D-Industries Cuts Hours Ahead Of Obamacare Implementation

[_Darth J]

But this implies that there is something inherently different between two things that are worth exactly the same.

You mean the number of the denomination on the bank notes? No, there's no difference at all. In the incentives, economic behavior, and political implications of the political and economic control of those banknotes, and of the choices and behavior of the individual, there are tremendous differences.

Example 1:

A. Banker says to Senator, "Senator, I will give you $250,000 in cash if you will vote against this new bill that increases banking regulations."

B. Banker says to Senator, "Senator, my bank holds the note on your mortgage that has a remaining balance of $250,000. I will cancel the note if you will vote against this new bill that increases banking regulations."

What is the difference between scenario A and scenario B, Droopy?

Example 2:

A. Judge is dividing up the marital estate between Husband and Wife, who are divorcing. Judge rules, "Husband must pay alimony of $500.00 per month to Wife for the next five years."

B. Judge is dividing up the marital estate between Husband and Wife, who are divorcing. Judge rules, "To equalize the parties' standard of living, Husband must pay Wife's car payment of $500.00 per month for the next five years."

What is the difference between scenario A and scenario B, Droopy?

Example 3:

A. Dad take Child to Toys R Us. Dad says to Child, "If you want to use that $20 in your pocket to buy something in this store, I will give you back $20 when we get home."

B. Dad takes Child to Toys R Us. Dad says to Child, "Here is a $20 Toys R Us gift card, so you can just keep that $20 you have in your pocket."

What is the difference between scenario A and scenario B, Droopy?

[_Analytics]

As a reminder, the topic of this conversation is the following assertion:

When the government makes something tax deductible, it is subsidizing it.

I am claiming that regardless of your political ideology, the above statement is true in a rational, fundamental, dollars-and-cents way: if you go to, say, the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago, they will teach you to think this way, because this way of thinking is in fact the rational way of thinking about taxes; you must think about taxes rationally if you are going to be successful at making business decisions. So I’m not talking about abstract political philosophy. I’m talking about how to rationally view the world.

With that as a reminder of what we are talking about…

Its monetary worth has nothing whatsoever to do with my main argument. There are several major problems with all of this that could make for endless argument into the wee hours, but to cut to the chase, the primary problem here is framing a targeted tax cut to an individual as a subsidy to the commodity or service the individual uses the retained funds to buy. Its value is immaterial. The use of those funds is a purchase, or exchange of property between the individual and the insurance company. Nothing has been "subsidized" by the government as the government does not own the money represented by the tax cut in the first place. It may dictate the purpose for which that money must be used, but that does not amount to a subsidy, only to a command to purchase according to government decree.

We aren’t talking about “targeted tax cuts,” we are talking about tax deductions—about the government decreasing a tax liability if and only if money is used to purchase a specific thing.

Further, the economic dynamics implied by your argument are just another socialist camel's nose under the tent, which can be easily seen if we take your claims to their logical conclusion…. The economic, political, and moral derangement of that should be obvious to anyone but a committed leftist.

The economic dynamics implied by my argument has nothing to do with political philosophies. The economic dynamics implied by my argument are in fact the actual dollars-and-cents dynamics that tax deductions bring to the market.

There is no real difference between a $5,000 reduction in a liability and a $5,000 payment in cash—none whatsoever. You are using the word “subsidy” in an artificially restricted sense.

I'm using it as the dictionary defines it and as it is used commonly in political discourse.

You clearly don’t understand what the dictionary says and spend way too much time listening to misleading political discourse.

But this implies that there is something inherently different between two things that are worth exactly the same.

You mean the number of the denomination on the bank notes? No, there's no difference at all. In the incentives, economic behavior, and political implications of the political and economic control of those banknotes, and of the choices and behavior of the individual, there are tremendous differences.

To the extent that people are rational, there are no differences whatsoever: none. To the rationally minded, a $100 discount offers exactly the same incentive as a $100 “instant rebate.” Likewise, to the rationally minded, getting $10,000 of health insurance for only $5,000 in after-tax income is identical without regard to whether the subsidy comes through a direct subsidy or a tax deduction.

