3 ms·

Thank you! Interesting. Why would it necessarily reduce culture wars or repression? Because the public sector gets smaller? Or because taxes are "fairer"? Edit:

• ETH_start 4y ago
  Because: 1. the taxes are more just, and thus cause much less collateral damage (like enforcement actions related to prohibiting Americans from using financial privacy software on their computer) that elicits hostility/acrimony from a broad cross-section of the population toward governing institutions, and 2. by offering a settlement to those negatively affected by reduced government spending and the introduction of a LVT, we are not threatening to deprive major interest groups of their livelihoods, which would create avowed opponents of the reform plan in whose interest it is to vilify the reformers and their plan. The goal is to align interests so that all major groups support reform toward a more just and efficient economic system.
  • RandomLensman 4y ago
    Thanks. Just so that I can close the mental loop here: because "the state" is smaller, things like sanction control also matter less/will be handled differently, hence privacy can be stronger?
    • ETH_start 4y ago
      I'd say the decision by a state to enact sanctions is orthogonal to the size of the state. With respect to sanctions, I think targeting financial transactions would be less appealing to policy makers if it didn't align with broader income tax enforcement goals and couldn't utilize the controls set up for that purpose.