Do you think that there is a genuine difference between "raising taxes" and "removing tax breaks for certain groups?"
It seems to me that there is a vital difference.
Tax breaks are not a Constitutionally protected right, and are therefore given solely for the purpose of gaining some socio-economic goal that would not occur by simply collecting that tax. Right?
If so, it seems perfectly fair to me for the government to remove that tax break if no socio-economic benefit is being gained from that break in order to try to provide what the tax break was failing to provide.
Of course, the counter argument may simply be that the government should have as little money as possible and therefore every tax break is philosophically justifiable even if there is no apparent socio-economic benefit resulting.
Thoughts? Matt (Lee and Moore), are you calling me a liberal communist right now?