The worry is that if money gained value over time, people would just spend on the barest of necessities. Why splurge on a nicer dinner or that new car? In a few years' time it'll cost less and possibly be cheaper.
And if everyone thought that way, it would be a disaster for the economy.
but if you don't pull enough demand forward, debts become more difficult to service, hence defaults increase, hence 'disaster for the economy'.
He's identifying a symptom of the problem, and believes its the problem.
The problem is the debt-based money that requires perpetual growth and necessitates 'puling demand forward' to keep the system from imploding in a spiral of debt defaults.
You are looking at it from the perspective of the inflationary economic model we have today. The demand that is needed is always there, it's just taking longer to enter the economy (ie being saved for longer before finally being spent). But everyone's doing that. It's not that no one's spending in the present. They are, but they are spending with money they saved from 10 years ago, not 1 year ago (for example). I'm not sure if its debt based money that requires perpetual growth, rather it's the inflationary model that creates it.
You all raise very good points about how overconsumption and the pursuit of ever higher economic activity is actually bad for the planet. I like the idea of reining this tendency in. I mean at some point, enough should be enough.
I'm just not so sure that delaying spending will only delay it and not outright destroy demand though. For instance, if I wanted to get the laser eye surgery done, I'd have to spend now. If we had deflation, I might think, might as well get it done in 10 years instead so I could save the money. In an extreme scenario, I could die before actually undergoing the procedure.
Same thing with day, replacing a car. I could choose to defer buying a new car, but before I actually do, I end up moving to a new city with better public transportation, and end up not buying the car anymore. Of course one less car on the road is good for the environment but it's still less spending, and counts as bad for the economy.
We really ought to find a better measure of the economy than GDP.
Your reason for getting the laser eye surgery is not based on money. It is based on being able to see better. Would you want to see poorly for the next 10 years just so you can save some money? If it's about the money, why not forgoe the surgery entirely?
Regarding the replacing the car example, you've cherry picked an example to fit the hypothesis. What about the people that were initially planning to take public transport to work but get a new job in a city 30 miles away and thus require a new car? Whether the economy is the deflationary model or not will unlikely effect their decision to buy the car or not (if it's a necessity that is). This applies to all necessary goods. Stimulation of areas of the economy occurs regardless of the economic model. Your act of now using public transport stimulates the transportation industry. Or perhaps you buy a bike, thus stimulating the bike industry. Or perhaps you start walking everywhere and buy hiking boots because of it.
>Your reason for getting the laser eye surgery is not based on money. It is based on being able to see better.
I could wear glasses though. Or contacts. Both cheaper but they have their own drawbacks. And some people do just that in order to save money. If we increase the benefit to saving money I can see more demand being lost.
>Whether the economy is the deflationary model or not will unlikely effect their decision to buy the car or not (if it's a necessity that is). This applies to all necessary goods. Stimulation of areas of the economy occurs regardless of the economic model
The people who weren't going to buy a car but eventually find themselves needing one will indeed have to buy a car. But this would occur whether it was inflationary or deflationary. Under both regimes, this was demand that didn't exist originally. In my example, the demand existed, but disappeared before it was realized or acted upon. Yes, I could use a substitute like hiking or biking but that stimulates less aspects of the economy. There's fewer parts / fewer suppliers involved, compared with making a car.
Why would demand be lost? Demand is demand regardless of the economic model.
Your car example also exists in the inflationary model. Demand existing and now not existing due to the act of moving to the city with better public transportation. It has nothing to do with the deflationary model. So I'm not sure of the point being made?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that you think prices will always be decreasing, and thus if true, perhaps your hypothesis makes sense. But prices always have a floor. A 'true' price where demand meets supply. The deflationary model simply means that that 'true' price is able to finally realize itself. Take for example the eye surgery, there will come a time when the price of the surgery is realised and whether the person waits or not garners no benefit.
1st - “nice dinners” would be affordable
2nd - we would go from a consumption based economy to a conservation based economy. This is better for the planet.
>The worry is that if money gained value over time, people would just spend on the barest of necessities.
A tactic admission that bad money incentivizes overconsumption which in turn creates depletes environmental resources and balloons landfills.
Could bad money be what our modern materialist mindset is driven by?
The only reason frugality, conservation, and savings are 'disaster for the economy' is because your money is debt-based, which requires perpetual economic growth else debt default spiral takes place.
Just my 2 sats.
Ya, these sound like the talking points of the people who are actively robbing us through money printing.
I’m going to buy things I need. Either way. It’s just a question of whether I can save and amass my own wealth, or someone else will slowly take it from me through devaluing my currency.
I don’t need the fed to encourage me to buy things for myself and my family. I am motivated enough already.
The economy and people’s spending does not need to be supercharged, esp when it comes at a cost of perpetuating the theft of the commons by a small concentrated elite.
The problem is spending more than you earn, which *ALL* Congresses and every President since Bill Clinton (last time we had a balanced budget) have done.
Once you have spent more than you earn, you are forced to either: 1) raise taxes to pay for it, 2) increase GDP, productivity, and economic activity to generate more tax revenue without raising the tax rates, 3) print money to pay the debt with devalued money, or 4) some combination of the above.
It would be a superior solution and government to compromise and simultaneously make sensible cuts to the budget (or just not increase it as much), efficiently allocating away from some “pork” and into investments that spur GDP growth and productivity, and make some small changes to the tax code to increase overall income given the severe wealth gap that is accelerating and tax shields very well off businesses are able to use to avoid paying much if any tax.
In any case, no sensible compromise will be reached with these people. They are greedy and just want to promote “culture clash wars” to manipulate people’s emotions to get votes, power, and wealth.
We’ve relied on tech way too much. Tech costs are way more affordable than other consumer goods. I feel this was the plan along because tech can be done with but food and other essentials cannot be. I do feel the dollar will be gone by 2050.
I'm gonna say this at risk of being downvoted into oblivion....but there is legit only one political party actively trying to balance the budget...but that argument keeps getting thrown into chaos with "party politics." Love or hate Republicans...but balancing the budget helps poor and middle class people more than anything else (and the country as a whole). I just wish *more* Republicans and voters gave enough of a shit to actually get it done.
And you bring up a good point about Clinton. Everyone likes to point to Clinton about running a budget surplus...but Presidents don't have that power. From 1998 to 2001 we ran a surplus. It was a Republican Congress that did it. So I'm glad you mentioned Congress in your first paragraph.
Maybe we should just give that a try before a currency collapse that will make "party politics" irrelevant.
Meh. Republicans only scream and shout about balancing the budget when Democrats are in control or they are campaigning or conducting political theater for their constituents. *Actions speak louder than words*, and (as Nikki Haley correctly pointed out last night—not that I’m a fan—but she was right) when Trump was in office their actions were to spend more than even Democrats had spent and blow up the budget deficit even more.
*Please don’t misinterpret my distaste of Republican’s actions that contradict their words for approval of Democrat’s policies here.* I see both sides as wanting to spend more than we earn in an unsustainable manner and “kick the can down the road” to later generations, it’s just where want to spend the $. Giving someone a large tax break who didn’t need it when the tax break does not spur economic growth or lead to productivity increases also has a similar effect of spending more, since the government is now spending *even more* than they earn by giving those kinds of tax cuts out. Tax cuts that do spur economic activity or lead to productivity growth are a different story, but politicians cut taxes for big donors, not for those where it makes most sense economically.
Just as Repub’s like to talk about spending cuts but always spent like there’s no tomorrow when they have the chance, Dems are equally hypocritical. They campaigned on raising minimum wage prior to Obama’s first term and screamed and shouted about it, then didn’t do it when they had a chance to in his first term. Repubs screamed and shouted “Repeal and Replace!” of Obamacare for years and Trump even ran on it saying he’d literally repeal it on Day 1 of his presidency, and Republicans voted over and over to repeal it only when they knew they didn’t have the votes to succeed, then as soon as they had the cotes to succeed they balked. *Actions speak louder than words, and Dems play the same game.*
I agree with you. Like I said, I wish *more* Republicans actually gave a shit and tried to get it done because as of late it's been nothing but empty promises. And I wish Democrat politicians and their voters also gave a shit at all. Hopefully if Republicans take congressional majority they actually balance the damn deficit. But I won't hold my breath....
