4 ms·

I follow the MMT thinking on that and I would say we are way past the time where one could reasonably argue that taxation funds the government. At best it serve

by Sytten 5y ago

I follow the MMT thinking on that and I would say we are way past the time where one could reasonably argue that taxation funds the government. At best it serves to reduce the money supply to avoid inflation. Having a strong middle class is a deep factor for the stability of a country. Inequalities is easily linkable to social unrest.

purephase 5y ago
Honestly, this is the crazy part of all of this. The middle class was built on a bigger tax burder on the wealthy, which led to the largest epoch in human advancement (with a lot of caveats, yes -- but there's a lot of positives there). Rolling back these tax rates has led to recession after recession and ever increasing gaps between the 1% and everyone else, and the middle class is shrinking. It doesn't seem like it's such a hard line to draw between all of this.
bhupy 5y ago
> Having a strong middle class is a deep factor for the stability of a country. Again, in the grand debate about whether we ought to make the poor richer or the rich poorer, both sides would agree that "having a strong middle class is a deep factor for the stability of the country". Although I appreciate that you may not believe this (and you're entitled to your opinion), many are of the opinion that it's actually entirely possible to have a strong middle class by establishing a floor without pulling down the ceiling. That's the contention. > Inequalities is easily linkable to social unrest. What we're less certain of, is if this is due to inequality, or if it's due to existence of poverty alongside prosperity. If everyone below the poverty line was magically lifted out of poverty while preserving the existence of billionaires, would that lead to social unrest? It's worth checking in with Sweden, which has more billionaires per capita than the US, no wealth tax, imposes broad-based taxes on the middle class, and not particularly known for having social unrest.

by Sytten 5y ago

purephase 5y ago

Honestly, this is the crazy part of all of this. The middle class was built on a bigger tax burder on the wealthy, which led to the largest epoch in human advancement (with a lot of caveats, yes -- but there's a lot of positives there). Rolling back these tax rates has led to recession after recession and ever increasing gaps between the 1% and everyone else, and the middle class is shrinking. It doesn't seem like it's such a hard line to draw between all of this.

bhupy 5y ago

> Having a strong middle class is a deep factor for the stability of a country. Again, in the grand debate about whether we ought to make the poor richer or the rich poorer, both sides would agree that "having a strong middle class is a deep factor for the stability of the country". Although I appreciate that you may not believe this (and you're entitled to your opinion), many are of the opinion that it's actually entirely possible to have a strong middle class by establishing a floor without pulling down the ceiling. That's the contention. > Inequalities is easily linkable to social unrest. What we're less certain of, is if this is due to inequality, or if it's due to existence of poverty alongside prosperity. If everyone below the poverty line was magically lifted out of poverty while preserving the existence of billionaires, would that lead to social unrest? It's worth checking in with Sweden, which has more billionaires per capita than the US, no wealth tax, imposes broad-based taxes on the middle class, and not particularly known for having social unrest.