It comes to one's mind that the symbiosis is so strong that it seems possible most modern states are creations of 'corporations', with politics being merely an old puppet show.
Why didn’t you add that one as one of the taxmen? The taxman is more than a bodyguard he also helps the capitalist accumulate wealth through corporate welfare. Your analysis portrays redistribution as something that goes to the poor. This is bad analysis. MOST of the redistribution goes to support business and economic growth. There is a website dedicated to corporate welfare called Good Jobs First. It’s also the policy of all local economic development programs. In addition, almost all local governments are completely dominated by local business associations called chambers of commerce (in the US). Thus, the capitalist class literally uses the government budget as their own piggy bank. This means that the taxman as a robber is not just libertarian; it’s right and its real. Anyone with half a brain should be mad about it. You seem to discount it.
In addition, all of the other taxmen you propose are unnecessary or false (the MMT taxman). Under socialism there is no need for taxation except for a small citizen head tax and for financial reporting purposes. There is no need to tax anyone for public goods or welfare, or to use for sticks and carrots. And again, the MMT version is EMPIRICALLY false. (I can provide sources).
What do you mean by MOST? What kind of percentual do you esteem it in relation to the redistribution to the poor? (In france for example its quite big the second, i'm not sure about the first though..) And of wich country are we talking about?
And your last axiom it seems to me a bit exaggerated, sticks and carrots do exist, like when the state finance some crop growing or the renewal of a car etc etc... or rise the tax for imports or pensions(:"go to the private!") Etc etc...
I understand your rage though.. and your iperboles...
It's great to have the polarising subject of tax handled in a way that draws you in and I love the bodyguard twist at the end. It is a good way to get us to begin to apply more discernment around what we are told by politicians, economists and banks. The wave (goodbye) is coming...
Tax used to be explained as our communal subscription to society,to being a full adult member of your community. It validated you the same as getting married,having a career type job,being literate,going to church ( or mosque of temple).I remember that world of certainty,those days.
Thank you, Brett Scott! As a member of the 99%, I've always found the taxman a bit of a conundrum—after all, there's so many uneducated and conflicting opinions out there and it wasn't discussed in my college economics courses.
Well, MMT is a descriptive framework for the operations of monetary system, rather than something that 'works' or 'doesn't work'.
When someone says something like 'MMT doesn't work in poorer countries', what they are really saying is 'a less powerful government has less ability to make use of its money system without ramifications from international markets'.
Imagine, for example, a description of a car as a 'four-wheeled carriage with a motor'. You can have a very powerful car with a high capacity to do stuff, or a very low-capacity car that struggles to even get up a hill, but they both operate with the same mechanism
Likewise, the US dollar has similar operational dynamics to the South African rand, but the former is far more powerful, and so has much more leeway to lean into that power. The reality is that all governments - including conservative governments - always 'do MMT' every single time they spend on anything (for example, when Trump funds ICE to do raids, he's 'doing MMT' and when Cyril Ramaphosa in South Africa funds housing he's doing the same) but they seldom describe it as such.
When conservatives are attacking MMT, what they are attacking is a straw man, in which they imagine that MMT is flagrant spending without caring about inflation, when in reality MMT is a paradigm that *only cares about inflation* as the true constraint on government spending
It comes to one's mind that the symbiosis is so strong that it seems possible most modern states are creations of 'corporations', with politics being merely an old puppet show.
Its not just possible, its reality.
Taxman #6: the Billionaire’s Bodyguard
Why didn’t you add that one as one of the taxmen? The taxman is more than a bodyguard he also helps the capitalist accumulate wealth through corporate welfare. Your analysis portrays redistribution as something that goes to the poor. This is bad analysis. MOST of the redistribution goes to support business and economic growth. There is a website dedicated to corporate welfare called Good Jobs First. It’s also the policy of all local economic development programs. In addition, almost all local governments are completely dominated by local business associations called chambers of commerce (in the US). Thus, the capitalist class literally uses the government budget as their own piggy bank. This means that the taxman as a robber is not just libertarian; it’s right and its real. Anyone with half a brain should be mad about it. You seem to discount it.
In addition, all of the other taxmen you propose are unnecessary or false (the MMT taxman). Under socialism there is no need for taxation except for a small citizen head tax and for financial reporting purposes. There is no need to tax anyone for public goods or welfare, or to use for sticks and carrots. And again, the MMT version is EMPIRICALLY false. (I can provide sources).
What do you mean by MOST? What kind of percentual do you esteem it in relation to the redistribution to the poor? (In france for example its quite big the second, i'm not sure about the first though..) And of wich country are we talking about?
And your last axiom it seems to me a bit exaggerated, sticks and carrots do exist, like when the state finance some crop growing or the renewal of a car etc etc... or rise the tax for imports or pensions(:"go to the private!") Etc etc...
I understand your rage though.. and your iperboles...
It's great to have the polarising subject of tax handled in a way that draws you in and I love the bodyguard twist at the end. It is a good way to get us to begin to apply more discernment around what we are told by politicians, economists and banks. The wave (goodbye) is coming...
Somehow, I know I should read this and I am scared!
Tax used to be explained as our communal subscription to society,to being a full adult member of your community. It validated you the same as getting married,having a career type job,being literate,going to church ( or mosque of temple).I remember that world of certainty,those days.
Thank you, Brett Scott! As a member of the 99%, I've always found the taxman a bit of a conundrum—after all, there's so many uneducated and conflicting opinions out there and it wasn't discussed in my college economics courses.
I read somewhere that the concept of MMT only works in so called “wealthy” countries, e.g. USA, UK etc... what am I missing?
Well, MMT is a descriptive framework for the operations of monetary system, rather than something that 'works' or 'doesn't work'.
When someone says something like 'MMT doesn't work in poorer countries', what they are really saying is 'a less powerful government has less ability to make use of its money system without ramifications from international markets'.
Imagine, for example, a description of a car as a 'four-wheeled carriage with a motor'. You can have a very powerful car with a high capacity to do stuff, or a very low-capacity car that struggles to even get up a hill, but they both operate with the same mechanism
Likewise, the US dollar has similar operational dynamics to the South African rand, but the former is far more powerful, and so has much more leeway to lean into that power. The reality is that all governments - including conservative governments - always 'do MMT' every single time they spend on anything (for example, when Trump funds ICE to do raids, he's 'doing MMT' and when Cyril Ramaphosa in South Africa funds housing he's doing the same) but they seldom describe it as such.
When conservatives are attacking MMT, what they are attacking is a straw man, in which they imagine that MMT is flagrant spending without caring about inflation, when in reality MMT is a paradigm that *only cares about inflation* as the true constraint on government spending
So, MMT is a theory that describes a phenomenon ;-)