Permission to chortle every time I read “non-partisan” before the words Congressional Budget Office?
The Washington Post then mentions this politically inconvenient fact: “Some argue that it might be reasonable for the rich to receive a large portion of the benefit from federal tax breaks because they pay an outsize share of federal taxes. According to the independent Tax Policy Center, the richest 20 percent of households paid nearly 70 percent of federal taxes last year.”
Yes, “some” do argue this. That is because it’s true.
The Washington Post reporter then adds the obligatory “but.”
“But the CBO noted that tax breaks are essentially equivalent to government spending, intended to encourage and subsidize various behaviors, such as buying a home, saving for retirement and giving to charities. The rich are likely to engage in those activities even without such “financial assistance,” raising the question of whether that money could be better spent on other priorities.”
Got that? A tax break — taking less of your money — is a government subsidy. And it surely is . . . if you begin with the presumption that the federal government owns 100% of everyone’s income. Then when it lets voters keep some of their income, this is a government subsidy to you.
End of quote.