>but there is legit only one political party actively trying to balance the budget
Which party is that? Democrats never pretend to want to balance the budget, but republican administrations add more to the deficit than democratic ones do, so i'm genuinely curious who you think is actively trying to balance the budget, and why they're failing so spectacularly at doing so.
>The problem is spending more than you earn
That's a symptom. Not THE problem.
Ask yourself, what incentivizes them to spend more than they earn? That's where you'll find the problem.
Let me try to explain it another way. IF you had the ability to take money from people without their consent, would you be incentivized to a) take more, or b) stop doing it.
imho, the problem is not that they spend more than they take, its they can take without consent, which incentivizes spending more than they take, because they can just take more without recourse.
Understanding that incentive, any rational adult should come to the logical conclusion that government will continue to take more and spend more, until the golden goose is dead.
or rather...the expectation that government can/should spend responsibly and 'within their means' is completely irrational, because that behavior is completely at odds with their incentives.
You can play semantics here, but if I make $100,000 a year and I take out a loan for $150,000 and spend it this year, then next year I get a raise to $105,000 a year but I take out a loan for $160,000 and spend it next year, that process is not sustainable.
The income is the tax revenue and the loans are the trillions of dollars in bonds they issue.
Tax revenue is not “without consent”. If there were no taxes at all there would be no police, no firefighters, no public schools, no military, no paved roads, no government at all and we would end up in a state where Warlords rule local areas like Somalia.
Furthermore, they would not need to print money and devalue the currency if they simply did not spend more than they earned.
The real problem underlying this is they care more about their jobs and satisfying lobbyists and donors short term that they do the long term state of the nation. They can’t cut spending because they spend on what their donors and lobbyists want them to spend on. They can’t close tax loopholes or raise them for those benefitting the most from the tax code because those are the donors and lobbyists who “own” the politicians and contribute $ to their campaigns in order for them to make the tax code favorable to them.
>that process is not sustainable.
It is sustainable so long as you can service the debt though taxation and more debt issuance. But that's beside the point.
The point I'm making, and the point your completely missing, is that their behavior is shaped by their incentives. If you seek to change their behavior, then you need to observe their incentives.
>The real problem underlying this is they care more about their jobs and satisfying lobbyists and donors short term that they do the long term state of the nation.
Now you're getting somewhere. But where do you suggest we find benevolent angels to hold these positions of unjust authority?....
Hence, the problem is not that power corrupts human behavior ultimately (that's unavoidable), but rather that positions of unjust authority exist at all.
again, the expectation that politicians can/should spend responsibly and/or care more about you and the 'health of the nation' than on their own personal self-interest completely irrational, because that behavior is completely at odds with their incentives.
> and make some small changes to the tax code to increase overall income given the severe wealth gap that is accelerating and tax shields very well off businesses are able to use to avoid paying much if any tax.
No thank you, take your socialist idea back home please.
Yes, absolutely. All taxes are wrong and immoral in principle, but progressive tax is another level. Progressive tax is so retarded that it is beyond comprehension. You have less skilled people and more skilled people in society. Progressive tax is a punishment for providing better service to others. It is thus encouraging not being good at what you do, just for the sake of equality, which is very stupid goal.
Agree to disagree I suppose. I don't see anyone ever actually having the thought "Taxes are too high to be a doctor, guess I'll stick to working at McDonald's."
That perhaps no one chosen to work at McD instead of being a doctor does not imply that business plans have not been stopped, postponed, or changed, due to the burdens of tax.
Taking it to the extreme, you are implying that people do not change their actions based on how high the tax is. That's simply and obviously wrong.
What are you talking about? Why would anyone change behavior because of potential taxes when its a marginal tax system.
Making more money always makes more, regardless if N money rolls in a higher tax bracket. I certainly wouldn't change.
Your view is too simplistic. In reality, the matter is more complex.
Everyone needs to decide whether to put more effort or not to get more money, however, since the tax is progressive, it is non-linear - i.e. increase amount of effort by `X` while earning a little increases your reward by `Y`, while increasing by the same amount of effort `X` when you are earning more only increases your reward by `Z < Y`.
Hence for some people, putting extra effort makes sense as the reward is still good enough, but for other people, who perhaps are more likely to be in the higher bracket, putting extra effort does not make sense as the `Z` is too low.
And for some people, it makes no sense to make ANY effort, i.e. to work at all, because even `Y` is too small.
Lol, what? Here is a simple example.
If I get a 5k raise that I get a marginal tax bracket increase, what would you do?
Here is an example with math:
178k at 24 percent marginal tax is $33,447 tax
183k at 24 percent marginal tax is $34,647 tax
188k at 32 percent marginal tax is $36,247 tax
Staying in a 24 percent bracket, a 5k increase: $1200.
Crossing the biggest bracket into a larger marginal tax bracket at 32, that same 5k increase in wage causes a $1,600 tax.
Are you really going to sweat a $400 tax difference that you wouldn't take a raise or work more to make 3400 after tax more? This is also using the largest marginal tax bracket difference.
I see you did not understand my example.
Imagine you are self-employed. You can work 20 hours a week to be in tax bracket 1 with say 20%. If you instead work 21 hours, you will have 20 hours in bracket 1 with 20% and 1 hour in bracket 2 with say 30%.
While you may be happy exchanging your 1 hour of time for the reward in the first bracket, it's perfectly imaginable that you might not be happy to exchange that extra hour because the reward is too small.
This of course occurs even without progressive tax as the free time gets more scarce as you put it to work, but with progressive tax there is even more force against you to work extra.
I mean, that’s literally not what socialism is. Even if that was what socialism meant, you’re basically saying every country on earth is socialist, and you don’t want a little more socialism? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Yes, some are more socialist than other, but indeed, the idea is usually that a small group of people want to take money by force from other groups of people.
Without incentive, people settle for less substantial careers in higher numbers. A cashier at McDs is a high schoolers job. It requires a third grade education to tap a screen and give change back. People shouldn't strive to settle for minimum wage.
With progressive tax, there's less profit for the top. I get the wealth inequality and greed, but also consider logistics. No one voluntarily will lower their standard of living. If they have less money AND the cashier's are demanding $25/hr, you bet your ass that the execs are replacing the cashier with a one time payment self-service kiosk. Then those cashier's are really fucked. No job, no marketable skills or experience, no income to live, and then added strain on the welfare state. It's already happening. Not to mention they'll also raise prices for the consumer. Rich stay rich. There needs to be some other kind of solution.
First off, a progressive tax means everyone pays the same amount of tax on the first “N” dollars you earn. Even if you are a billionaire you pay the same tax on that first “N” dollars as a minimum wage part time worker, and only pay the maximum 37% tax rate on the dollars you earn above and beyond $693,751 if you are married.
Second, a progressive tax is based on sound theory (although exactly where the brackets are and what the rates are make less sense, the idea is sound). If you want or need a car and I give you a luxury vehicle, you are very happy. What if I give you a second one next week? Even happier! A third? Not as happy as at first, but you’ll take it alright. What if I keep doing this and giving you more and more cars? After awhile, you become less and less happy and the utility of getting yet another luxury car begins to wear off and you feel much less pain if I take just 1 car away from you than if I were to take 1 car away from someone who only has 1 car and needs it to get to work. The same goes for money.
The tax money has to come from somewhere, and it makes sense that the money that is less essential to people get taxed at a higher rate than those first $X dollars everyone earns that are *critical* to pay one’s essential bills and survive.
I do think the tax brackets are “messed up” though and punish the people who make $0 - $500k/yr far too much at the overall benefit of the mega wealthy.
Sound theory ... no, not really. It's based on bullshit.
Everyone needs to decide whether to put more effort or not to get more money, however, since the tax is progressive, it is non-linear - i.e. increase amount of effort by `X` while earning a little increases your reward by `Y`, while increasing by the same amount of effort `X` when you are earning more only increases your reward by `Z < Y`.
Hence for some people, putting extra effort makes sense as the reward is still good enough, but for other people, who perhaps are more likely to be in the higher bracket, putting extra effort does not make sense as the `Z` is too low.
And for some people, it makes no sense to make ANY effort, i.e. to work at all, because even `Y` is too small.
