America is Europe

[Michchamp]

For an industry to exist, all else being equal, it has to profitable after taxes. A tax break can lower that bar. A subsidy can lower that bar even further (since taxes can only go to zero.) Up to the point where the subsidy would be bigger than a tax of zero, the impact is the same. Subsidies can go further, but they are not fundamentally different in impact in the big company setting.

I'm arguing Brooks is wrong (in this particular case) because:

1.) tax breaks may induce certain outcomes, but they aren't guaranteed to create that outcome like a subsidy would. There's a huge difference between "may" and "will" in this context.

2.) tax breaks don't make the government bigger, and have nothing to do with the welfare state. Tax cuts are the very definition of "small government," the OPPOSITE of the welfare state. They shrink the government's revenue and influence. The premise of his article is entirely wrong.

Now... what exactly are you arguing here? that it is not?

 

[redandguilty]

For an industry to exist, all else being equal, it has to profitable after taxes. A tax break can lower that bar. A subsidy can lower that bar even further (since taxes can only go to zero.) Up to the point where the subsidy would be bigger than a tax of zero, the impact is the same. Subsidies can go further, but they are not fundamentally different in impact in the big company setting.

I'm arguing Brooks is wrong (in this particular case) because:

1.) tax breaks may induce certain outcomes, but they aren't guaranteed to create that outcome like a subsidy would. There's a huge difference between "may" and "will" in this context.

2.) tax breaks don't make the government bigger, and have nothing to do with the welfare state. Tax cuts are the very definition of "small government," the OPPOSITE of the welfare state. They shrink the government's revenue and influence. The premise of his article is entirely wrong.

Now... what exactly are you arguing here? that it is not?

1) Sure, there's a difference between "may" and "will"...so how 'bout I go ahead and say "does". I believe the tax breaks do induce more activity in the industries where they have been steady for a long time.

2) Yeah, I'm arguing otherwise and I think your idea of a definition is off, low taxes is a feature of small government, not a definition. What matters is how much the government exercises control over the freedom and economy of its people. If you can substitute a tax break for a subsidy in specific cases, then no, the collection of less money does not equal smaller government. Broad tax breaks yes. Specific tax breaks that allow the government to micromanage the economy represent an increase in government control, not a reduction. They are not inherently a bad idea, but if we do a lot more of that sort of thing than other nations, then it isn't fair to just compare spending in arguments about which government exercises more control.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Specific tax breaks that allow the government to micromanage the economy represent an increase in government control, not a reduction.

This came to my mind, too.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm arguing Brooks is wrong (in this particular case) because:

1.) tax breaks may induce certain outcomes, but they aren't guaranteed to create that outcome like a subsidy would. There's a huge difference between "may" and "will" in this context.

2.) tax breaks don't make the government bigger, and have nothing to do with the welfare state. Tax cuts are the very definition of "small government," the OPPOSITE of the welfare state. They shrink the government's revenue and influence. The premise of his article is entirely wrong.

Now... what exactly are you arguing here? that it is not?

1) Sure, there's a difference between "may" and "will"...so how 'bout I go ahead and say "does". I believe the tax breaks do induce more activity in the industries where they have been steady for a long time.

2) Yeah, I'm arguing otherwise and I think your idea of a definition is off, low taxes is a feature of small government, not a definition. What matters is how much the government exercises control over the freedom and economy of its people. If you can substitute a tax break for a subsidy in specific cases, then no, the collection of less money does not equal smaller government. Broad tax breaks yes. Specific tax breaks that allow the government to micromanage the economy represent an increase in government control, not a reduction. They are not inherently a bad idea, but if we do a lot more of that sort of thing than other nations, then it isn't fair to just compare spending in arguments about which government exercises more control.

well, I don't think you said anything that refutes the points I made.

I rest my case.