Robot Heart: Sex, Religion, and Politics

The Stepford Lives

jeffmiller:

Someone has to make up the shortfall every time there is a tax break.  Thus, every tax break for one person is a tax increase on another.   When homeowners get tax breaks, it’s essentially a tax on us renters.  When parents get tax breaks, it’s a tax on the childless.  And when pet owners get a tax break, it’s a tax on the pet-less.

None of these individually seem particularly like tyranny.  But in each of them, the Government isn’t just helping one behavior; it’s penalizing another.  And the more the Government does this, the more the Government uses its power to homogenize us.  It’s one thing for someone to say:  You should get married and have kids, buy a house and a dog.  It’s another thing to say:  We’ll penalize you if you don’t.

Except, this isn’t exactly how it works at all? I mean, this is a nice theoretical, “If one person gets a tax break, then someone else is penalized,” but that’s not actually how it works, and it’s certainly not a 1:1 relationship. It’s not as if they’re saying, “Aaand a tax break for the pet owners, and a tax increase for the non-pet owners.” Instead it’s, “Aaaand a tax break for the poet owners, and hopefully we won’t have to increase taxes on everyone to pay for the pet owners who can no longer afford their pets because of the shit economy.”

Yes. The tax break will have to be paid for somehow, although what will have to be cut and who exactly will pay for it may or may not penalize or privilege pet owners or non-pet owners. And, as many presidents and legislators past can tell you, a lot of times tax breaks aren’t paid for at all by other people, at least not in the immediate or even foreseeable future. Not that adding to the deficit is a solution, but…

Your entire argument is a gross oversimplification, to the point of total mischaracterization, of reality. Not to mention that you sound completely paranoid.