Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
The GOP Tax Cut and Rising Wages....or not.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="iluvatar5150" data-source="post: 73288005" data-attributes="member: 313046"><p>I'm talking about the way these things are treated on the Treasury balance sheet. Less money is less money whether it happens via tax cuts, tax deductions, tax credits, or increased expenditures.</p><p></p><p>Specific to taxes, deductions and credits are targeted versions tax cuts that are typically implemented to achieve some sort of policy goal or to improve the fairness of the tax code. Broadly, business expense deductions might make sense because there's no way to tax gross revenues without bankrupting everybody, but once you drill down past that, accelerated depreciation schedules are there to achieve a policy goal, as are deductions for low-emission vehicles, rehabbing buildings in low-income areas, and deductions for numerous other activities (Maryland, for example, would give me one for having an oyster bed).</p><p></p><p>When he pointed out that $1,000 from a deduction is the same as $1,000 from a lower tax rate, he's right. In fact, his argument is a variation on the one that I've been using about the ACA for years - that the coverage penalty is no different than the deduction for paying mortgage interest. In both cases, your tax bill is lower if you buy some <thing> and higher if you don't, with the only real difference being in how they were marketed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iluvatar5150, post: 73288005, member: 313046"] I'm talking about the way these things are treated on the Treasury balance sheet. Less money is less money whether it happens via tax cuts, tax deductions, tax credits, or increased expenditures. Specific to taxes, deductions and credits are targeted versions tax cuts that are typically implemented to achieve some sort of policy goal or to improve the fairness of the tax code. Broadly, business expense deductions might make sense because there's no way to tax gross revenues without bankrupting everybody, but once you drill down past that, accelerated depreciation schedules are there to achieve a policy goal, as are deductions for low-emission vehicles, rehabbing buildings in low-income areas, and deductions for numerous other activities (Maryland, for example, would give me one for having an oyster bed). When he pointed out that $1,000 from a deduction is the same as $1,000 from a lower tax rate, he's right. In fact, his argument is a variation on the one that I've been using about the ACA for years - that the coverage penalty is no different than the deduction for paying mortgage interest. In both cases, your tax bill is lower if you buy some <thing> and higher if you don't, with the only real difference being in how they were marketed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
The GOP Tax Cut and Rising Wages....or not.
Top
Bottom