4 ms·

Only of the government both simultaneously refuses to raise taxes and refuses to control spending. Because the central bank can choose to set the rate, as Japan

Only of the government both simultaneously refuses to raise taxes and refuses to control spending. Because the central bank can choose to set the rate, as Japan did for decades. Given the wealth distribution of the population has become so unequal, raising taxes for the purposes of lowering the deficit is a politically impossible option. So the only politically feasible option is controlling spending.

BugsJustFindMe 12d ago
> "Given the wealth distribution of the population has become so unequal, raising taxes for the purposes of lowering the deficit is a politically impossible option. So the only politically feasible option is controlling spending." I'd like you to spell out your thought process, because I completely disagree with the relationship between your given and your conclusion, and I'd like to know what you're thinking.
- fallingfrog 12d ago
  I would assume the thought process is that the people with all the wealth are able to use that wealth to purchase political power, and they will not allow themselves to be taxed.
  - BugsJustFindMe 12d ago
    Your assumption came from your head, not theirs. There are other possibilities too. We gain nothing of value by assuming.
- drmathias 11d ago
  In Britain for example, 64% of the population oppose raising income taxes and 84% oppose raising inheritance taxes. The only politically popular tax is a general wealth tax which has 77% in favour. It is generally accepted a wealth tax will not directly meaningfully lower the deficit. There's also examples of those who would be affected spending massive sums of money lobbying against such taxes and threatening capital flight. These are generally the same group of people as political donors. Studies also show 84% of people across the top 36 major countries believe wealth inequality is a problem in their country. This leads me to draw the conclusion that politically popular tax policy and wealth inequality are closely intertwined. All these things considered, a political party evaluating the risk of policy changes on their polling would always pick the option of reducing spending.
  - deleted 11d ago
    [deleted]

BugsJustFindMe 12d ago

> "Given the wealth distribution of the population has become so unequal, raising taxes for the purposes of lowering the deficit is a politically impossible option. So the only politically feasible option is controlling spending." I'd like you to spell out your thought process, because I completely disagree with the relationship between your given and your conclusion, and I'd like to know what you're thinking.

fallingfrog 12d ago
I would assume the thought process is that the people with all the wealth are able to use that wealth to purchase political power, and they will not allow themselves to be taxed.
- BugsJustFindMe 12d ago
  Your assumption came from your head, not theirs. There are other possibilities too. We gain nothing of value by assuming.
drmathias 11d ago
In Britain for example, 64% of the population oppose raising income taxes and 84% oppose raising inheritance taxes. The only politically popular tax is a general wealth tax which has 77% in favour. It is generally accepted a wealth tax will not directly meaningfully lower the deficit. There's also examples of those who would be affected spending massive sums of money lobbying against such taxes and threatening capital flight. These are generally the same group of people as political donors. Studies also show 84% of people across the top 36 major countries believe wealth inequality is a problem in their country. This leads me to draw the conclusion that politically popular tax policy and wealth inequality are closely intertwined. All these things considered, a political party evaluating the risk of policy changes on their polling would always pick the option of reducing spending.
- deleted 11d ago
  [deleted]