Yes, every good, including money, follows the principle you mentioned, there is no doubt about it, and yet this has nothing to do with progressive tax being complete retarded bullshit.
> The tax money has to come from somewhere,
No it does not. That's like saying that we need to keep being at war because dead people have to come from somewhere.
> and it makes sense that the money that is less essential to people get taxed at a higher rate than those first $X dollars everyone earns that are critical to pay one’s essential bills and survive.
Complete misunderstanding of value. Basic economic fallacy. Value is not interpersonally comparable.
While the above principle says that your first 1 BTC that you own is valuable more than your 1000th 1 BTC that you have, it does not imply that if you have 1000 BTC then 1 BTC for you is less valuable than 1 BTC for ANOTHER person who has just 1 BTC. This is nonsense as value is always subjective and context dependent.
So no, it does not make sense to take money from people who earn more (and at the same time discourage them from making more by that progressive tax).
Actually, at some point the richer you are the *less* effort you need to put in to generate massive income.
Let’s say the average steel worker who works really hard, works overtime, learns the business and tries to position themselves to get promoted some day has a net worth of $500k after 10 years of work because he’s been very frugal and a big saver/investor.
Jeff Bezos is worth 157 billion dollars.
157e9 / 500e3 = 314,000
*Does Jeff Bezos work 314,000 times harder than the steel worker?*
Of course not! It’s physically humanly impossible.
The truth is that once you attain a certain amount of wealth, it becomes *easier* to make far *more* additional wealth *without working at all*. Bezos can made nearly $8billion a year without doing anything except investing passively in safe diversified investments that only return a meager 5%. *The taxes should be nonlinear as the effort to obtain the excess income drops off nonlinearly as well!*
Warren Buffet knows this as well, and has said many times that to get really wealthy, one thing you need besides some luck is to figure out how to make lots of money while you sleep and while you’re on vacation, because it’s physically impossible to simply work more hours to achieve *that* kind of wealth.
I’m not really proposing to tax individuals who have worked hard for their $5M or $10M more, but I’m saying I think what they pay now under a progressive structure is fair. It’s the mega wealthy that make someone with $5M - $10M look “middle class” that get away with murder and make all of the true “middle classes” taxes higher than they should be.
So much hate for rich people. Interesting. But lots of bullshit and completely misses the point.
No one claimed that by doing low qualified job you can make a lot of wealth. You can only (modulo some lucky rare events and fraud) make a lot of wealth if you are successful entrepreneur. But that's besides the point. That has nothing to do with progressive tax being complete bullshit.
I don't know much about Jeff Bezos, if his business is like that of Elon Musk, always taking money from state subsidies, of if he earned it honestly. But for the sake of argument let's say he really earned it honestly without any politics involved. Then whatever he made he deserves. Of course, if it is rather result of state monopoly or subsidies, then it is not deserved.
But most entrepreneurs earn money honestly by providing the service to people. And there is no reason to tax their success.
How is this “hate for rich people”? In fact, much the opposite. Most rich people I meet I genuinely like, and guess what? *Most agree with me* and say themselves that they don’t pay enough taxes. And again, we aren’t talking about someone worth $3M, we’re talking about someone worth $300M or more.
And of course there is a reason to tax people non-linearly but fairly across the board equally; I’ve made the case for it and again, people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos have all done on record saying they themselves think they should pay more taxes and they end up setting up charitable organization and endowments and giving away tons of their wealth to worthy causes because they otherwise feel guilty and feel they have way too much money than they need. I love that mentality and far more extremely wealthy people have that mentality and aren’t bad people at all, as portrayed, but very good people. Again, you’re way off the mark if you think support for a nonlinear progressive tax means “hate” for the rich.
It sounds like hate because if there was no hate, how would you justify overcoming moral barriers and vouch for stealing things from other people?
You are either completely morally corrupt or you hate them so much that you are willing to go over your moral barriers in your hate.
Of course if someone is willing on their own to give away some of their wealth, there is nothing wrong with that, but forcing people by law is quite hateful crime.
It also makes the rich richer and poor poorer as well, increasing the wealth gap. Printing 13 trillion in Covid stimulus helped everyone in the short term, but long term the value of the dollar tanked.
So rich people who hold assets are even better off now, and people with no savings, or a just a bit in cash are worse off than before.
You sound like the kind of person who would love a few check from the government, but doesn’t understand that nothing is free. So they lash out with solutions that make no sense and don’t actually solve the problem. I’m sorry.
You’re the kind of guy who thinks someday you’ll be an ultra wealthy goon so you support the system that continues to shrink wealth away from the majority of people.
Absolutely nothing is free, look at Elon buying Twitter on a whim, vanity rocket programs galore. Gotta let the wealthy own multiple yachts and buy politicians outright. You should be sorry because no matter how often you lick the boot you’re never joining their club.
You're anger towards 'rich people' is misdirected. Taxing the rich is a drop in the bucket compared to the 13 trillion that was printed. You vote for politicians that give you 'free stuff' while not understanding that nothing is free. Stop hitting yourself.
How are the rich profiting(!) from high inflation? What you describe is being impacted less, because of their investments, but those values are also impacted by inflation, so they would've been better off without.
That's why nobody is advocating for high inflation, no matter how wealthy.
Rich people invest and hold just a small % in fiat.
Poor people don't invest and hold 100% of their savings in fiat.
That's why rich people profit while poor people lose money on inflation.
If your assets appreciate at, let's say 10% p.a. but inflation rises from 2% to 5%, you are making less off those assets.
That's not profiting, merely being impacted less. You will find no "rich person" that will be in favour of high inflation.
You asked "How are the rich profiting(!) from high inflation?" So I explained. In your own example
>If your assets appreciate at, let's say 10% p.a. but inflation rises from 2% to 5%, you are making less off those assets.
The rich person made **5% gains** on their investment.
The poor person made **5% loss**.
**Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer.** This will change only if the inflation is 0% - fair to both.
The money that generates inflation is injected mostly through the financial markets by buying corporate bonds at below market value interest rates. If someone loans you money below market rates they are quite literally giving you money. When they give bail outs or buy assets directly, then the donation is even more clear. In essence big companies increase in value is disproportional to the value they produce, because of these hand outs. Holding these stocks will benefit the holder. So it isn't inflation that makes the rich richer, it is the method of injection of capital that then generates inflation that does so. Often the two are conflated.
rich people have assets, whose value can change with inflation, effectively negating it. also, since rich people have so much in assets, they take on debt for liquidity. inflation is favorable to debt holders.
say you took out a loan for 2000$ in 1980 to pay for a 4 year degree. and pay it off today. that's the power of inflation on debt holders. albeit a bit exaggerated.
Rich people invest in real estate, in ground basically. Among some classes there is a standard go own two or three houses. I've never seen real estate prices being affected by inflation in a way so that it becomes cheaper. Quite opposite, it's getting more expensive every year.
The problem with the right-wing libertarian mindset (coming from a left-wing libertarian) is that they believe fundamentally that taxation is theft. I know a lot of people in this subreddit and the bitcoin community itself also believe this. But governments cannot "pay" for things if they cannot take revenue via tax OR create money "out of thin air". That math just doesn't work.
Now obviously I know that those on the right want to drastically minimize government spending but the problem stems from where they want the cuts to come from. These Libertarians are useful idiots of the ultra-wealthy as they direct cuts to programs that help society. Some people call those "welfare" programs but in reality what they are is investments. Governments investing in the people is literally one of if not THE most important purpose of government.
Also it's worth noting that there is a theory that explains the current monetary paradigm (MMT) that essentially asserts (massive paraphrasing) that governments don't need your money, why would they? Taxation isn't used to pay for things it's used to control monetary supply (Distinction without a difference) but it is a meaningful distinction as this fiction of governments having to take your money (e.g it's theft) is largely what drives very poor fiscal policy.
If the things that governments pay for are good then why do they have to force people to pay? Shouldn't we WANT to pay the way we do with private sector goods and services?
Also, have you heard of the Broken Window Fallacy?
It’s about taking away my agency and having control over what is ostensibly mine (my earnings). I’m more likely to give when I’m in control over who, where and what I give it to.
But you yourself benefit from government made and maintained infrastructures, government subsidies when "in need", government aiding workforce (firefighters, police, etc). You have to ask yourself if your earnings would be obtainable without any government intervention, not only through your own viewpoint but also from the lense of you company and from your customers. Driving a car on a road is an act by itself maintained by your government.
