3 ms·

The problem is what you're complaining about is not quite what you think you're complaining about. An economy is fundamentally feedback loops. I get that they'r

The problem is what you're complaining about is not quite what you think you're complaining about. An economy is fundamentally feedback loops. I get that they're very complex, but that doesn't actually matter as much as you'd think. Simplified. customers spend -> tax + cafe -> cafe employs -> tax + money for your wife -> wife wants childcare -> tax + childcare -> childcare employs -> tax + money for their employees -> employees go to the cafe employing your wife ("goto 10") What you're complaining about is that money going through this cycle decreases. What MUST happen for this cycle to exist, is that the money stays constant. Now obviously I'm not arguing for zero tax, I get that tax is a valid part of this cycle. However, you must see that tax is the big parameter we can change here (and that it must go down, on the plus side, it doesn't need to go down by much). The absolute requirement for these cycles is that money must keep circulating, ideally forever, and the government is supposed to adjust that by controlling the main lever they have: tax. (Now this ignores that there are many "tax-like" levers, like average rent in an area, bank interest, insurance costs, ... but they would have to change by a lot more than tax would. Also there's a LOT of cycles in the economy and they must all be balanced, not just one)

dmonitor 4y ago
the fact that local businesses have fallen by the wayside in favor of franchisees must be a major contributor. money that would stay in the community is instead shipped off to franchise owners in who-knows-where. the total money in the system gradually decreases when the top of the food chain lives in a distant land.
- candiodari 4y ago
  If you look at the feedback loop, you're right of course that profit needs to go in there too. However, profit is there in 2 locations, tax is everywhere. For every tax dollar given up to fix the situation, the private sector would need to give up 6-10 dollars in profit. Plus, I don't think either childcare or cafes are making amounts of profit that would be transformative for employees, if divided fairly. Tax reduction however, doesn't need to be much to be transformative. Add to that the government, the people who need to fix this, don't control profit, or spending. They only control tax. So yes, when we have economic downturns, the conventional wisdom is there for a reason. When the government is in trouble, it needs to give up tax income, and lower taxes, while increasing spending. When the government is doing well, it needs to increase tax. The reverse of everybody else. No politician seems to have the discipline to actually do this, but that's still the intention.
xracy 4y ago
I think the real problem that your answer hides is that in order for money to circulate, we need to pick up the most stagnant money in the economy. That would be the wealth accumulated by billionaires, rather than the money of cafe workers. I would argue more taxation of that money would allow better circulation of money for the rest of the economy. And would require fewer taxes for the cafe workers of the world.
- candiodari 4y ago
  Not at all, actually. Money only "counts" if it's used, only changes anything if it actually changes hands. If you took 10% of all money and buried it in a pit, nothing would change.
  - xracy 4y ago
    Strongly disagree with this. Because it's exactly what's propping up our stock market. But the point is that billionaires take money out of circulation, whereas most of the rest of people put it into circulation. I use more of my money as a percentage of my income than a billionaire does. And I would bet that lower income earners than myself use even more of their income as a percentage than I do. If you want money to change hands, you've got to give it to more people. Especially more people who have uses for it.

dmonitor 4y ago

the fact that local businesses have fallen by the wayside in favor of franchisees must be a major contributor. money that would stay in the community is instead shipped off to franchise owners in who-knows-where. the total money in the system gradually decreases when the top of the food chain lives in a distant land.

candiodari 4y ago
If you look at the feedback loop, you're right of course that profit needs to go in there too. However, profit is there in 2 locations, tax is everywhere. For every tax dollar given up to fix the situation, the private sector would need to give up 6-10 dollars in profit. Plus, I don't think either childcare or cafes are making amounts of profit that would be transformative for employees, if divided fairly. Tax reduction however, doesn't need to be much to be transformative. Add to that the government, the people who need to fix this, don't control profit, or spending. They only control tax. So yes, when we have economic downturns, the conventional wisdom is there for a reason. When the government is in trouble, it needs to give up tax income, and lower taxes, while increasing spending. When the government is doing well, it needs to increase tax. The reverse of everybody else. No politician seems to have the discipline to actually do this, but that's still the intention.

xracy 4y ago

I think the real problem that your answer hides is that in order for money to circulate, we need to pick up the most stagnant money in the economy. That would be the wealth accumulated by billionaires, rather than the money of cafe workers. I would argue more taxation of that money would allow better circulation of money for the rest of the economy. And would require fewer taxes for the cafe workers of the world.

candiodari 4y ago
Not at all, actually. Money only "counts" if it's used, only changes anything if it actually changes hands. If you took 10% of all money and buried it in a pit, nothing would change.
- xracy 4y ago
  Strongly disagree with this. Because it's exactly what's propping up our stock market. But the point is that billionaires take money out of circulation, whereas most of the rest of people put it into circulation. I use more of my money as a percentage of my income than a billionaire does. And I would bet that lower income earners than myself use even more of their income as a percentage than I do. If you want money to change hands, you've got to give it to more people. Especially more people who have uses for it.