5 ms·

> deficit that was literally created by giving money to large companies and rich people in the form of tax deductions, I have no particular knowledge of French

> deficit that was literally created by giving money to large companies and rich people in the form of tax deductions, I have no particular knowledge of French macro economic policies, but a tax deduction is not "giving money". It is "not taking money". Your framing assumes that corporate or individual earnings belong to the government and the government can decide to allow the money to be "given" to the taxpayer. Whether that is an appropriate arrangement of private property rights and the relationship between the people and the government is a hotly debated topic, to put it mildly.

cmehdy 4y ago
Not taking money that otherwise would be taken absolutely is giving money. Let me know if the government decides to absolve you of all taxes if you don't think at the end of your year that you've been given money. Also that's conveniently the narrative that Macron's party would adopt were it the other way (read: when they "give" a one-off cheque to students or poor people). Accounting tricks have broad shoulders to take the load off the political bullshit of our era.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  > Let me know if the government decides to absolve you of all taxes if you don't think at the end of your year that you've been given money. I... wouldn't? It just wouldn't have been taken from me. Why would I think it would have been given to me? I'm perfectly aware it's money I earned in the first place. In contrast with stimulus checks, for example, which were given, because even if you earned no money at all you still got them.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >In contrast with stimulus checks, for example, which were given, because even if you earned no money at all you still got them. At the end of the day, there's no difference from a fiscal perspective between handing a company a $1M check and giving them a $1M tax deduction. While I agree that this is technically a distinction (ie. tax deductions require a tax liability to actually be used, as opposed to cash which can be spent as-is), I don't think it's relevant here because the companies were already known to be making money. Even if they had a bad year and the tax credits could only be used on profits, they'd likely turn a profit sooner or later.
    - junofan 4y ago
      I think you mean tax credit instead of tax deduction, and even then there is a substantial difference from a fiscal perspective.
      - gruez 4y ago
        >I think you mean tax credit instead of tax deduction Tax deductions are equivalent to tax credits once you factor in the marginal tax rate. >and even then there is a substantial difference from a fiscal perspective. Specifically... how? Giving a company a $1M check has the same effect on the government's balance sheets as giving them a $1M tax credit, given the assumptions listed in my previous comment.
    - crazygringo 4y ago
      Of course at the end of the day you either have a certain amount of money or not. But the point is that there is meaning to the words give and take. It's about language not finances. If you take less that doesn't mean you're giving. Similarly if you give less that doesn't mean you're taking. Words matter.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  the question comes down to whether or not the money is viewed as the person's, as a part of personal property, or viewed as the government's, as a part of state ownership.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    If you’d otherwise expect to lose the money as part of your income tax, you’d be hard pressed to see it as your money. Businesses don’t count their VAT as profit either.
    - gwright 4y ago
      The concern about the framing isn't about looking at the tax code at a particular point in time but instead setting a context for how the tax code and spending priorities evolve over time. If you start with the idea that the money belongs to the government and you have to ask to get it back (via the legislative process) the discussion is going to be very different than if you start with the idea that the money belongs to the people and there has to be a very strong reason for the government to get any of it (via the legislative process).
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  Extremely grateful for all the money given to me by everyone who hasn't mugged or robbed me.
  - Panzer04 4y ago
    You are not robbed as a matter of course. The government takes your taxes as a matter of course. Not taxing you (by giving you a 10k tax deduction, for example) is, in a practical sense, basically identical from the government's perspective as giving away money.
    - logicchains 4y ago
      People living in certain parts of the world are robbed regularly as a matter of course; does that mean robbers are giving somebody money if they band together one day and decide to stop robbing that person?
      - Panzer04 4y ago
        I think you'd have to try pretty hard to come close to the normalcy of western taxation. Maybe organised protection rackets? I don't know, I feel like it's somewhat reaching to make them alike. Government taxes are virtually universal across an entire country.
    - gwright 4y ago
      Except that it isn't. If you adopt that framing, you are working with a mindset that the government gets to figure out what to do with your money first and you get the leftovers. That is a completely different mindset than setting the expectation that the the people get to decide (via representatives) what money the government gets and how it should be spent. Those two mindsets are very different and I would argue is one of the ways that the left and the right are different.
- Panzer04 4y ago
  I agree - not taxing something ordinarily taxed is very much in the vein of "giving" money. I'm a little surprised at the disagreement, but I guess it depends on a persons point of view.
  - lokar 4y ago
    The mainstream terminology is spending through the tax code.
p4bl0 4y ago
The thing is we are not talking about tax deduction but tax credit and yes it is sometimes literally giving money. In France it even happens that big companies are given money while they layoffs people while they're making a profit and distributing the artificially increased profit to their shareholders…

cmehdy 4y ago

Not taking money that otherwise would be taken absolutely is giving money. Let me know if the government decides to absolve you of all taxes if you don't think at the end of your year that you've been given money. Also that's conveniently the narrative that Macron's party would adopt were it the other way (read: when they "give" a one-off cheque to students or poor people). Accounting tricks have broad shoulders to take the load off the political bullshit of our era.