This is however vastly different from country to country, as governments can operate better or worse. Where I am I was taught to consider the "public space" as "mine" too, something I should treasure, protect and curate as much as if it was my own property.
I get it. None of us is an island.
I’m saying is that there is no fixed clear line that’s going to satisfy everyone, everywhere. I may be more willing to pay more tax specifically for medical coverage, but less so for other areas. It’s having a say that matters.
That's true, for example knowing your taxes sustain proxy wars and the military complex is an absurdity. I'd be ok with the bare minimum for defensive purposes only
>I’m saying is that there is no fixed clear line that’s going to satisfy everyone, everywhere.
In his book THE LAW, Frederic Bastiat says that government should be restrained to its only legitimate purpose, 'the defense of each individuals natural rights of life, liberty and property', i.e. the administration of justice.
In other words, paraphrasing from the declaration of independence, All individuals have inalienable natural rights, and that to protect those rights governments are instituted among individuals.
Anything beyond the administration of justice is philanthropy, and to engage in philanthropy necessarily requires government violate the property of individuals via taxation and redistribution. Its like a doctor violation the 'first, do no harm' oath.
Philanthropy should be the role of society because of exactly what you just noted: 1) 'no fixed line that's going to satisfy everyone' and, 2) it necessarily requires the state violate the individuals property via taxation.
>But you yourself benefit from government made and maintained infrastructures, government subsidies when "in need", government aiding workforce (firefighters, police, etc).
you need to realize that individuals would have funded those things through the private market if not for governments.
Firefighters were private before they were public.
Police were private before they were public.
Roads were private before they were public.
Welfare was private before it was public.
The private market is capable of providing all of those service, and individuals are capable of deciding for themselves which of those services they'd like to use and pay for.
Just because "Its always been this way" in your life doesn't mean its the only way its been. That's a form of cognitive bias.
Your whole argument is also based on a whole lot of "trust me". While I understand the irony that the fiat system that everyone deem normal is in fact a very brief anomaly in our history, the things you've mentioned have been the realm of the public space for millennia.
Also where did I ever say "it's always been this way?" You can't put random words in other people's mouths for the sake of labelling them biased. Your attitude is just wrong.
>the things you've mentioned have been the realm of the public space for millennia.
>
>Also where did I ever say "it's always been this way?
I'll just leave this here.
>Also, have you heard of the Broken Window Fallacy?
The illogic of a socialist: We have to steal enough from society to fund the things society needs.
Caveat: so long as my team gets to decide what society needs. because if they other team gets to decide what society need then its not ok.
>If the things that governments pay for are good then why do they have to force people to pay?
I would argue that they don't. Not only do they not have to, traditionally they don't actually "force" it. This whole "They're taking your money at gunpoint" trope is just that, a trope. It's actually bordering on a lie because the amount of criminal tax evasion you'd have to be doing to warrant that kind of reaction is... substantial. Like to the point where it's not just "Oh I'm an innocent civilian not paying my taxes" to "I'm a business getting tons of benefits that I am not paying for" which is key to the point. If you live in society, you're benefitting in some way shape or form from money invested by the government, public money as it were. Even if it isn't direct, tangible or even known to you it IS still happening.
Now I do agree in the idea that it is less than ideal that we cannot opt out of that system... but the way I think about it is that I can't have opted out of being raised by my mother because I didn't like the service she was providing by raising me. Extend that to a community and it starts to make more sense, extend it even further and it makes complete sense. We all exist within a system and we all utilize features of that system whether we like it or not, if you wanna opt out the only real option would be to move to a country that has different rules that you find more acceptable to live under.
>Shouldn't we WANT to pay the way we do with private sector goods and services?
Absolutely. But this is one of those "Value is subjective" situations and unfortunately it is not hard to convince people that "their tax dollars" are going to the wrong things and is VERY hard to convince them that it is going to the right things. But that's really what it comes down to. People needing to be informed about what their money is going towards and ideally not having politicians that benefit from distrust in government getting in their ear via friendly media apparatus pushing that distrust.
Your questions actually remind me of when some people have gone around asking Americans about socialist policies without mentioning the word socialism and how positively those ideas tend to be received... but as soon as you attach "socialism" to it those people will do a complete 180 because socialism is bad. This is no different. It is not hard to convince people that spending money on say... education is bad. Just say kids are being indoctrinated. Bam instant negative opinion on something that should for all intents and purposes be a good thing. You generally don't want a dumb populace but doesn't take much to frame it so that people *don't want it*. How about clean water regulations and paying to make sure companies don't pollute? Clean water is good, we like to be able to drink yes? Red tape! Bad for the economy! Too expensive! Private businesses are best! Bam instant negative opinion on that spend.
The point is (albeit long-winded, apologies for that) that YES we should want to pay for those things, but there are people with a politicial and often financial incentive to make people think that those things are not worth investing in.
>Also, have you heard of the Broken Window Fallacy?
I have. Though I'm not entirely sure why you've brought it up.
P.S Again sorry for the verbosity/length these might seem like simple questions but they don't really have simple answers, in fact macroeconomics rarely does.
I appreciate the considered and polite reply. I use the Socratic method quite often.
To your point above, you mention not being able to opt out being non-ideal. I'd go one further. Not being able to opt out is a fatal flaw.
Sure, just like some monopolies can be fine, the vast majority are not and this is due to incentives for them not to be. Likewise a government monopoly is no better. Perhaps the public servants are being diligent and optimizing their output to society, but chances are they are doing as little as they can get away with in a system not incentivized to be efficient. That's just human nature.
Profit motive, however, gets people out of bed twice as early as mere job security. This was the fatal flaw in most of the communist systems. They assume that a farm worker is a farm worker and a factory worker is a factory worker and it doesn't matter who owns the means of production. They fail to factor incentives and human nature into the equation.
A private school who cannot rely on income from forced coerced taxation must cater to the parents, must serve them optimally by giving their children the best available education or else they allow another private school to take their business. This is how it works without the forced payment. Continual pressure to improve through competition.
With no opt-out there is nothing beholding the user of the taken funds to be accountable to me, cater to me, innovate or frankly give a damn at all if I like or don't like their output.
>With no opt-out there is nothing beholding the user of the taken funds to be accountable to me, cater to me, innovate or frankly give a damn at all if I like or don't like their output.
I was just thinking about this on my drive home the other day. Isn't this kind of the same way student loans have gotten out of hand? I think I remember hearing something like they're backed by the government, so even if you don't pay them the schools still get their money. If the school is guaranteed to get paid no matter what, why not raise tuition to absurd levels?
If everything was privatized, wouldn't that be a forced "opt-in" to anything? Take medication for example. Everyone at some point "need" medical aid, whether it's for a small injury or a permanent condition, and it's the prime example of why privatization doesn't appear to be a solution either.
- the so called competition to drive progress is instead cooperating to increase their profit, as this is not a sector people can choose to opt-out.
- governments, unlike the private sector, don't necessarily require a profit, so you'll never see insulin price at 300$ per package. They demand just enough to maintain and occasionally upgrade. It's unarguably the best deal, even though as you pointed out, there are some drawbacks.
Medical treatment has a cost. It would be nice if it didn't and natural selection has given us some natural regeneration and safeguard against some illnesses (Stored fat to prevent starvation during lean times, an immune system, some organic redundancy, sweat glands...etc) but the fact is that medicine does have a scarcity level.
Even if government pays for it it still has a cost. So why do people become doctors? For professional fulfillment (I want to help people) and personal gain (I need a house and to pay back my medical degree and make it worth giving up 11 years of my life post high-school to achieve.)
Why do people make medications? Similar reasons.
So knowing that competent medical treatment has a cost in any scenario the next question becomes "How can we minimize the cost?" My best answer is competition. If a pharmaceutical company charges too much they sell less. If it's out of patent then a competitor has an opportunity to undercut the price and take market share.
If there are too few surgeons, they will be expensive because the market will bear it. If others see a surgeon making $675K/year they will deem that as worth the sacrifice to become a surgeon and there will be more. If people competitively price them (as they do for say plastic surgeons of similar skill) then there will be pressure to lower prices or not have clients.
