• enkers@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You realize someone has to pay for public infrastructure and services, yes? If corporate interests do not pay the taxes that are typically expected of them, then someone else will have to cough up that money, or services will need to be cut.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Paying” for tax cuts makes sense in the context of changing budgets while trying to keep them balanced. But no money is ever spent on tax cuts. It’s spent on the public infrastructure and services you mentioned. If you properly account for the money as being used to pay for public goods, then saying it’s also used to pay for tax cuts would be double counting.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Having to pay more for a shared cost so that someone else can pay less… I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the shorthand “pay for someone else’s tax cuts”.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Alice and Bob agree to buy a shared lumber splitter. Alice takes a loan to pay for it, which Bob agrees to pay half of. When payments are due, Bob bails and does not pay, and he uses the lumber splitter anyways. Now Alice has to also pay the share that Bob agreed to pay.