4 ms·

1) Tax breaks do not distribute income. Not up, not down, not at all. Thus tax breaks to not redistribute income either. 2) Agreed. 3) The line between fairne

1) Tax breaks do not distribute income. Not up, not down, not at all. Thus tax breaks to not redistribute income either. 2) Agreed. 3) The line between fairness and positive/negative externalities is fuzzy.

Certhas 11y ago
In what sense do tax breaks not distribute income? Tax breaks most certainly change the income redistributing effects of progressive tax systems. This is the main point of the article. If you want to claim that that changing a redistributing effect to benefit the rich, is not the same as redistributing towards the rich, you are merely playing semantic games.
- rhino369 11y ago
  Is not taking your money distributing it to you? You are presuming society or government owns everything we make.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    And you are presuming that you own everything you make. Both are of course wrong which is why you don't pay 100% or 0% in taxes.
    - barney54 11y ago
      Why is it wrong to say that I own what I make?
      - Certhas 11y ago
        Because you didn't "make" it. You didn't start from what nature gave you sat down one day and created value. You drove on public roads, used your public education, enjoyed the safety of the police while doing so, breathed air that's clean due to enforced regulations, etc... What value you create you create in the context of society. Your company keeps part of the value you create. So does the state. They have that leverage over you because you could not create it without them. Their legitimization is based on contracts for companies, and on democracy in the latter. This should really all go without saying.
        barney54 11y ago
        Taking things from people without their consent is immoral. It's that simple. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some taxes, but understand that taxes are immoral.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        Taxes are neither moral or immoral, thats how simple it is. There is no philosophical or moral or ethical argument for claiming that it is either of those. You start with the wrong premise. Namely that it's taking things from people without their consent. But even if we are to start there, the taxes are being taken before they get them so not even strictly speaking is it immoral (or moral). And the actual salary you get is different based on which country you live in, what part of the country you live in and so on. So your argument is non existing really.
        barney54 11y ago
        Also, just because a majority of people vote to take things from you does not make it moral. That means that you can justify slavery with a majority vote.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        This has nothing t do with voting. You don't need democracy to tax people. You starting point, like that of the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists is based on an idea that you own what you produce but since you don't own what nature produces this line of reasoning quickly breaks down. You don't own the nature and so whatever you use from it isn't your moral right to keep.
  - Certhas 11y ago
    So you're playing semantic games... I am presuming as a baseline the given system. Then a tax break is redistributional, because tax is progressive. If you want, it is redistributional because it undoes existing redistributions.
brianwawok 11y ago
> Tax breaks do not distribute income. Not up, not down, not at all. Thus tax breaks to not redistribute income either. Okay so I am now dictator of the USA. I set the tax rate to 100%. But boys get a 100% tax break. Girls pay the as listed 100% tax rate. I am not redistributing wealth from girls to boys? Someone has to pay for the government which helps everyone. In my case, girls pay 100% of it. Boys have money to spend on food and toys at the end of the day, girls have nothing.
- iuioiuio777 11y ago
  Excellent example :) It's the interplay of tax and expenditure which redistributes income. So, to use your example: If the government spent 100% of tax revenue on the girls, then there is no redistribution. And as we all know, in the real world US, virtually all Federal expenditure is on social welfare, defense, and interest on the debt. Thus you could cut ~75% of tax revenue before the effect you discuss comes into being.

Certhas 11y ago

In what sense do tax breaks not distribute income? Tax breaks most certainly change the income redistributing effects of progressive tax systems. This is the main point of the article. If you want to claim that that changing a redistributing effect to benefit the rich, is not the same as redistributing towards the rich, you are merely playing semantic games.

rhino369 11y ago
Is not taking your money distributing it to you? You are presuming society or government owns everything we make.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  And you are presuming that you own everything you make. Both are of course wrong which is why you don't pay 100% or 0% in taxes.
  - barney54 11y ago
    Why is it wrong to say that I own what I make?
    - Certhas 11y ago
      Because you didn't "make" it. You didn't start from what nature gave you sat down one day and created value. You drove on public roads, used your public education, enjoyed the safety of the police while doing so, breathed air that's clean due to enforced regulations, etc... What value you create you create in the context of society. Your company keeps part of the value you create. So does the state. They have that leverage over you because you could not create it without them. Their legitimization is based on contracts for companies, and on democracy in the latter. This should really all go without saying.
      - barney54 11y ago
        Taking things from people without their consent is immoral. It's that simple. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some taxes, but understand that taxes are immoral.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        Taxes are neither moral or immoral, thats how simple it is. There is no philosophical or moral or ethical argument for claiming that it is either of those. You start with the wrong premise. Namely that it's taking things from people without their consent. But even if we are to start there, the taxes are being taken before they get them so not even strictly speaking is it immoral (or moral). And the actual salary you get is different based on which country you live in, what part of the country you live in and so on. So your argument is non existing really.
      - barney54 11y ago
        Also, just because a majority of people vote to take things from you does not make it moral. That means that you can justify slavery with a majority vote.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        This has nothing t do with voting. You don't need democracy to tax people. You starting point, like that of the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists is based on an idea that you own what you produce but since you don't own what nature produces this line of reasoning quickly breaks down. You don't own the nature and so whatever you use from it isn't your moral right to keep.
- Certhas 11y ago
  So you're playing semantic games... I am presuming as a baseline the given system. Then a tax break is redistributional, because tax is progressive. If you want, it is redistributional because it undoes existing redistributions.

brianwawok 11y ago

> Tax breaks do not distribute income. Not up, not down, not at all. Thus tax breaks to not redistribute income either. Okay so I am now dictator of the USA. I set the tax rate to 100%. But boys get a 100% tax break. Girls pay the as listed 100% tax rate. I am not redistributing wealth from girls to boys? Someone has to pay for the government which helps everyone. In my case, girls pay 100% of it. Boys have money to spend on food and toys at the end of the day, girls have nothing.

iuioiuio777 11y ago
Excellent example :) It's the interplay of tax and expenditure which redistributes income. So, to use your example: If the government spent 100% of tax revenue on the girls, then there is no redistribution. And as we all know, in the real world US, virtually all Federal expenditure is on social welfare, defense, and interest on the debt. Thus you could cut ~75% of tax revenue before the effect you discuss comes into being.