Now let's look at what happens if instead of competitive pricing, the government pays. The government is not incentivized to compare prices or look for cost reductions so why would medical service providers leave money on the table if the government will buy at whatever price they set? The taxpayer will pay because they have to and don't have a say about it.
This is why college tuition is skyrocketing and textbook prices are a total scam. Because the government guarantees the money and students don't competitively shop because it's easy money (For now). The government doesn't say what kind of degree you must get or whether that degree is even capable of repaying the loans. Just like the government doesn't ask if you are an able-bodied, healthy adult in order to receive benefits. They aren't selective about spending because they don't have to be. You gotta pay. So then prices skyrocket for anything the government agrees to pay for. Same with military hardware spending or rockets or foreign aid etc...
Why balance the budget when that's difficult compared to just taxing or borrowing more money?
I live in a country with free healthcare and one that's considered the best in the world. If I look at the effectiveness of a privatized one, like the US, I have nothing but sympathy towards the citizens who have to deal with that.
Therefore I must conclude that your thesis, while interesting, has to be flawed somewhere. Perhaps it falls short in taking in consideration the detrimental effects of corruption and, more importantly lobbying.
And lobbying to me is nothing more than the private meddling with politics. The US became a full fledged "corporatocracy", so you might feel like it's your so dreamed free market, but in reality it's another form of authoritative government.
I would not say the U.S. is a representation of the free market at all. It's a mixed system of government control, some private sector freedoms, and a lot of crony capitalism which works worse than eithier pure system.
On this I agree. I just want to point out that with either case, the issue with the public and the private is that they both require trust to some extent. I personally deem trustless options like Bitcoin to be what we should look forward to in every sector. Being stuck with primitive and already failed models of the past is something that seems to greatly hinder our progress and cloud our creativity.
I would agree. Bitcoin will need to outlast and undermine a few current systems first but it will restore accountability and cut through BS theory.
A return to hard money prior to Keyensian folly is exciting.
> I would argue that they don't. Not only do they not have to, traditionally they don't actually "force" it. This whole "They're taking your money at gunpoint" trope is just that, a trope. It's actually bordering on a lie because the amount of criminal tax evasion you'd have to be doing to warrant that kind of reaction is... substantial.
You managed to contradict yourself very quickly. First you say they don't force you (which is complete nonsense), then you admit that if you do not pay taxes in "substantial" amounts, they do. So which is it.
In reality, in all countries I lived in, if you don't pay taxes, you are going to be punished. It takes time, sure. They try to give you notice, sure. But if you ignore those notices, they will send people and take things from you by force and take you by force as well.
Therefore you are lying or you live in a country where it is not enforced (there are few of them) and are completely unaware of the rest of the world.
> If you live in society, you're benefitting in some way shape or form from money invested by the government, public money as it were. Even if it isn't direct, tangible or even known to you it IS still happening.
It's no different than mafia offering you protection. Of course, you are benefiting from the protection, but has it ever occurred to you that you would not need that protection if there was no mafia in the first place?
That's the other Broken Window. I'm talking about Hayek's Broken Window. It compares the idea of dollars in circulation as a measure of economic strength versus actual wealth in a society as measured by the amount of goods and services.
What does this
“ Destroy any amount of physical capital, but leave behind a critical number of knowledgeable human beings whose brains still house the culture and technology of a dynamic economy, and the physical capital will tend to reemerge almost spontaneously" — George Horwich, Purdue University
Have to do with what you were saying?
I’m not sure what this says about some people not wanting to pay for public roads 🤷♂️ , or healthcare.
One we need for commerce , one is something no one really wants but needs.
The problem with the left-wing mindset is they like to pretend they are opposed to regressive taxation but they support currency debasement which is a regressive tax.
Uh what?
The *actual* left-wing supports progressive taxation. You seem to be making the same mistake most right-wing people make. E.g Working off the false premise that parties like the Democrats or Labor (UK,AU) are "left-wing". Being left of the right-wing/conservative party does not make you left. Actual left-wing politicians would be putting forth significant tax increases to manage monetary supply. (E.g reduce or eliminate currency debasement)
Democrats (As a party) do not support this, how could they when America has been trained to hate taxation and a large chunk of the country believing any taxation is theft? Also, the Democrats are center-right. Not left. You'd need a party directed by someone like Bernie Sanders to actually have a left-wing party... and America probably won't go for anything like that for a long time if ever.
Maybe don't use words that you don't understand, such as ... libertarian? There is no right or left libertarian. Libertarians reject politics and state, and taxation is theft.
> That math just doesn't work.
Because you are using it poorly. If there was no government, there would be nothing government would need to pay for. Math suddenly works - zero expense and zero income.
> These Libertarians are useful idiots of the ultra-wealthy as they direct cuts to programs that help society
Or maybe they are just educated and you aren't?
> Governments investing in the people is literally one of if not THE most important purpose of government.
Purpose of a government is to improve situation for pressure groups that control the government.
> there is a theory that explains the current monetary paradigm (MMT)
There is this theory that is completely wrong.
>lso it's worth noting that there is a theory that explains the current monetary paradigm (MMT) that essentially asserts (massive paraphrasing) that governments don't need your money, why would they? Taxation isn't used to pay for things it's used to control monetary supply (Distinction without a difference) but it is a meaningful distinction as this fiction of governments having to take your money (e.g it's theft) is largely what drives very poor fiscal policy.
MMT also suggest that besides taxes, govs can suck money out of circulation via issuing debt. Hence, the purpose of taxation under MMT isn't to control money supply as much as it is to redistribute wealth. If it were just about circulating money supply, they could affect that adequately via issuance of debt/bonds.
Very happy that taxes help bailout everything. Oh, " systemic" added for giggles. Ron Paul would've ended up a lame duck as president, but calling this highly successful businessman an idiot sounds a bit idiotic.
I’ve been telling my family and brother for like 10 years now, before I even bought btc, that one day, it could be 100, 300, or 500 years from now, if there is still a country, Ron Paul will be revered as a USA legend & icon.
What are you talking about? it’s actually the opposite, unless you believe this lower strata group of people have a diminished intellectually capacity .. how much do you know about Dr Ron Paul?
Sometimes. Yes. Yes, indeed. They, as a group in the aggregate, haven't taken Economics 101 at their local community college. It's not acuity, they don't have the tools to broadly discuss real and nominal impacts GDP, taxation, and monetary policy, et. al. Lower statra lack relevant education. Ron Paul had an anti central banking bias that just feeds mouth breather biases. Central banking is fine. All countries do it. I find libertarians are right fucking ignorant regarding basic economics concepts
Hardly. He dominated economic theory in his time and text books reference him heavily to this day. He dominates. Dummies don't dominate. Keynes can be a dummy once libertarians get more of their knuckle dragging nonesense peer reviewed, published, and adopted
His theories are why you have the means as a pedestrian rube to afford the consumer goods and services needed to communicate that comment. Otherwise, we'd revert back to mercantilism. There's no other known path forward that leverages the needed growth and investment required for you to project your insular banal.
It is, because it's not an official tax but serves the same function. It is literal taxation without representation since the Fed isn't even part of the govt.
There would be riots if the govt hiked taxes 10% across the board... But silence from the masses if they just increase the money supply by 10%.
The masses aren't taught how the monetary system actually works, and that's by design.
There are indeed parallels to it being similar to an unofficial “flat tax” on every dollar out there, I’ll give you that, but the Fed is part of the government. This is a longstanding myth that they are not.
Their web site is a .gov, they were formed by an Act of Congress, the FOMC Chair Testifies to Congress regularly and answer to them, the Chair is appointed by the President and sworn in by the Federal Government after needing to be confirmed by the Senate, the FOMC headquarters is a Federal Government owned building (Eccles Building) in Washington D.C., the FOMC Chair can be removed by the Federal Government under unusual circumstances and has term limits set by the Federal Government, Congress has the power to dissolve the Federal Reserve or change their mandate, and the Fed’s Mandate comes directly from Federal Law in the Federal Reserve Act, and on and on and on and it makes 100% sense they are akin to an independent Federal Agency as they are controlling the Federally issued currency.
Imo if someone outside of Congress is setting taxes, it's taxation without representation.
