SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Citizens Manifesto

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Road Walker who wrote (435)4/17/2010 7:08:55 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 492
 
That's a rather silly title. Its a mandate and fine more than it is a tax, but even if looked at as a tax its not a tax break. If its a tax it increases the net total tax burden.

Yes assuming spending and deficits remain the same, actual tax breaks cause the tax burden to be passed along to someone else but

1 - There is no good reason to think actual spending and deficits do stay the same (the spending part is more important than the deficit part since deficits are in a sense passing the tax burden on to someone else, someone in the future)

and

2 - A tax break itself doesn't directly increase anyone's tax burden, it just causes an increased deficit that has to be dealt with (assuming your not starting with a surplus). The mandate's penalty fee, does directly impose a burden on people.

Targeted taxes and targeted breaks are not the same thing for those reasons. But they are closer to each other than many normally think, which is one reason why I typically oppose targeted tax breaks. Instead preferring broad based cuts in rates. Not only because both try to impose government influence over people through the tax system, but also because both make the tax system more complex, and more expensive and difficult to comply with and to enforce.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext