> Taking 65% of your earnings. Now, you are mixing in un-/fair taxation. This is the income side, austerity is primarily about spending. > It is democratic lo

> Taking 65% of your earnings. Now, you are mixing in un-/fair taxation. This is the income side, austerity is primarily about spending. > It is democratic looting or chosen by a few only? If those few were the only ones elected, then by definition, yes it is democratic. Now you are mixing in democratic participation and political corruption. > 110% spains debt, not sure where the fiscal upper bound is. According to your name, you are a german guy: Haushaltsdebatte, Schuldenbremse. Large tasks cost money and without such you cant do anything. Germany is essentially using legal tricks to circumvent their austerity nonsense, like propably spain and many others did, decades before. Do i really have to be more specific about that hard upper bound? > public services degrade while taxes go up. You are supporting my point here. With the right spending this degradation wouldnt happen. And to let me mix in something: Taxes go up for who exactly? Workers or owners? > All these topics are closely related if you think of it a bit beyond the surface. But they are non the less different problems. I think you are not just wrong, you are confused. Austerity imo is ultimately about sabotaging the ability of public institutions, thus shifting power from the public to the private sector and this is the part, that makes it undemocratic. "Let large private corporations fix climate change by building megalomanic nuclear power plants (which i suppose you are a fan of too) and then let the public handle the staggering cost of the nuclear waster by taxing more off the ones who resist less, the poor and somehow (???) uneducated."