Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
For example, Republicans are for tax cuts, and Democrats are against them. On the other hand, Democrats are for stimulus checks and Republicans against.
But the net effect of both seems to be the same, namely, a higher deficit and more money in people's pockets.
So what's the difference and why do the parties come out opposites on it?
Discounting the surrounding flora, your question seems to be fairly clear: what's the difference between tax breaks and stimulus checks? (It becomes less clear when introducing the word "philosophical," but let's give it a try.)
If the tax breaks are provided for the same time frame and specifically targeted to the identical people, as the stimulus checks, there may be very little difference. In such a case the main differences would be practical and administrative.
But tax measures rarely target the same people as direct payments, and advocates rarely want tax breaks to be for a limited time.
Direct payments may reach people who are not immediately visible to the tax system because, for example, they may have been stay-at-home parents who are not required to file a return.
"Philosophically" there are also different schools of thought in economics on this subject with some making the case that direct payments are always better than tax measures because direct payments are unambiguous in their costs.
This school would do away with all "tax breaks" and convert them into direct payments fully visible to all taxpayers. So for example, in stead of getting a subsidy through tax breaks to build certain cars, the manufacturer would duly receive a government cheque. This school not only makes the case that it is much easier for taxpayers to fully understand the costs of direct payments, but they also avoid clever tricks to manipulate tax provisions in ways they were not intended.
On the other hand there are those who believe using tax breaks is a superior approach because not collecting the dollar in the first place means the government doesn't have to do all the accounting and administration associated with collecting a dollar that is simply going to be returned.
There is a current that also believes tax breaks serve a greater philosophical purpose in "starving" government of money. Their real objective is to shrink the range of options available to all governments because they fundamentally believe government is a bad thing that needs to be squeezed to its barest necessity.
These are just some of the considerations in your question and I don't want to suggest that it is a complete consideration. If you have further specific questions I'm happy to try to answer them.
The big practical difference is that stimulus checks can reach people who don't pay taxes.
Many of the poorest people in the country don't pay taxes: they qualify for enough tax credits, adjustments, and other exemptions to bring their taxable income to $0. A tax break wouldn't benefit these people, because they already aren't paying anything. A direct payment*, on the other hand, can.
*Technically, the stimulus checks aren't direct payments. They're "advance payments of a refundable tax credit", a type of tax credit which, if it reduces your tax owed below zero, results in the government paying you.
But the net effect of both seems to be the same, namely, a higher deficit and more money in people's pockets.
The important thing about tax rates is not how much they are, but who is paying.
Republicans are for tax cuts for the wealthy. They tend to support a flat tax, and oppose progressive taxes. Since progressive taxes tax the wealthy disproportionately, making taxes less progressive benefits the wealthy disproportionately. Democrats frame this as Republicans serving the interests of the wealthy, while Republicans frame this as simply making taxes fair. Which framing is a better description is a matter of opinion, but the point remains that Republicans don't necessarily support every plan that reduces taxes, and Democrats don't oppose every such plan.
Stimulus checks are extremely progressive: they are phased out as one makes more money, and even if they weren't, a $1000 decrease in taxes is going to have a much larger effect on the tax rate of a poor person than a rich one. In addition, they are refundable tax credits, which means that they can bring one's taxes below zero, which tax cuts can't.
The hand-out versus tax break framing is a large issue as well. Even if they were to have the same effect, "government hand-outs" are going to look to conservatives like people getting something they didn't earn, while a tax cut is people keeping more of what they did earn. The Democrats do, however, often refer to tax breaks for corporations or the wealthy as a "hand-out".
It is a very much philosophical difference, because, depending on the specifics, they are both the same.
The big differences are:
Very often tax breaks are cut out to benefit the wealthy. They don't have to, but often they do. That is especially true if the tax break is in some form progressive (e.g. cut x% of the tax, or if it is a fixed amount that is deducted before tax in a progressive system). It is also true if it is a non-refundable tax break, because those who pay no taxes don't benefit from them.
Stimulus checks, if distributed to everyone equally, usually benefit the poor more, because €1000 extra might double a poor person's monthly income, while a wealthy person might not even notice it.
Generally speaking, a tax break is paid after the fact (e.g. at the end of the year) while stimulus checks are paid in advance. Again, since tax breaks are paid after the fact, they are less helpful for the poor, since they might not have enough money to wait until the end of the year.
Tax breaks tend to be a regular thing, while stimulus checks are usually one-time payments.
... it is totally possible for either of those to be used for the opposite purpose. E.g. in Austria we had a so-called Family Tax Break which would give families a €1000 refundable tax break that is paid directly when you get your wages or alternatively (if you don't get wages) at the end of the year. Also, this was limited to one year.
So it primarily benefited the poor, was paid not quite in advance but in a timely manner, and was a one-time payment. So it's closer to the spirit of a stimulus check, even though it was a tax break.
On the other hand, stimulus checks can also be tied to requirements, which then only benefit a certain segment of the population, e.g. business owners. So they don't necessarily have to help poor people either.
From a philosophical perspective there is a big difference.
The conservative position favoring lower taxes is more a consequence of their lower level platform that prefers a limited role for Government. Under this philosophy letting the taxpayer keep their money instead of re-distributing it through the Government is preferable. They would also bristle at the idea of equivalency between reducing taxes and entitlement programs like such as stimulus checks, because the underlying assumption that reducing taxes take away money from the Government. They would argue that position assumes that letting an individual keep their earnings is somehow an entitlement to the taxpayer. (e.g. "Merry Christmas, your gift is that I didn't ask you for money this year!"). This position prioritizes freedom over security/equality.
The progressive philosophy is more agreeable to the concept of income redistribution to achieve the goal of improving economic equality and security. As other answers have noted, tax cuts are a far less direct, and often less equitable way to put resources in the pockets of individuals. In general, increasing entitlements is very much aligned with the left-leaning platform.
In the last round of stimulus check / tax breaks as a resident alien I didnt get the Bush stimulus check, but I did get the Obama tax break.
I doubt that many politicians have thought it through that far, but that is one of the differences.
Really it is nothing but politics and economic manipulation. It all comes out of the "tax base" which never gets smaller. They play games with the overall income tax rate, deductions, and dollar for dollar exclusions but it is really a fiction. John J.D.
The philosophical difference comes from the practical difference, which is that a tax cut simply lets individuals keep more of their own money, while many people will get more in "stimulus" checks than they actually paid in taxes.
