|
|
|
|
|
|
by bluthru
4308 days ago
|
|
|
>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. |
|
|
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.