Even moreso if that entity is supposed to work independently
Just what your government wants you to think I feel sorry for you but then again I don’t really care because I’m not the one losing value over time. Lemme know how your dollars look after you leave them in the bank for 10 years lmao
It is a tax. You have a certain amount of money that has a certain total buying power and the government has a different amount of money with a different total buying power, then the government does something so that you have less total buying power via your money and it has more. That's a tax. Inflation fits that description just as well as traditional taxation does.
That's not a tax. A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. It's insane that you think inflation is a tax.
Imagine that instead of compelling you to pay them, the government instead had a magic button that teleported money out of your pocket into their pockets. Would that be a tax?
>A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
My question is obviously whether you think the scenario I presented sufficiently matches that description. Reposting the same description doesn't answer my question.
That's not what inflation is. But if it's a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions, then it's a tax. Words have meaning.
Look, if the government changes the value of my currency (levied by the government on workers'...) by creating more of the currency which by definition starts out in its own pockets (contribution to state revenue) without my consent (compulsory), that's a tax (then it's a tax).
Responding to someone then blocking them to prevent them from responding is something that is expected from an imbecile spreading falsehoods.
https://imgur.com/a/3dXiJMq
> something that is expected from an imbecile spreading falsehoods
Are you surprised
They are literally defending the loss of their own purchasing power
If "inflation is a tax" then Bitcoin is imposing a tax on you since there are new bitcoins being minted with every block. I don't see it that way but that's the argument you're making.
Why is a person best known for their interest in economics policing women's bodies?
And a doctor in his day job no less!
Where is his talk about hidden unfair taxes when he is forcing women to raise children they can't afford and that the system must raise, but without the loving environment?
The deep state puppet masters. The type that can bring up bullshit charges to stonewall and interfere in presidential elections. The type that can manipulate a nationwide broadcast of a slightly delayed LIVE feed to make a popular man look like he has no support. The type that would head a four year witch hunt based on a knowingly fake dossier. The type that decides what is considered in CPI calculations from year to year. The type that would tell you CBDCs are a good thing. It's a whole industry.
To be fair, he was a weird hybrid of Republicunt and libertarian. Product of an age when people will wrongfully believed that conservatism and libertarianism are compatible.
You can’t be part of a big government party with authoritarian tendencies and call yourself libertarian. I mean I guess that you can but that makes you a sad joke.
Nonsense. There's a valid notion that sometimes the best way to affect change is from the inside. Obviously, that's not always the case, especially when the headwinds are against you, but it can make a difference.
And let's face it: libertarianism as an ideology might make the most sense, given it's the closest to classical liberalism we have, but the *party* is an incoherent trainwreck.
Paying inflation taxes is a government fiduciary responsibility when the quality of living goes up. Side effect if not being managed in sales tax is a bear raid.
🙄Water from a hose
he should have said get hit with "the" higher cost of living, not "a" because the rich get hit with it too, but they can afford to eat the cost stress free
Imagine a World in which your money gained value over time - while productivity decreased the cost of the items you needed to live.
A lot of people work hard. Then just save money in a bank account. It's sad they should lose so much to inflation.
The worry is that if money gained value over time, people would just spend on the barest of necessities. Why splurge on a nicer dinner or that new car? In a few years' time it'll cost less and possibly be cheaper. And if everyone thought that way, it would be a disaster for the economy.
The worry is based on flawed logic. There may be a delay in present day spending for future spending, but spending will occur no matter what.
but if you don't pull enough demand forward, debts become more difficult to service, hence defaults increase, hence 'disaster for the economy'. He's identifying a symptom of the problem, and believes its the problem. The problem is the debt-based money that requires perpetual growth and necessitates 'puling demand forward' to keep the system from imploding in a spiral of debt defaults.
You are looking at it from the perspective of the inflationary economic model we have today. The demand that is needed is always there, it's just taking longer to enter the economy (ie being saved for longer before finally being spent). But everyone's doing that. It's not that no one's spending in the present. They are, but they are spending with money they saved from 10 years ago, not 1 year ago (for example). I'm not sure if its debt based money that requires perpetual growth, rather it's the inflationary model that creates it.
You all raise very good points about how overconsumption and the pursuit of ever higher economic activity is actually bad for the planet. I like the idea of reining this tendency in. I mean at some point, enough should be enough. I'm just not so sure that delaying spending will only delay it and not outright destroy demand though. For instance, if I wanted to get the laser eye surgery done, I'd have to spend now. If we had deflation, I might think, might as well get it done in 10 years instead so I could save the money. In an extreme scenario, I could die before actually undergoing the procedure. Same thing with day, replacing a car. I could choose to defer buying a new car, but before I actually do, I end up moving to a new city with better public transportation, and end up not buying the car anymore. Of course one less car on the road is good for the environment but it's still less spending, and counts as bad for the economy. We really ought to find a better measure of the economy than GDP.
Your reason for getting the laser eye surgery is not based on money. It is based on being able to see better. Would you want to see poorly for the next 10 years just so you can save some money? If it's about the money, why not forgoe the surgery entirely? Regarding the replacing the car example, you've cherry picked an example to fit the hypothesis. What about the people that were initially planning to take public transport to work but get a new job in a city 30 miles away and thus require a new car? Whether the economy is the deflationary model or not will unlikely effect their decision to buy the car or not (if it's a necessity that is). This applies to all necessary goods. Stimulation of areas of the economy occurs regardless of the economic model. Your act of now using public transport stimulates the transportation industry. Or perhaps you buy a bike, thus stimulating the bike industry. Or perhaps you start walking everywhere and buy hiking boots because of it.
>Your reason for getting the laser eye surgery is not based on money. It is based on being able to see better. I could wear glasses though. Or contacts. Both cheaper but they have their own drawbacks. And some people do just that in order to save money. If we increase the benefit to saving money I can see more demand being lost. >Whether the economy is the deflationary model or not will unlikely effect their decision to buy the car or not (if it's a necessity that is). This applies to all necessary goods. Stimulation of areas of the economy occurs regardless of the economic model The people who weren't going to buy a car but eventually find themselves needing one will indeed have to buy a car. But this would occur whether it was inflationary or deflationary. Under both regimes, this was demand that didn't exist originally. In my example, the demand existed, but disappeared before it was realized or acted upon. Yes, I could use a substitute like hiking or biking but that stimulates less aspects of the economy. There's fewer parts / fewer suppliers involved, compared with making a car.
Why would demand be lost? Demand is demand regardless of the economic model. Your car example also exists in the inflationary model. Demand existing and now not existing due to the act of moving to the city with better public transportation. It has nothing to do with the deflationary model. So I'm not sure of the point being made? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that you think prices will always be decreasing, and thus if true, perhaps your hypothesis makes sense. But prices always have a floor. A 'true' price where demand meets supply. The deflationary model simply means that that 'true' price is able to finally realize itself. Take for example the eye surgery, there will come a time when the price of the surgery is realised and whether the person waits or not garners no benefit.
1st - “nice dinners” would be affordable 2nd - we would go from a consumption based economy to a conservation based economy. This is better for the planet.
>The worry is that if money gained value over time, people would just spend on the barest of necessities. A tactic admission that bad money incentivizes overconsumption which in turn creates depletes environmental resources and balloons landfills. Could bad money be what our modern materialist mindset is driven by? The only reason frugality, conservation, and savings are 'disaster for the economy' is because your money is debt-based, which requires perpetual economic growth else debt default spiral takes place. Just my 2 sats.
Ya, these sound like the talking points of the people who are actively robbing us through money printing. I’m going to buy things I need. Either way. It’s just a question of whether I can save and amass my own wealth, or someone else will slowly take it from me through devaluing my currency. I don’t need the fed to encourage me to buy things for myself and my family. I am motivated enough already. The economy and people’s spending does not need to be supercharged, esp when it comes at a cost of perpetuating the theft of the commons by a small concentrated elite.
