But sir, that presumes the government owns your money in the first place. How is allowing you to keep a little more of your own money a bad thing? Regardless of the details?
-
-
-
No, it does not assume that. Moreover, unless you’ve decided not to pay taxes, you must live with the consequences of government tax decisions. To support a targeted tax break is to commit the broken window fallacy. The opportunity cost is a broad-based tax cut that was forgone.
-
1. I appreciate your reply, Mr. Amash. But I am perplexed that you would make the perfect the enemy of the good. Ultimately, everyone would get a huge (100%?) tax cut....
-
2. But in the meantime you are arguing that it is better for that money to remain in the government coffers than to be returned to its rightful owner? You'd rather the government keep that money to waste on some crony project than the gym member to spend in the free market?
-
3. There is no scenario where the gym member voting with his own (tax refunded) money in the free market is worse than the government keeping the money (and the power over us that goes with it). The gym member buying a new suit is not better than the govt buying a junk F-35?
-
We should oppose both the targeted tax break and the crony project. To allow the government to provide special tax treatment for social engineering is to encourage and empower the government to raise everyone’s taxes so it has the room to provide that special treatment.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Isn’t government there to maximize positive public externalities and minimize negative ones? Ie how we organize ourself in living together in a society?
-
No. Government is there for things like fresh water, fire departments and to watch out for things like rabies. County government is legit, states are kind of legit, and Washington DC is 90% a fraud.
-
Yeah forget about common defense, social safety net, and provision of fiscal and monetary policy.
-
Of the four policies you mention, only the first and last, common defense and monetary policy, are of the Constitutional responsibilities of the federal government. And the feds left sound money behind 85 years ago.
-
Yeah and over the last 30 years they’ve struggled to get inflation to hit 2 percent, missing to the downside.
-
That's "fiscal policy" (which I don't believe is a legitimate function of gov't). "Monetary policy" is covered in the Constitution, Article I Sec 8. "[,,,]To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The government is stealing less of your money simply because you are exercising. Exercising is an objective good. A large portion of Americans are obese or live unhealthy lives anyway. I don't see why this is bad.
-
Actually no, they only steal less if you spend money to exercise. Many people are exercising freely. Tax less and let people use or don’t use a gym if they choose. Would this make gym membership cheaper or more expensive? (Hint health insurance)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
but shouldn't we at least tax plastic straws in order to
#SaveThePlanet? (p.s. A listener told me on air today that her local Starbucks offered her a plastic straw for her iced coffee. The horror...)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If you ever need help, Congressman,
@AP4Liberty could always use an extra endorsement.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
should gym memberships be HSA/FSA eligible expenses? and is there a big difference between that and just being a tax deductible expense?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Just abolish the whole tax code.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.