and encouraging people to procreate.

Why the hell should I who have no children subsidize other people's children by paying more in taxes?

If you're for ending subsidies to businesses (I am) then you should want to end all other subsidies as well.

 

[Vast LWC]

Right, because they used the same public roads, public schools, public police department, public fire department, public parks, ect..

In other words, "You didn't build that."

So none of what they earned really belongs to them.. It belongs to "everyone." Or, the government.

Communist ideology at it's finest.

Quick!

Let's ignore reality, and throw out some talking points!

 

[g5000]

For the sake of illustration, Taxpayer A and Taxpayer B have a combined tax obligation of $6,000.

Taxpayer A made $50,000. Taxpayer B made $50,000.

Clearly, Taxpayer A and Taxpayer B should each pay $3,000 in taxes.

But wait.

Taxpayer A bought a Greenhouse Friendly Class A Refrigerator this year. For this, he gets a $500 tax break. He only has to pay $2,500 in taxes. Congratulations, Taxpayer A! You get to keep more of your own money! Who could possible be against that?


Taxpayer B, I have some bad news. Just because Taxpayer A bought a refrigerator, that has absolutely no effect on the amount of revenue the government needs. So you are going to have to pay $3,500 in taxes.


Taxpayer B is subsidizing Taxpayer A to the tune of $500.

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I thought this was common knowledge but apparently it's not. Hopefully this thread will finally put this misconception to rest.



As you can see, a tax break could not possibly classify as a subsidy. A tax break is not a gift, nor is it financial assistance; it's simply allowing a person or corporation to keep more of the money that is already theirs.

Here's another great example of why tax breaks are nowhere near being considered subsidies.

The Difference Between a Tax Break and a Subsidy - Reason.com

Bullshit. Money that a company owes in taxes isn't "already theirs" - by definition it belongs to the U.S. Treasury.

Your signature is absurd. Unions are not in any way justified as anything positive except for the small elitist (12% or less) persons who are in a union and a union has nothing to do with a free market. Unionism is counter productive for our economy and has forced many jobs from the nonunion south or overseas.

You're completely full of shit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You mean like the child deduction, the earned income tax credit, the tuition credit, etc etc?



ibid

Yes. All of those things are true.

They are subsidies the government provides in the interest of promoting the care and education of children, and encouraging people to procreate.

Why the hell should I who have no children subsidize other people's children by paying more in taxes?

If you're for ending subsidies to businesses (I am) then you should want to end all other subsidies as well.

According to tooAlive it doesn't count as a subsidy so long as the credits do not exceed the tax liability.

 

[g5000]

When you hear politicians talk about "broadening the tax base", this is what they are talking about.

By eliminating tax expenditures (you can call them "tax breaks" or "subsidies" or whatever you feel like), you can then lower everyone's tax rates. And everyone pays the same amount as everyone else who earns the same income.

The reason we cannot lower rates now is because you have to subsidize all those deductions people are getting now.

.

 

[tooAlive]

For the sake of illustration, Taxpayer A and Taxpayer B have a combined tax obligation of $6,000.

Taxpayer A made $50,000. Taxpayer B made $50,000.

Clearly, Taxpayer A and Taxpayer B should each pay $3,000 in taxes.

But wait.

Taxpayer A bought a Greenhouse Friendly Class A Refrigerator this year. For this, he gets a $500 tax break. He only has to pay $2,500 in taxes. Congratulations, Taxpayer A! You get to keep more of your own money! Who could possible be against that?


Taxpayer B, I have some bad news. Just because Taxpayer A bought a refrigerator, that has absolutely no effect on the amount of revenue the government needs. So you are going to have to pay $3,500 in taxes.


Taxpayer B is subsidizing Taxpayer A to the tune of $500.

.

So you're saying the government purposely charges some people more in taxes than they're supposed to pay, simply because other people got tax breaks?

 

[g5000]

How so?

If someone gets a tax break and you don't, how are you subsidizing them?

You have to pay more to make up the lesser amount they are paying. You want a balanced budget, don't you?

Aren't you paying the same amount of taxes regardless? It may not be fair, bit it's in no way a subsidy.

No, you are not paying the same amount. Because of the tax expenditures, the government has to raise tax rates to make up the difference.

Unless the government sends you an extra bill asking you to pay an extra amount to cover what your buddy saved on his taxes.

