[onetimeusename]

this isn't meant to be an argument that no tax ought to be paid, simply that it is not a loss for our country if fewer taxes are paid. If you are worried non shareholders pay more and gain less, they are free to invest, but shareholders inevitably pay capital gains tax.

[bluthru]

>simply that it is not a loss for our country if fewer taxes are paid

I consider citizens bearing more of the tax burden to be a loss for our country, along with less taxes being paid when we have debt.

>If you are worried non shareholders pay more and gain less, they are free to invest

You can't be serious.

>but shareholders inevitably pay capital gains tax

At a capital gains tax rate, which greatly contributes to wealth inequality: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2207372

[onetimeusename]

>I consider citizens bearing more of the tax burden to be a loss for our country, along with less taxes being paid when we have debt.

Ok, well you are making an argument about ethics and not about monetary losses because it seems that a net gain to economy through reduced taxes would still be a loss to you for above reasons.

>You can't be serious.

people earning 13k usd per year spend 9% of income on lottery tickets so it was indeed a serious point.

[bluthru]

>you are making an argument about ethics and not about monetary losses

A "net gain" isn't good enough. Tesla generating $1 in tax revenue is a net gain. The fact is that this new business does not depend on tax abatements, and if we had politicians with spines Tesla wouldn't get one.

[onetimeusename]

This debate is over if you cannot reason that economic improvement as a result of a tax break can offset hypothetical revenue losses. There are states that already have no income tax and the citizens of those states and business owners have benefited and thus from that perspective, it seems you are unwilling to debate the harm that taxes can do but only argue for their good which is ethics. If taxes were at 100% and one state offered a rate of 99%, the same argument would apply and thus you are unwilling to examine effects to the economy but rather argue the value that tax revenue has over personal revenue. Adieu.

[bluthru]

>This debate is over if you cannot reason that economic improvement as a result of a tax break can offset hypothetical revenue losses.

That's a simple concept. What I'm talking about is the tertiary effects of such a policy. These tax abatements do not exist in a vacuum.

>There are states that already have no income tax

Yes, and that's a regressive tax structure.

All of this centers around who benefits from these policies. Tax abatements for businesses and no income tax benefits the business owners while shifting the burden to citizens. This is why it's a bad policy.

[onetimeusename]

>All of this centers around who benefits from these policies. Tax abatements for businesses and no income tax benefits the business owners while shifting the burden to citizens. This is why it's a bad policy.

Ok I see what you are saying but I don't really believe in a sort of plutocracy that get all benefits of tax cuts while others get no benefits. The reason being that benefits are hard to localize. Suppose you are correct and some small group of owners benefit from the tax cuts, they then have more money, and then what would the business owners do with the money? For benefits to remain local, they would have to essentially hide their money. If they reinvested all of it or spent all of it, the money keeps changing hands and circulates. Circulating money is economic expansion and economic expansion benefits everyone. So unless there is a dead pool of money which seems a contradiction or that somehow tax revenue circulates through the economy better than profits do, it would seem there isn't a loss anywhere. But that is not to say no taxes should exist because these are societal and not economics.