Kevin_Kennedy
Defend Liberty
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,553
- 1,923
- 245
I think that's because your analogy isn't applicable. If people get married and thus get a tax break those of us who remain single shouldn't begrudge them that even though we're not eligible. The goal is no taxation, or at least as minimal as possible, so every tax break is a step in the right direction.I don't think that's valid. The aggression of taxation lies in the original claim on your income. Offering discounts for those who do as they are told doesn't mitigate the aggression.My interest is in reducing aggression. If one person gets a tax break that's less overall aggression.The Answer to "Unfair" Tax Breaks Is More Tax BreaksI think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.
And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.
I'm less interested in the psychology of how we characterize targeted tax breaks, than I am their actual effects. I oppose them because Congress uses them to implement mandates on behavior that would be utterly objectionable (to the general public) if implemented as regulations with more straightforward penalties. The use of "tax incentives" to manipulate society has radically expanded the power of government and I'm opposed to the practice regardless of whether we think of them as penalties or benefits.
It's like a mugger who offers half your money back if you give him a hand job. I don't see how that's any less aggressive.