I understand the point you are making here, but you are incorrectly describing one thing: tax breaks are not subsidies.

A subsidy would have the government taking from one group to give it to another.

Tax breaks are simply the government stealing less from a group.

Tax breaks, even when they are distributed unfairly, are not an evil thing.
Chris | 10.08.06 - 4:50 pm | #

Chris,

By your reckoning, progressive income taxation is not "redistribution of income."

Discuss.
KipEsquire | Homepage | 10.09.06 - 12:49 pm | #

Kip,

Your point is off-topic given that my comment was about correctly pointing out that a tax cut is not a subsidy. Just to answer your comment, even though I have no idea how you reached that conclusion, I regard all taxation as redistribution of income and I oppose all taxation.

But back to the issue at hand. Subsidies and tax cuts are completely different in nature. The one is good and the other is evil.

Tax cuts are unquestionably good as they harm no one. They are simply the government stealing less from people.

Subsidies are unquestionably evil: they involve robbing one government-favored group to pay another.

If you believe in property rights at all, I'm not sure how you could possibly reach any other conclusion. If you could point out what you disagree with, we could have a discussion.

Regards,

Chris.
Chris | 10.09.06 - 7:28 pm | #

I disagree with this:

Subsidies and tax cuts are completely different in nature.

They are not at all different when the tax cuts are selective and politically motivated rent-seeking.

Which, incidentally, is not at all "off-topic" to this post.
KipEsquire | Homepage | 10.09.06 - 9:02 pm | #

Tax cuts only "harm no one" if you assume that the government will not raise taxes on other groups to generate the amount of revenue it used to collect from the group whose taxes have been cut. History does not support that assumption.
Amy Phillips | 10.10.06 - 2:23 pm | #