Not taking money that otherwise would be taken absolutely is giving money. Let me know if the government decides to absolve you of all taxes if you don't think at the end of your year that you've been given money. Also that's conveniently the narrative that Macron's party would adopt were it the other way (read: when they "give" a one-off cheque to students or poor people). Accounting tricks have broad shoulders to take the load off the political bullshit of our era.
>In contrast with stimulus checks, for example, which were given, because even if you earned no money at all you still got them.
At the end of the day, there's no difference from a fiscal perspective between handing a company a $1M check and giving them a $1M tax deduction. While I agree that this is technically a distinction (ie. tax deductions require a tax liability to actually be used, as opposed to cash which can be spent as-is), I don't think it's relevant here because the companies were already known to be making money. Even if they had a bad year and the tax credits could only be used on profits, they'd likely turn a profit sooner or later.
>I think you mean tax credit instead of tax deduction
Tax deductions are equivalent to tax credits once you factor in the marginal tax rate.
>and even then there is a substantial difference from a fiscal perspective.
Specifically... how? Giving a company a $1M check has the same effect on the government's balance sheets as giving them a $1M tax credit, given the assumptions listed in my previous comment.
I agree - not taxing something ordinarily taxed is very much in the vein of "giving" money. I'm a little surprised at the disagreement, but I guess it depends on a persons point of view.
the question comes down to whether or not the money is viewed as the person's, as a part of personal property, or viewed as the government's, as a part of state ownership.
The concern about the framing isn't about looking at the tax code at a particular point in time but instead setting a context for how the tax code and spending priorities evolve over time.
If you start with the idea that the money belongs to the government and you have to ask to get it back (via the legislative process) the discussion is going to be very different than if you start with the idea that the money belongs to the people and there has to be a very strong reason for the government to get any of it (via the legislative process).
You are not robbed as a matter of course. The government takes your taxes as a matter of course. Not taxing you (by giving you a 10k tax deduction, for example) is, in a practical sense, basically identical from the government's perspective as giving away money.
Except that it isn't. If you adopt that framing, you are working with a mindset that the government gets to figure out what to do with your money first and you get the leftovers. That is a completely different mindset than setting the expectation that the the people get to decide (via representatives) what money the government gets and how it should be spent.
Those two mindsets are very different and I would argue is one of the ways that the left and the right are different.
People living in certain parts of the world are robbed regularly as a matter of course; does that mean robbers are giving somebody money if they band together one day and decide to stop robbing that person?
