4 ms·

> But there's also no evidence to support that it hurt either. Yes, there is. People seem to forget that a tax cut is actually a government subsidy. Coupled w

> But there's also no evidence to support that it hurt either. Yes, there is. People seem to forget that a tax cut is actually a government subsidy. Coupled with increased spending, if the assumption is that if the macroeconomic performance hasn't been improved that means it hasn't been hurt, then it remained constant despite the 'cuts' + 'increased spending'. Which means that it could have grown/improved if the tax cuts were not in place.

refurb 8y ago
Letting people keep more of the money they earned is a subsidy? That’s not how it works.
- decebalus1 8y ago
  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp That's literally one form of subsidy. Also, did you know that inflation is a form of taxation? And it is indeed rising. So no, it's not actually letting people keep more of the money, especially if it's cash.
  - bcheung 8y ago
    And they literally changed the definition of literally to mean the exact opposite of literally. ;) When a word gets used incorrectly or conflated enough even official dictionaries will change. What's important is to understand the distinctions. There's something called Sapir-Whorf theory and one of the important concepts is that the more precision your definitions the more capable you are at cognition and understanding and interacting with the world. It's been said that Eskimos have 37 words for snow. This means that each different type of snow has different properties. They can more effectively operate in that environment compared to someone who thinks all snow is the same. Some would say that ice and water are the same, and in many ways they are correct, they are the exact same molecules, but if you are going to jump 3 stories off of a diving board onto solid ice instead of water you are going to learn that subtle distinction real fast. Similarly, conflating taxes and subsidizes reduces your ability to understand the distinctions and their different consequences. And when it comes to implementing policies can have similar effects as mistaking ice for water. It's important to understand things precisely and not conflate things. Even more so when your votes and actions have a consequence on other people's lives as well. We understand why you think they are the same, and in many contexts they can safely be conflated, but in many others it is dangerous to assume they are the same.
    - decebalus1 8y ago
      Wow, that's some grade A patronizing, I have much to learn from you. We can debate semantics all day long but that does not disprove my initial point, in this particular context.
WalterBright 8y ago
> People seem to forget that a tax cut is actually a government subsidy. Do you also believe that reducing drag on a moving object is actually increasing the force to move it?
- plankers 8y ago
  Net force, sure.
ghufran_syed 8y ago
“a tax cut is actually a government subsidy” - only if you believe that all money earned by residents of a country is actually the property of the government, for them to distribute as they see fit.
- maskedSlacker 8y ago
  Nonsense. Absolute horse shit. This is a tax cut paid for in borrowing that will be paid later with...taxes.
  - sctb 8y ago
    We've banned this account. If you'd like to be unbanned, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  Government provides services. Services cost money. That may sound like a complicated and largely unbelievable concept but it’s true.
  - refurb 8y ago
    That’s not a coherent rationale to say a tax cut is a subsidy. Let me guess, cutting welfare payments is stealing?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - decebalus1 8y ago
      https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp And yes, cutting welfare payments while welfare payouts are constant/growing will be taking money from other sources to keep the balance. So depending on one's definition of stealing, it can be.
bcheung 8y ago
A tax cut is not actually a government subsidy though. That is an oversimplification. A government subsidy is when public money is SPENT on a good or service to artificially encourage investment in it (or someone just has good lobbyists). An income tax cut is reducing the burden businesses and individuals must incur from producing economic value. While taxes and subsidies can both be used by government to encourage selective behavior, they are not the same. They are different instruments and operate differently. You're making the assumption that everything has an immediate effect. Some things incur a cost in the present for a payout in the future. If you go to college for 6 months (the amount of time the tax bill has been in place) and still don't have a degree or job, does that imply that going to college doesn't work? You're also making the assumption that this is a controlled experiment with no other variables. Which is not the case. There are many other things in play.

refurb 8y ago

Letting people keep more of the money they earned is a subsidy? That’s not how it works.

decebalus1 8y ago
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp That's literally one form of subsidy. Also, did you know that inflation is a form of taxation? And it is indeed rising. So no, it's not actually letting people keep more of the money, especially if it's cash.
- bcheung 8y ago
  And they literally changed the definition of literally to mean the exact opposite of literally. ;) When a word gets used incorrectly or conflated enough even official dictionaries will change. What's important is to understand the distinctions. There's something called Sapir-Whorf theory and one of the important concepts is that the more precision your definitions the more capable you are at cognition and understanding and interacting with the world. It's been said that Eskimos have 37 words for snow. This means that each different type of snow has different properties. They can more effectively operate in that environment compared to someone who thinks all snow is the same. Some would say that ice and water are the same, and in many ways they are correct, they are the exact same molecules, but if you are going to jump 3 stories off of a diving board onto solid ice instead of water you are going to learn that subtle distinction real fast. Similarly, conflating taxes and subsidizes reduces your ability to understand the distinctions and their different consequences. And when it comes to implementing policies can have similar effects as mistaking ice for water. It's important to understand things precisely and not conflate things. Even more so when your votes and actions have a consequence on other people's lives as well. We understand why you think they are the same, and in many contexts they can safely be conflated, but in many others it is dangerous to assume they are the same.
  - decebalus1 8y ago
    Wow, that's some grade A patronizing, I have much to learn from you. We can debate semantics all day long but that does not disprove my initial point, in this particular context.

WalterBright 8y ago

> People seem to forget that a tax cut is actually a government subsidy. Do you also believe that reducing drag on a moving object is actually increasing the force to move it?

plankers 8y ago
Net force, sure.

ghufran_syed 8y ago

“a tax cut is actually a government subsidy” - only if you believe that all money earned by residents of a country is actually the property of the government, for them to distribute as they see fit.

maskedSlacker 8y ago
Nonsense. Absolute horse shit. This is a tax cut paid for in borrowing that will be paid later with...taxes.
- sctb 8y ago
  We've banned this account. If you'd like to be unbanned, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ilikehurdles 8y ago
Government provides services. Services cost money. That may sound like a complicated and largely unbelievable concept but it’s true.
- refurb 8y ago
  That’s not a coherent rationale to say a tax cut is a subsidy. Let me guess, cutting welfare payments is stealing?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - decebalus1 8y ago
    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp And yes, cutting welfare payments while welfare payouts are constant/growing will be taking money from other sources to keep the balance. So depending on one's definition of stealing, it can be.

bcheung 8y ago

A tax cut is not actually a government subsidy though. That is an oversimplification. A government subsidy is when public money is SPENT on a good or service to artificially encourage investment in it (or someone just has good lobbyists). An income tax cut is reducing the burden businesses and individuals must incur from producing economic value. While taxes and subsidies can both be used by government to encourage selective behavior, they are not the same. They are different instruments and operate differently. You're making the assumption that everything has an immediate effect. Some things incur a cost in the present for a payout in the future. If you go to college for 6 months (the amount of time the tax bill has been in place) and still don't have a degree or job, does that imply that going to college doesn't work? You're also making the assumption that this is a controlled experiment with no other variables. Which is not the case. There are many other things in play.