The government IS sending you an extra bill! That's the higher tax rates we are paying!

.

 

[g5000]

For the sake of illustration, Taxpayer A and Taxpayer B have a combined tax obligation of $6,000.

Taxpayer A made $50,000. Taxpayer B made $50,000.

Clearly, Taxpayer A and Taxpayer B should each pay $3,000 in taxes.

But wait.

Taxpayer A bought a Greenhouse Friendly Class A Refrigerator this year. For this, he gets a $500 tax break. He only has to pay $2,500 in taxes. Congratulations, Taxpayer A! You get to keep more of your own money! Who could possible be against that?


Taxpayer B, I have some bad news. Just because Taxpayer A bought a refrigerator, that has absolutely no effect on the amount of revenue the government needs. So you are going to have to pay $3,500 in taxes.


Taxpayer B is subsidizing Taxpayer A to the tune of $500.

.

So you're saying the government purposely charges some people more in taxes than they're supposed to pay, simply because other people got tax breaks?

Yes. Exactly. Precisely. You hit the nail on the head.

FMI: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/263551-the-way-forward-end-tax-expenditures.html

.

 

[tooAlive]

For the sake of illustration, Taxpayer A and Taxpayer B have a combined tax obligation of $6,000.

Taxpayer A made $50,000. Taxpayer B made $50,000.

Clearly, Taxpayer A and Taxpayer B should each pay $3,000 in taxes.

But wait.

Taxpayer A bought a Greenhouse Friendly Class A Refrigerator this year. For this, he gets a $500 tax break. He only has to pay $2,500 in taxes. Congratulations, Taxpayer A! You get to keep more of your own money! Who could possible be against that?


Taxpayer B, I have some bad news. Just because Taxpayer A bought a refrigerator, that has absolutely no effect on the amount of revenue the government needs. So you are going to have to pay $3,500 in taxes.


Taxpayer B is subsidizing Taxpayer A to the tune of $500.

.

So you're saying the government purposely charges some people more in taxes than they're supposed to pay, simply because other people got tax breaks?

Yes. Exactly. Precisely. You hit the nail on the head.

FMI: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/263551-the-way-forward-end-tax-expenditures.html

.

I see what you're saying.

In other words, tax rates would not need to be anywhere near as high as they are now if it wasn't for all the tax expenditures and breaks available to some.\

Personally, I'm in favor of a flat tax for everybody. No loopholes, no nonsense.

 

[lovemymutts]

Bullshit. Money that a company owes in taxes isn't "already theirs" - by definition it belongs to the U.S. Treasury.

No, you're wrong.

Money that a company earns belongs to them. Being able to keep more of it via tax breaks does not constitute as a gift for that company.

The money is already theirs. The government isn't giving them money they didn't already have.

By definition, a subsidy would mean they're receiving money from the government. They aren't.

So no, tax breaks aren't subsidies.

ok, I agree with you to a point. Example A man with four children RECEIVES a set amount for each child when filing taxes(the government gives $$ for each child) tax break = subsidy.

 

[bripat9643]

Bullshit. Money that a company owes in taxes isn't "already theirs" - by definition it belongs to the U.S. Treasury.

No, you're wrong.

Money that a company earns belongs to them. Being able to keep more of it via tax breaks does not constitute as a gift for that company.

What is a difference between:
1) paying 1 million in taxes
2) paying 2 millions and getting 1 million subsidy

The bottom line is the same.

So what you're saying is that your net income is a gift from the government.

We already know that's what you believe.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why the hell should I who have no children subsidize other people's children by paying more in taxes?

If you're for ending subsidies to businesses (I am) then you should want to end all other subsidies as well.

I have no issue with that... Just as soon as all the old bastards that took my tax money, all the years I was single, pay me back.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

These threads amuse me. Good let's have a bunch of uneducated amateurs with agendas and a vague grasp on the subject try to dissect complex issues and make the rest of us believe their notions. God bless the internet.

 

[tooAlive]

No, you're wrong.

Money that a company earns belongs to them. Being able to keep more of it via tax breaks does not constitute as a gift for that company.

What is a difference between:
1) paying 1 million in taxes
2) paying 2 millions and getting 1 million subsidy

The bottom line is the same.

So what you're saying is that your net income is a gift from the government.

We already know that's what you believe.

Actually, there's quite a number of people whose incomes are composed entirely of government gifts. So he's right to a certain extent.