“Simply not collecting the $5,000 at all” is what causes our tax code to be so complex, which results in citizens paying $140 billion dollars and spending 7.6 billion hours to file their taxes.

This is utterly bizarre. What you have just claimed is that the reason the U.S. tax code is nearly seven times longer than the Bible is because compliance costs go up as less tax is collected. By this argument, at a zero income, payroll, and corporate tax rate, compliance costs would soar and H&R Block would be doing record business.

Reality is bizarre; I agree. When you get down to it, there are only two reasons why the tax code is complex. First, defining what is in fact income is inherently complex. Second, the tax code is chalk full of deductions for business activities, spending, and giving that the government subsidizes through tax deductions.

Allowing people to save before-tax money in health savings accounts which can then be spent tax-free for valid health expenses makes the tax code longer, not shorter. Complying with these additional rules takes time and energy for individuals, employers, the companies that manage these accounts, and the IRS.

[Guest]

Nothing has been "subsidized" by the government as the government does not own the money represented by the tax cut in the first place.

Except that the government would have owned that money (through its power to tax) had the tax cut not been in place. It makes no sense to talk about tax "cuts" unless you mean reducing the amount of money the government otherwise would have taken in the form of taxes.

It may dictate the purpose for which that money must be used, but that does not amount to a subsidy, only to a command to purchase according to government decree.

No, a tax deduction is not a command to do anything. It is an incentive to do something, but it is not a compulsion to do something. The U.S. Supreme Court explained that distinction in a recent opinion that you did not read, yet hilariously misconstrued.

You can make the rational choice that the value of the reduction in taxes is not worth the behavior you have to undertake to get the reduction. For example, you can get a tax exemption for having children as dependents. That does not mean the government is forcing you to breed. And if you believe in rational choice controlling economic decisions, you can certainly decide that even though you could have had that tax exemption, this is not an opportune time for you to have a baby.

However, Droopy, since you maintain that a tax deduction is equivalent to a command to purchase something, your reasoning would mean that the tax deduction you can receive for donating to a religious entity, like the LDS Church, is a command to "purchase" religion. According to your own assertion, a tax deduction for contributing to a religious entity violates the Establishment Clause by compelling people to financially support religion by government decree. (It also violates the Establishment Clause by favoring religion over non-religion, since a person who does not financially contribute to a religious entity is not entitled to the same deduction.)

Your assertion also means that the LDS Church supports said violation of the Establishment Clause. The LDS Church has lobbied against a flat tax, on the premise that if tax deductions for religious contributions are elminated, taxpayers will be less likely to make those contributions. In other words, the LDS Church cynically wishes governmental fiat to induce people to participate in religion. The Church's position is contrary to the ideological position you have asserted here, but I am sure you can ignore that contradiction, since your political ideology and your favorite religious organization both always have to be absolutely right about everything.

[_Darth J]

By this argument, at a zero income, payroll, and corporate tax rate, compliance costs would soar and H&R Block would be doing record business.

In this example of the fallacy of equivocation, Droopy is conflating nominal tax rates with adjusted gross income minus deductions and exemptions.

[_subgenius]

The individual mandate does not "force" anyone to do anything. It simply raises taxes on people who do not buy health insurance. ...(snip)...

Now that we have seen him put a dress on the pig - who has questions?

[_Darth J]

The individual mandate does not "force" anyone to do anything. It simply raises taxes on people who do not buy health insurance. ...(snip)...

Now that we have seen him put a dress on the pig - who has questions?

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Putting a dress on a pig would be the insistence by supporters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that it was not a tax increase. It was a tax increase, as a matter of law. Sebelius also makes it clear that the Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the authority to force people to engage in commerce.

[_Darth J]

The individual mandate does not "force" anyone to do anything. It simply raises taxes on people who do not buy health insurance. ...(snip)...

Now that we have seen him put a dress on the pig - who has questions?

I know! I know! People who don't know what the hell they're talking about!

Nat. Fed. of Indep. Businesses v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2600 (2012)

The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax. it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.