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 -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

"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@midwest.social 7 points 11 months 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 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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.