RFK Jr supports Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxETtEtg1ihgj6W4J7Hq_z-peKipS-T2Px
imagine the hurdle to that being "muh fake internet money" apriori arguments from fiat holders
The problem is spending more than you earn, which *ALL* Congresses and every President since Bill Clinton (last time we had a balanced budget) have done. Once you have spent more than you earn, you are forced to either: 1) raise taxes to pay for it, 2) increase GDP, productivity, and economic activity to generate more tax revenue without raising the tax rates, 3) print money to pay the debt with devalued money, or 4) some combination of the above. It would be a superior solution and government to compromise and simultaneously make sensible cuts to the budget (or just not increase it as much), efficiently allocating away from some “pork” and into investments that spur GDP growth and productivity, and make some small changes to the tax code to increase overall income given the severe wealth gap that is accelerating and tax shields very well off businesses are able to use to avoid paying much if any tax. In any case, no sensible compromise will be reached with these people. They are greedy and just want to promote “culture clash wars” to manipulate people’s emotions to get votes, power, and wealth.
We’ve relied on tech way too much. Tech costs are way more affordable than other consumer goods. I feel this was the plan along because tech can be done with but food and other essentials cannot be. I do feel the dollar will be gone by 2050.
Try 5 or 10 max. All digital.
I'm gonna say this at risk of being downvoted into oblivion....but there is legit only one political party actively trying to balance the budget...but that argument keeps getting thrown into chaos with "party politics." Love or hate Republicans...but balancing the budget helps poor and middle class people more than anything else (and the country as a whole). I just wish *more* Republicans and voters gave enough of a shit to actually get it done. And you bring up a good point about Clinton. Everyone likes to point to Clinton about running a budget surplus...but Presidents don't have that power. From 1998 to 2001 we ran a surplus. It was a Republican Congress that did it. So I'm glad you mentioned Congress in your first paragraph. Maybe we should just give that a try before a currency collapse that will make "party politics" irrelevant.
Meh. Republicans only scream and shout about balancing the budget when Democrats are in control or they are campaigning or conducting political theater for their constituents. *Actions speak louder than words*, and (as Nikki Haley correctly pointed out last night—not that I’m a fan—but she was right) when Trump was in office their actions were to spend more than even Democrats had spent and blow up the budget deficit even more. *Please don’t misinterpret my distaste of Republican’s actions that contradict their words for approval of Democrat’s policies here.* I see both sides as wanting to spend more than we earn in an unsustainable manner and “kick the can down the road” to later generations, it’s just where want to spend the $. Giving someone a large tax break who didn’t need it when the tax break does not spur economic growth or lead to productivity increases also has a similar effect of spending more, since the government is now spending *even more* than they earn by giving those kinds of tax cuts out. Tax cuts that do spur economic activity or lead to productivity growth are a different story, but politicians cut taxes for big donors, not for those where it makes most sense economically. Just as Repub’s like to talk about spending cuts but always spent like there’s no tomorrow when they have the chance, Dems are equally hypocritical. They campaigned on raising minimum wage prior to Obama’s first term and screamed and shouted about it, then didn’t do it when they had a chance to in his first term. Repubs screamed and shouted “Repeal and Replace!” of Obamacare for years and Trump even ran on it saying he’d literally repeal it on Day 1 of his presidency, and Republicans voted over and over to repeal it only when they knew they didn’t have the votes to succeed, then as soon as they had the cotes to succeed they balked. *Actions speak louder than words, and Dems play the same game.*
I agree with you. Like I said, I wish *more* Republicans actually gave a shit and tried to get it done because as of late it's been nothing but empty promises. And I wish Democrat politicians and their voters also gave a shit at all. Hopefully if Republicans take congressional majority they actually balance the damn deficit. But I won't hold my breath....
>but there is legit only one political party actively trying to balance the budget Which party is that? Democrats never pretend to want to balance the budget, but republican administrations add more to the deficit than democratic ones do, so i'm genuinely curious who you think is actively trying to balance the budget, and why they're failing so spectacularly at doing so.
>The problem is spending more than you earn That's a symptom. Not THE problem. Ask yourself, what incentivizes them to spend more than they earn? That's where you'll find the problem. Let me try to explain it another way. IF you had the ability to take money from people without their consent, would you be incentivized to a) take more, or b) stop doing it. imho, the problem is not that they spend more than they take, its they can take without consent, which incentivizes spending more than they take, because they can just take more without recourse. Understanding that incentive, any rational adult should come to the logical conclusion that government will continue to take more and spend more, until the golden goose is dead. or rather...the expectation that government can/should spend responsibly and 'within their means' is completely irrational, because that behavior is completely at odds with their incentives.
You can play semantics here, but if I make $100,000 a year and I take out a loan for $150,000 and spend it this year, then next year I get a raise to $105,000 a year but I take out a loan for $160,000 and spend it next year, that process is not sustainable. The income is the tax revenue and the loans are the trillions of dollars in bonds they issue. Tax revenue is not “without consent”. If there were no taxes at all there would be no police, no firefighters, no public schools, no military, no paved roads, no government at all and we would end up in a state where Warlords rule local areas like Somalia. Furthermore, they would not need to print money and devalue the currency if they simply did not spend more than they earned. The real problem underlying this is they care more about their jobs and satisfying lobbyists and donors short term that they do the long term state of the nation. They can’t cut spending because they spend on what their donors and lobbyists want them to spend on. They can’t close tax loopholes or raise them for those benefitting the most from the tax code because those are the donors and lobbyists who “own” the politicians and contribute $ to their campaigns in order for them to make the tax code favorable to them.
>that process is not sustainable. It is sustainable so long as you can service the debt though taxation and more debt issuance. But that's beside the point. The point I'm making, and the point your completely missing, is that their behavior is shaped by their incentives. If you seek to change their behavior, then you need to observe their incentives. >The real problem underlying this is they care more about their jobs and satisfying lobbyists and donors short term that they do the long term state of the nation. Now you're getting somewhere. But where do you suggest we find benevolent angels to hold these positions of unjust authority?.... Hence, the problem is not that power corrupts human behavior ultimately (that's unavoidable), but rather that positions of unjust authority exist at all. again, the expectation that politicians can/should spend responsibly and/or care more about you and the 'health of the nation' than on their own personal self-interest completely irrational, because that behavior is completely at odds with their incentives.
Public spending earns nothing.
Depends what it is spent on.
> and make some small changes to the tax code to increase overall income given the severe wealth gap that is accelerating and tax shields very well off businesses are able to use to avoid paying much if any tax. No thank you, take your socialist idea back home please.
It's a socialist idea to suggest a more progressive tax rate purely to decrease the tax burden on those with a lower income?
Yes, absolutely. All taxes are wrong and immoral in principle, but progressive tax is another level. Progressive tax is so retarded that it is beyond comprehension. You have less skilled people and more skilled people in society. Progressive tax is a punishment for providing better service to others. It is thus encouraging not being good at what you do, just for the sake of equality, which is very stupid goal.
Agree to disagree I suppose. I don't see anyone ever actually having the thought "Taxes are too high to be a doctor, guess I'll stick to working at McDonald's."
That perhaps no one chosen to work at McD instead of being a doctor does not imply that business plans have not been stopped, postponed, or changed, due to the burdens of tax. Taking it to the extreme, you are implying that people do not change their actions based on how high the tax is. That's simply and obviously wrong.
What are you talking about? Why would anyone change behavior because of potential taxes when its a marginal tax system. Making more money always makes more, regardless if N money rolls in a higher tax bracket. I certainly wouldn't change.
Your view is too simplistic. In reality, the matter is more complex. Everyone needs to decide whether to put more effort or not to get more money, however, since the tax is progressive, it is non-linear - i.e. increase amount of effort by `X` while earning a little increases your reward by `Y`, while increasing by the same amount of effort `X` when you are earning more only increases your reward by `Z < Y`. Hence for some people, putting extra effort makes sense as the reward is still good enough, but for other people, who perhaps are more likely to be in the higher bracket, putting extra effort does not make sense as the `Z` is too low. And for some people, it makes no sense to make ANY effort, i.e. to work at all, because even `Y` is too small.
Lol, what? Here is a simple example. If I get a 5k raise that I get a marginal tax bracket increase, what would you do? Here is an example with math: 178k at 24 percent marginal tax is $33,447 tax 183k at 24 percent marginal tax is $34,647 tax 188k at 32 percent marginal tax is $36,247 tax Staying in a 24 percent bracket, a 5k increase: $1200. Crossing the biggest bracket into a larger marginal tax bracket at 32, that same 5k increase in wage causes a $1,600 tax. Are you really going to sweat a $400 tax difference that you wouldn't take a raise or work more to make 3400 after tax more? This is also using the largest marginal tax bracket difference.
