> Not collecting taxes on something that might otherwise be taxed is not the same as someone taking your money via taxes and using it to pay for something. What does it cost you if the government doesn't tax your local church?

Debt increases -> interest payments increase -> interest is paid at public expense from the general pool of taxpayers.

I know this sort of causal relationship isn't immediately obvious but it is there as it squeezes services for everyone else if you don't raise taxes to cover the difference.

But the taxpayers are beneficiaries of these higher debt payments, through their pension funds and 401k accounts.

Or so we are told, every time taxes are cut for the wealthy.

The research on the subject has shown otherwise. Even if it wasn't:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...

Kansas showed how well it works in practice.

And even if you believe neither of those things:

https://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/517975766/while-trump-touts-s...

52% own any stock, so you are still effectively stealing from the other 48%

Not collecting a tax does not increase debt. Outlays increase debt. If it did, then not taxing Apple 100% of its profits would be "costing" us all a fortune.

Please read a government budget sometime and look at current law vs exceptions to current law in the form of targeted tax breaks.

It is called a tax expenditure. Aka an expense or an outlay.

Making up an absurd position that requires redefining financial terms is a poor strategy.

Appying your logic, collecting $0 in taxes from everyone does not create any debt because you can simply reduce expenses to $0.

Please apply your position to your own life ($0 in income and $0 in expenses) and let me know if your position is a real one. I suspect the lack of shelter and food will convince you otherwise.