4 ms·

Boo hoo. I golf, but the basic gist of this story is "tax payers used to subsidize high-end golf courses for executives, then those tax breaks were taken away,

by ojbyrne 17y ago

Boo hoo. I golf, but the basic gist of this story is "tax payers used to subsidize high-end golf courses for executives, then those tax breaks were taken away, resulting in the growth of less-expensive golf courses that would actually appeal to the taxpayers who were previously subsidizing the wealthy members of the high-end courses."

mhb 17y ago
Tax break != tax payer subsidy
- jrockway 17y ago
  The government gets less money. The other taxpayers get fewer services, or the government goes into debt.
  - mhb 17y ago
    That's a curious way to look at it. Would you say that all the (infinite) taxes I am not paying in excess of what I am paying are a subsidy from the rest of you?
    - geebee 17y ago
      Maybe. I'd be comfortable calling it a subsidy if it's a very specific break given to a narrow segment of the economy. So no I wouldn't call the infinite taxes you're not paying a "subsidy", but if you're paying lower taxes than I am because the government has chosen to tax me at a higher rate than you, I might call the difference a subsidy. BTW, I'm not necessarily opposed to subsidies, there can be good reasons to do this.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - ojbyrne 17y ago
      The one thing I remember from tax class is the basic principle: Everything you earn is taxable, except <long list of exceptions>. Nothing is deductible, except <long list of exceptions>. When you add to either of those lists of exceptions, you're increasing the overall tax rate for people who can't take advantage of those exceptions.
    - codexon 17y ago
      Think about it this way. If everyone but me gets a 50% tax and I get a 0% tax, does this seem fair? Assuming that the government provides some value to society, doesn't this seem like other people are paying their share to maintain the national infrastructure more than I am? Is this not a subsidy?
      - mhb 17y ago
        I understand the inequity you're pointing out. But calling this a subsidy suggests that there is some baseline that the government is justified in taking and that what we retain is a subsidy that is allowed us by the good grace of the government. Which is exactly backwards. Your interpretation of what a subsidy is is also subject to the vagaries of where you choose to set the baseline for the funding to which the government is entitled. Is everything less than that a subsidy? Also, in this case in particular, I'd guess that the people taking advantage of the tax break for golf club membership are above whatever baseline you would set.
        codexon 17y ago
        If you interpret the government as providing no value to society whatsoever, then I could see your point. However, if you believe the government does provide value, any baseline would equalize your income with everyone else in the population, thus not really decreasing the buying power of the money you earn. The only part where this would not be the case is if the rulers kept most of the money to themselves (a monarchy) or to a select group (unfortunately happening with Goldman Sachs recently.).Then value of your money would truly be unfairly decreased.

by ojbyrne 17y ago

mhb 17y ago

Tax break != tax payer subsidy

jrockway 17y ago
The government gets less money. The other taxpayers get fewer services, or the government goes into debt.
- mhb 17y ago
  That's a curious way to look at it. Would you say that all the (infinite) taxes I am not paying in excess of what I am paying are a subsidy from the rest of you?
  - geebee 17y ago
    Maybe. I'd be comfortable calling it a subsidy if it's a very specific break given to a narrow segment of the economy. So no I wouldn't call the infinite taxes you're not paying a "subsidy", but if you're paying lower taxes than I am because the government has chosen to tax me at a higher rate than you, I might call the difference a subsidy. BTW, I'm not necessarily opposed to subsidies, there can be good reasons to do this.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - ojbyrne 17y ago
    The one thing I remember from tax class is the basic principle: Everything you earn is taxable, except <long list of exceptions>. Nothing is deductible, except <long list of exceptions>. When you add to either of those lists of exceptions, you're increasing the overall tax rate for people who can't take advantage of those exceptions.
  - codexon 17y ago
    Think about it this way. If everyone but me gets a 50% tax and I get a 0% tax, does this seem fair? Assuming that the government provides some value to society, doesn't this seem like other people are paying their share to maintain the national infrastructure more than I am? Is this not a subsidy?
    - mhb 17y ago
      I understand the inequity you're pointing out. But calling this a subsidy suggests that there is some baseline that the government is justified in taking and that what we retain is a subsidy that is allowed us by the good grace of the government. Which is exactly backwards. Your interpretation of what a subsidy is is also subject to the vagaries of where you choose to set the baseline for the funding to which the government is entitled. Is everything less than that a subsidy? Also, in this case in particular, I'd guess that the people taking advantage of the tax break for golf club membership are above whatever baseline you would set.
      - codexon 17y ago
        If you interpret the government as providing no value to society whatsoever, then I could see your point. However, if you believe the government does provide value, any baseline would equalize your income with everyone else in the population, thus not really decreasing the buying power of the money you earn. The only part where this would not be the case is if the rulers kept most of the money to themselves (a monarchy) or to a select group (unfortunately happening with Goldman Sachs recently.).Then value of your money would truly be unfairly decreased.