888
GOP Proposes $4.5 Trillion Tax Giveaway to the Rich While 'Ransacking' Food Stamps and Medicaid
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
888 points (99.2% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
10479 readers
120 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I hate the language around the federal budget. First, how budget figures are reporting in 10 year intervals, when everything else is reported in 1 year intervals. So everything sounds 10 times bigger. When like only 5% of the population ever looks at the federal budget, this creates a TON of confusion.
Second, how reductions in tax (like to the rich) are reported as "giveaways". Taxes go in, not out. That's a reduction in revenue, not an expenditure or liability. You can say, "shift the tax burden even more onto the lower and middle classes". Then it's actually accurate. Getting fired from your job is not an expense, it's a loss of income. Same thing.
It might be semantically incorrect but it is still a decrease in tax for the rich which given the current disparity in wealth frankly is barely a distinction at all.
It is factually incorrect. It is not giving them money, it is taking less money from them. That has different consequences under tax law and describing it that way also completely muddles people's understanding of how the budget works.
You're just dealing with literal definition versus an inferred result, however you know this, you literally chose to deconstruct it in your original comment.
Laymans use imperfect allegories, that doesn't make them incorrect. If the message's intent is clear to imply that the only correct interpretation is the literal one is just bad faith.
This. It's not as if they are printing literal money to give them.
Many companies benefit from tax deductions which give incentives to hiring new employees, investing in particular geographic areas of developing a sensitive industry