Comment by xyzzyz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by xyzzyz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Not having to pay a tax is not an "implicit subsidy". This is a completely absurd way of thinking. Taxes is not some sort of fundamental law of nature, and tax exemption are not government being helpful by using its own resources to help the entity out. It's more like a bully who tells you he won't steal your lunch today (but will tomorrow). It's a nice bully, though, who'll protect you from other school bullies, and he needs to eat too. Doesn't he deserve your lunch?

Imagine a scenario where everyone is taxed, say, 10%. Then, the government introduces an extra tax of 10%, for a total of 20%, and then gives everyone a tax exemption, so that everyone pays 10% after all, just like before. Is the new tax exemption an "implicit subsidy"? Do people feel subsidized by not having to pay extra 10% on top of 10% they already pay? No, at best they are grateful that they are losing less money to a bully.

Now, imagine we start from 0%, and again introduce a new tax of 10%, and a new exemption, so that nobody actually pays any tax after all. Again, in this no tax world, is the government "subsidizing" everyone? No, that's not what the word "subsidize" mean.

Here in Australia, if I give to a charitable organisation or non-profit which is tax exempt...

I don't pay income take on the donation.

That absolutely is a subsidy. About 30% of my donation comes from the public purse via tax not collected.

That's not how taxes work.

Churches owe taxes because they conduct business in the United States. The government pays those taxes instead. That's a subsidy.

If a bully extorts an entire class for lunch money, except for one kid who's on the wrestling team, the bully did not pay for the wrestler's lunch.

Yeah I'm talking about taxes in the United States, not continuing that strained analogy.

I don't mean to be flippant, but engaging with a disconnected hypothetical takes away from the discussion of reality. In my original comment, I believe I sufficiently communicated that I disagree that taxes are extortion. In the context of funding libraries and churches, I don't think that disagreement is going to lead us anywhere.

money is fungible, and so yes they did

> Churches owe taxes because they conduct business in the United States.

And you owe the bully your lunch, because you conduct your presence in his class. When the bully says he won’t take your lunch today, he is actually buying you your lunch. That’s a subsidy.

If it sounds stupid, that’s because it is. Tax exemptions are not subsidies.

It sounds more like you disagree with taxation, rather than the semantics around subsidization. We can't really continue this line of dialogue if you disagree that taxes are payments for services rendered. It's like saying Burger King is stealing my lunch money when I buy a Whopper. It's a really bad analogy.

Alternatively, here's a definition of subsidy:

> A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks).

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

No, not quite. I can agree that taxation might be useful or necessary for some pragmatic reasons. It is not, however, any sort of “payment for service rendered”. The crucial element of transaction being a “payment” is it not being coerced. You cannot forego paying taxes and eschew services rendered by government, you are simply not offered this option. This is unlike with Burger King, which does not force me to spend some percentage of my income on Whoppers, whether I want them or not. That’s why the government is a bully. A useful bully that might do a valuable thing for me, but it is a bully nonetheless. Finally, to reiterate, bully voluntarily foregoing coercion on occasion is not a subsidy.

> Finally, to reiterate, bully voluntarily foregoing coercion on occasion is not a subsidy.

I just have to go with the definition. Part of the brevity of the original communication was that semantics shouldn't really require discussion, as words have meanings. Even if your position is believed, and taxation is coerced; "subsidy" is defined as including tax breaks. You might think it sounds weird that a bully giving the money back is a subsidy, but that's what that word means. I can find opinion pieces making the case you're making, but that's not the definition used by the majority of other publications.

It also really shouldn't matter either way. Whether the government is "subsidizing" a Library or "not bullying" a Church, the original point was that they are receiving special treatment from the government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com