4 ms·

This is such a stupid argument. Is your issue that the number is too high? Why? What’s the right number? Should government spend 25% percent of GDP? Who cares.

This is such a stupid argument. Is your issue that the number is too high? Why? What’s the right number? Should government spend 25% percent of GDP? Who cares. Governments shouldn’t aim for a specific number, they should spend enough to make sure full employment is achieved, according to saving desires and the private market’s appetite for investment. Whatever the private market isn’t willing to invest, the government should take care of. Whether that’s 10% or 50% is literally irrelevant.

imgabe 2y ago
The government only gets money by skimming off the top of private enterprise. If the percentage is too high then there’s nothing left to skim and the system collapses, so yes we should care what the percentage is and we should want it to be as low as possible. We should be demanding ruthless efficiency from the government, not dreaming up new ways for them to take our stuff.
- amrocha 2y ago
  No, you have no idea how sovereign economies work. Taxes don’t fund government spending. Learn about economics before you complain about the number being too high.
  - imgabe 2y ago
    > Taxes don’t fund government spending. Cool, then let's just do away with them altogether. This is great news. All those people saying I needed to pay taxes so I can have roads and schools and a military and everything must be wrong.
    - amrocha 2y ago
      Again, go read up on economics. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
      - imgabe 2y ago
        Smugly insinuating that you’re right without providing any sort of reasoning does not make you look as cool and smart as you think it does.
        amrocha 2y ago
        You arguments so far have been “the number is too big” and “let’s get rid of all taxes” so I don’t feel like you’re very serious about having a discussion.
        imgabe 2y ago
        Look, if you actually knew what you were talking about you would be able to explain it in a few sentences. I'm guessing you're misremembering something you never really understood from the econ elective you took in college ten years ago and so all you can do is say "go read a book" because you don't really understand it beyond a vague notion that taxes are somehow unnecessary to fund the government. Like, just as a basic common sense test, if it were possible for the government to spend as much as it wants without taxes, why wouldn't a politician implement that, eliminate taxes, and immediately become the most popular politician in the history of the world? If it were as easy as you say, surely that would have happened. Since it hasn't happened, it stands to reason that maybe you don't know what you're talking about when you say the government doesn't need taxes to fund spending.
        amrocha 2y ago
        Ok, I’ll explain it in a few short sentences. Assume you have a new country with no money. How does anything get done? The central bank needs to issue capital that the government then allocates first. Eventually this money makes it down to the citizens of the country who spend it. Then the government can tax that money, and that gives it non-inflationary spending room to reallocate those resources. For example, there’s a car company that’s using up most of the country’s steel supply. But the government wants to shift the country’s manufacturing from cars to other green industries. What the government can do is tax the car company so that it’s not able to use up as much steel, which frees up resources for other industries to utilize. The same goes for people, since people are a country’s most important resource. Through taxation the government can influence the resource allocation of the country. That doesn’t mean that the government can’t spend without taxes though. If you want to learn more there’s plenty of resources out there, you can start with Keynes, skip anything from chicago, move on to MMT for the latest theoretical thought.

imgabe 2y ago

The government only gets money by skimming off the top of private enterprise. If the percentage is too high then there’s nothing left to skim and the system collapses, so yes we should care what the percentage is and we should want it to be as low as possible. We should be demanding ruthless efficiency from the government, not dreaming up new ways for them to take our stuff.

amrocha 2y ago
No, you have no idea how sovereign economies work. Taxes don’t fund government spending. Learn about economics before you complain about the number being too high.
- imgabe 2y ago
  > Taxes don’t fund government spending. Cool, then let's just do away with them altogether. This is great news. All those people saying I needed to pay taxes so I can have roads and schools and a military and everything must be wrong.
  - amrocha 2y ago
    Again, go read up on economics. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
    - imgabe 2y ago
      Smugly insinuating that you’re right without providing any sort of reasoning does not make you look as cool and smart as you think it does.
      - amrocha 2y ago
        You arguments so far have been “the number is too big” and “let’s get rid of all taxes” so I don’t feel like you’re very serious about having a discussion.
        imgabe 2y ago
        Look, if you actually knew what you were talking about you would be able to explain it in a few sentences. I'm guessing you're misremembering something you never really understood from the econ elective you took in college ten years ago and so all you can do is say "go read a book" because you don't really understand it beyond a vague notion that taxes are somehow unnecessary to fund the government. Like, just as a basic common sense test, if it were possible for the government to spend as much as it wants without taxes, why wouldn't a politician implement that, eliminate taxes, and immediately become the most popular politician in the history of the world? If it were as easy as you say, surely that would have happened. Since it hasn't happened, it stands to reason that maybe you don't know what you're talking about when you say the government doesn't need taxes to fund spending.
        amrocha 2y ago
        Ok, I’ll explain it in a few short sentences. Assume you have a new country with no money. How does anything get done? The central bank needs to issue capital that the government then allocates first. Eventually this money makes it down to the citizens of the country who spend it. Then the government can tax that money, and that gives it non-inflationary spending room to reallocate those resources. For example, there’s a car company that’s using up most of the country’s steel supply. But the government wants to shift the country’s manufacturing from cars to other green industries. What the government can do is tax the car company so that it’s not able to use up as much steel, which frees up resources for other industries to utilize. The same goes for people, since people are a country’s most important resource. Through taxation the government can influence the resource allocation of the country. That doesn’t mean that the government can’t spend without taxes though. If you want to learn more there’s plenty of resources out there, you can start with Keynes, skip anything from chicago, move on to MMT for the latest theoretical thought.