Borrowing trillions to give the top 1% a tax break is something you voted for, Justin. Soaring deficits courtesy of Mr. Amash
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you Congressman! I am tired of people saying tax cuts isn’t the gov redistributing money as it sees fit. Targeted tax breaks are nothing but government redistribution. Even across the board cuts are a type of redistribution, unless they are balanced by spending cuts.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Tax breaks are not morally equivalent to a subsidy in which others are taxed to give to another While expanding said break/loophole to include everyone would surely be better than limiting it to a special few, removing the break is effectively (and economically) a tax *increase*
-
It is morally and practically the same as a subsidy. There isn’t a difference between handing someone 50 cents back after they paid 1 dollar and just charging them 50 cents to begin with
-
There is a BIG moral difference between handing me stolen loot and simply declining to steal from me, too.
-
Their is no moral difference b/w a tax exempted business using govt services other taxpayers paid for and stealing cable tv your neighbors paid forhttps://twitter.com/MarketAphorist/status/1012555830334386176 …
-
1. I see a pretty big moral difference between a tax funded service and a voluntarily paid for cable bill. 2. Seems to me the moral solution is cutting the tax-funded services rather than increasing taxes on the one fortunate entity that manages to avoid being stolen from.
-
1 If you're taking for free what others are paying for it makes no difference morality-wise whether you're stealing from other taxpayers or the cable compny 2 When "manages to avoid being stolen from" = highest bidder at the crony corruption auction, there's no moral high ground
-
1. Taxpayers are alrdy stolen from as they can't opt out if they don't like their deal, whereas nobody has to pay any particular cable company if they don't like the deal they're getting. If someone else not paying raising the cost of the service you don't have to subsidize them.
-
I get the whole "taxation is theft" concept, where we're having trouble is you thinking accepting stolen goods is somehow more "moral" than you being a victim of thefthttps://twitter.com/MarketAphorist/status/1012555830334386176 …
- 28 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Taxation is theft no matter how you try to frame it. A balanced budget means you are cutting spending not taking more of our money. Stop going elbow deep into our pockets.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Targeted "tax breaks" are nothing more than govt bestowing an unfair advantage on favored businesses at the expense of the rest [ps
@thelastrefuge2 please take a class on free market capitalism -vs-corrupt crony corporatism]https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1012509488480444416 …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nice socialist answer Amash. Your statement makes absolutely no sense. State budgets are balanced? WTF are you talking about? Amash is a student of the Krugman school of econ when it suits him. Such a fraud
-
Are you insane? Please explain how taking a dollar from someone then giving them 50 cents back is different from taking only 50 cents from them to begin with.
-
Also just the notion of Justin Amash being a socialist... what ungodly nonsense is this?

-
Pretty sure that’s a troll.
-
Beat me to it
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Then why would you think giving the "1%" a tax break would be a good idea?
#VoteThemOut2018Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Maybe ask him how he would feel if gov passed a tax break for only registered Democrats. Selective tax breaks are a form of central planning and crony capitalism. Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers - leave it to the free market.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You’re fundamentally wrong. The state does not need to spend all that money for all of its program.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
No, he’s framing tax breaks as a net loss of benefits, when one reality the government didn’t have to have certain programs in the first place
-
Tweet unavailable
-
The whole concept of “cutting benefits” is a biased frame, because it assume those benefits should be there. If you gave everyone a free house, then start charging people $250k for houses, that’s going back to the norm, not “cutting benefits”
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Not really. People are so complacent with the government confiscating a large % of our incomes that the status quo seems “normal”
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.