Charity is voluntary taxes. I understand that the idea of taxes is that it forces everyone to pay their fair share. And I get that. But people advocating for higher taxes seem to usually be wanting other people’s taxes to go up, but not their own. A lot of people are struggling these days and can’t afford higher taxes.
Thanks for proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you also don’t understand the economy. Charity is not voluntary taxes. Charity is keeping money in circulation, just through different channels than normal. Taxes is removal of currency from the overall system. We literally used to burn the currency that was collected. Taxes are an anti-inflationary device that ends the government fiscal cycle.
Well I don’t know what country you’re in, but in western countries the tax revenue is part of the budget where government spending is offset by tax revenue. Pretty much the only way money is destroyed is default loans.
In most western countries (EU aside), governments have central banks capable of literally minting an unlimited amount of currency. The US government can create an unlimited amount of US Dollars, Canada with Canadian, UK with Pounds, Japan with Yen. If the government can, by definition and at a keyboard stroke, create as much currency as it wants, it becomes self-evident that the purpose of taxation cannot be the funding of the state, because the state can get an unlimited amount of funding without recurring to taxes.
Taxes are a form of money destruction, i.e., removal from the private sector. This serves anti-inflation purposes, but also can be used to redistribute wealth (by destroying more currency from individuals with more wealth than others), to discourage behaviors (destroy currency when consuming unhealthy products such as sugar of tobacco through specific taxes), and also importantly, to enforce the usage of your currency (if people are compulsorily and regularly taxed in one currency, they need to earn that currency, and if they don’t they’ll be subjected to penalties).
That’s one way to look at it, but not how the accounts are drawn. If they are creating more than they are ‘destroying’ then is that really destroying anything? Regardless, to control inflation, or to balance budgets, it’s part of a complex system that balances resource availability, and promotes productivity.
That’s one way to look at it, but not how the accounts are drawn
The accounts ideologically being drawn otherwise is purely political, and the fact that neoliberalism propagates lies about the way taxes work is a tool to serve the powerful. If people realize we could just create money to make state-funded job guarantees with low risk of inflation, capital is fucked.
it’s part of a complex system that balances resource availability, and promotes productivity
Austerity policy has kept Europe at essentially 0 net growth on average since 2008. That doesn’t look too productive to me
Not in the US,where I live. It’s an anti-inflationary device that happens after the money was printed and spent by the government, then the people. You don’t know how the economy works.
Not really.
Taxes ≠ charity. Yes really.
Charity is voluntary taxes. I understand that the idea of taxes is that it forces everyone to pay their fair share. And I get that. But people advocating for higher taxes seem to usually be wanting other people’s taxes to go up, but not their own. A lot of people are struggling these days and can’t afford higher taxes.
Thanks for proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you also don’t understand the economy. Charity is not voluntary taxes. Charity is keeping money in circulation, just through different channels than normal. Taxes is removal of currency from the overall system. We literally used to burn the currency that was collected. Taxes are an anti-inflationary device that ends the government fiscal cycle.
Well I don’t know what country you’re in, but in western countries the tax revenue is part of the budget where government spending is offset by tax revenue. Pretty much the only way money is destroyed is default loans.
In most western countries (EU aside), governments have central banks capable of literally minting an unlimited amount of currency. The US government can create an unlimited amount of US Dollars, Canada with Canadian, UK with Pounds, Japan with Yen. If the government can, by definition and at a keyboard stroke, create as much currency as it wants, it becomes self-evident that the purpose of taxation cannot be the funding of the state, because the state can get an unlimited amount of funding without recurring to taxes.
Taxes are a form of money destruction, i.e., removal from the private sector. This serves anti-inflation purposes, but also can be used to redistribute wealth (by destroying more currency from individuals with more wealth than others), to discourage behaviors (destroy currency when consuming unhealthy products such as sugar of tobacco through specific taxes), and also importantly, to enforce the usage of your currency (if people are compulsorily and regularly taxed in one currency, they need to earn that currency, and if they don’t they’ll be subjected to penalties).
That’s one way to look at it, but not how the accounts are drawn. If they are creating more than they are ‘destroying’ then is that really destroying anything? Regardless, to control inflation, or to balance budgets, it’s part of a complex system that balances resource availability, and promotes productivity.
The accounts ideologically being drawn otherwise is purely political, and the fact that neoliberalism propagates lies about the way taxes work is a tool to serve the powerful. If people realize we could just create money to make state-funded job guarantees with low risk of inflation, capital is fucked.
Austerity policy has kept Europe at essentially 0 net growth on average since 2008. That doesn’t look too productive to me
Not in the US,where I live. It’s an anti-inflationary device that happens after the money was printed and spent by the government, then the people. You don’t know how the economy works.