crazygringo 4y ago
> Let me know if the government decides to absolve you of all taxes if you don't think at the end of your year that you've been given money. I... wouldn't? It just wouldn't have been taken from me. Why would I think it would have been given to me? I'm perfectly aware it's money I earned in the first place. In contrast with stimulus checks, for example, which were given, because even if you earned no money at all you still got them.
- gruez 4y ago
  >In contrast with stimulus checks, for example, which were given, because even if you earned no money at all you still got them. At the end of the day, there's no difference from a fiscal perspective between handing a company a $1M check and giving them a $1M tax deduction. While I agree that this is technically a distinction (ie. tax deductions require a tax liability to actually be used, as opposed to cash which can be spent as-is), I don't think it's relevant here because the companies were already known to be making money. Even if they had a bad year and the tax credits could only be used on profits, they'd likely turn a profit sooner or later.
  - junofan 4y ago
    I think you mean tax credit instead of tax deduction, and even then there is a substantial difference from a fiscal perspective.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >I think you mean tax credit instead of tax deduction Tax deductions are equivalent to tax credits once you factor in the marginal tax rate. >and even then there is a substantial difference from a fiscal perspective. Specifically... how? Giving a company a $1M check has the same effect on the government's balance sheets as giving them a $1M tax credit, given the assumptions listed in my previous comment.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    Of course at the end of the day you either have a certain amount of money or not. But the point is that there is meaning to the words give and take. It's about language not finances. If you take less that doesn't mean you're giving. Similarly if you give less that doesn't mean you're taking. Words matter.
OrvalWintermute 4y ago
the question comes down to whether or not the money is viewed as the person's, as a part of personal property, or viewed as the government's, as a part of state ownership.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  If you’d otherwise expect to lose the money as part of your income tax, you’d be hard pressed to see it as your money. Businesses don’t count their VAT as profit either.
  - gwright 4y ago
    The concern about the framing isn't about looking at the tax code at a particular point in time but instead setting a context for how the tax code and spending priorities evolve over time. If you start with the idea that the money belongs to the government and you have to ask to get it back (via the legislative process) the discussion is going to be very different than if you start with the idea that the money belongs to the people and there has to be a very strong reason for the government to get any of it (via the legislative process).
ALittleLight 4y ago
Extremely grateful for all the money given to me by everyone who hasn't mugged or robbed me.
- Panzer04 4y ago
  You are not robbed as a matter of course. The government takes your taxes as a matter of course. Not taxing you (by giving you a 10k tax deduction, for example) is, in a practical sense, basically identical from the government's perspective as giving away money.
  - logicchains 4y ago
    People living in certain parts of the world are robbed regularly as a matter of course; does that mean robbers are giving somebody money if they band together one day and decide to stop robbing that person?
    - Panzer04 4y ago
      I think you'd have to try pretty hard to come close to the normalcy of western taxation. Maybe organised protection rackets? I don't know, I feel like it's somewhat reaching to make them alike. Government taxes are virtually universal across an entire country.
  - gwright 4y ago
    Except that it isn't. If you adopt that framing, you are working with a mindset that the government gets to figure out what to do with your money first and you get the leftovers. That is a completely different mindset than setting the expectation that the the people get to decide (via representatives) what money the government gets and how it should be spent. Those two mindsets are very different and I would argue is one of the ways that the left and the right are different.
Panzer04 4y ago
I agree - not taxing something ordinarily taxed is very much in the vein of "giving" money. I'm a little surprised at the disagreement, but I guess it depends on a persons point of view.
- lokar 4y ago
  The mainstream terminology is spending through the tax code.

p4bl0 4y ago

The thing is we are not talking about tax deduction but tax credit and yes it is sometimes literally giving money. In France it even happens that big companies are given money while they layoffs people while they're making a profit and distributing the artificially increased profit to their shareholders…