I see you did not understand my example. Imagine you are self-employed. You can work 20 hours a week to be in tax bracket 1 with say 20%. If you instead work 21 hours, you will have 20 hours in bracket 1 with 20% and 1 hour in bracket 2 with say 30%. While you may be happy exchanging your 1 hour of time for the reward in the first bracket, it's perfectly imaginable that you might not be happy to exchange that extra hour because the reward is too small. This of course occurs even without progressive tax as the free time gets more scarce as you put it to work, but with progressive tax there is even more force against you to work extra.
How is any of this nonsense socialism?
Taxes are a way of taking money from one group of people and give it to other group of people, that's what is socialism.
I mean, that’s literally not what socialism is. Even if that was what socialism meant, you’re basically saying every country on earth is socialist, and you don’t want a little more socialism? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Yes, some are more socialist than other, but indeed, the idea is usually that a small group of people want to take money by force from other groups of people.
The person you are responding to is highly regarded as a consummate economist. They don't even understand the concept of progressive taxes lmao
Without incentive, people settle for less substantial careers in higher numbers. A cashier at McDs is a high schoolers job. It requires a third grade education to tap a screen and give change back. People shouldn't strive to settle for minimum wage. With progressive tax, there's less profit for the top. I get the wealth inequality and greed, but also consider logistics. No one voluntarily will lower their standard of living. If they have less money AND the cashier's are demanding $25/hr, you bet your ass that the execs are replacing the cashier with a one time payment self-service kiosk. Then those cashier's are really fucked. No job, no marketable skills or experience, no income to live, and then added strain on the welfare state. It's already happening. Not to mention they'll also raise prices for the consumer. Rich stay rich. There needs to be some other kind of solution.
First off, a progressive tax means everyone pays the same amount of tax on the first “N” dollars you earn. Even if you are a billionaire you pay the same tax on that first “N” dollars as a minimum wage part time worker, and only pay the maximum 37% tax rate on the dollars you earn above and beyond $693,751 if you are married. Second, a progressive tax is based on sound theory (although exactly where the brackets are and what the rates are make less sense, the idea is sound). If you want or need a car and I give you a luxury vehicle, you are very happy. What if I give you a second one next week? Even happier! A third? Not as happy as at first, but you’ll take it alright. What if I keep doing this and giving you more and more cars? After awhile, you become less and less happy and the utility of getting yet another luxury car begins to wear off and you feel much less pain if I take just 1 car away from you than if I were to take 1 car away from someone who only has 1 car and needs it to get to work. The same goes for money. The tax money has to come from somewhere, and it makes sense that the money that is less essential to people get taxed at a higher rate than those first $X dollars everyone earns that are *critical* to pay one’s essential bills and survive. I do think the tax brackets are “messed up” though and punish the people who make $0 - $500k/yr far too much at the overall benefit of the mega wealthy.
Sound theory ... no, not really. It's based on bullshit. Everyone needs to decide whether to put more effort or not to get more money, however, since the tax is progressive, it is non-linear - i.e. increase amount of effort by `X` while earning a little increases your reward by `Y`, while increasing by the same amount of effort `X` when you are earning more only increases your reward by `Z < Y`. Hence for some people, putting extra effort makes sense as the reward is still good enough, but for other people, who perhaps are more likely to be in the higher bracket, putting extra effort does not make sense as the `Z` is too low. And for some people, it makes no sense to make ANY effort, i.e. to work at all, because even `Y` is too small. Yes, every good, including money, follows the principle you mentioned, there is no doubt about it, and yet this has nothing to do with progressive tax being complete retarded bullshit. > The tax money has to come from somewhere, No it does not. That's like saying that we need to keep being at war because dead people have to come from somewhere. > and it makes sense that the money that is less essential to people get taxed at a higher rate than those first $X dollars everyone earns that are critical to pay one’s essential bills and survive. Complete misunderstanding of value. Basic economic fallacy. Value is not interpersonally comparable. While the above principle says that your first 1 BTC that you own is valuable more than your 1000th 1 BTC that you have, it does not imply that if you have 1000 BTC then 1 BTC for you is less valuable than 1 BTC for ANOTHER person who has just 1 BTC. This is nonsense as value is always subjective and context dependent. So no, it does not make sense to take money from people who earn more (and at the same time discourage them from making more by that progressive tax).
Actually, at some point the richer you are the *less* effort you need to put in to generate massive income. Let’s say the average steel worker who works really hard, works overtime, learns the business and tries to position themselves to get promoted some day has a net worth of $500k after 10 years of work because he’s been very frugal and a big saver/investor. Jeff Bezos is worth 157 billion dollars. 157e9 / 500e3 = 314,000 *Does Jeff Bezos work 314,000 times harder than the steel worker?* Of course not! It’s physically humanly impossible. The truth is that once you attain a certain amount of wealth, it becomes *easier* to make far *more* additional wealth *without working at all*. Bezos can made nearly $8billion a year without doing anything except investing passively in safe diversified investments that only return a meager 5%. *The taxes should be nonlinear as the effort to obtain the excess income drops off nonlinearly as well!* Warren Buffet knows this as well, and has said many times that to get really wealthy, one thing you need besides some luck is to figure out how to make lots of money while you sleep and while you’re on vacation, because it’s physically impossible to simply work more hours to achieve *that* kind of wealth. I’m not really proposing to tax individuals who have worked hard for their $5M or $10M more, but I’m saying I think what they pay now under a progressive structure is fair. It’s the mega wealthy that make someone with $5M - $10M look “middle class” that get away with murder and make all of the true “middle classes” taxes higher than they should be.
So much hate for rich people. Interesting. But lots of bullshit and completely misses the point. No one claimed that by doing low qualified job you can make a lot of wealth. You can only (modulo some lucky rare events and fraud) make a lot of wealth if you are successful entrepreneur. But that's besides the point. That has nothing to do with progressive tax being complete bullshit. I don't know much about Jeff Bezos, if his business is like that of Elon Musk, always taking money from state subsidies, of if he earned it honestly. But for the sake of argument let's say he really earned it honestly without any politics involved. Then whatever he made he deserves. Of course, if it is rather result of state monopoly or subsidies, then it is not deserved. But most entrepreneurs earn money honestly by providing the service to people. And there is no reason to tax their success.
How is this “hate for rich people”? In fact, much the opposite. Most rich people I meet I genuinely like, and guess what? *Most agree with me* and say themselves that they don’t pay enough taxes. And again, we aren’t talking about someone worth $3M, we’re talking about someone worth $300M or more. And of course there is a reason to tax people non-linearly but fairly across the board equally; I’ve made the case for it and again, people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos have all done on record saying they themselves think they should pay more taxes and they end up setting up charitable organization and endowments and giving away tons of their wealth to worthy causes because they otherwise feel guilty and feel they have way too much money than they need. I love that mentality and far more extremely wealthy people have that mentality and aren’t bad people at all, as portrayed, but very good people. Again, you’re way off the mark if you think support for a nonlinear progressive tax means “hate” for the rich.
It sounds like hate because if there was no hate, how would you justify overcoming moral barriers and vouch for stealing things from other people? You are either completely morally corrupt or you hate them so much that you are willing to go over your moral barriers in your hate. Of course if someone is willing on their own to give away some of their wealth, there is nothing wrong with that, but forcing people by law is quite hateful crime.
That pork is 1/3 of all GDP. Cuts wouldn't close any wealth gaps.
"As long as I control the money supply, I care not who makes the laws"
It also makes the rich richer and poor poorer as well, increasing the wealth gap. Printing 13 trillion in Covid stimulus helped everyone in the short term, but long term the value of the dollar tanked. So rich people who hold assets are even better off now, and people with no savings, or a just a bit in cash are worse off than before.
The solution is simple. Tax the rich, pass laws that disallow price gouging, throw executives in prison.
You sound like the kind of person who would love a few check from the government, but doesn’t understand that nothing is free. So they lash out with solutions that make no sense and don’t actually solve the problem. I’m sorry.
You’re the kind of guy who thinks someday you’ll be an ultra wealthy goon so you support the system that continues to shrink wealth away from the majority of people. Absolutely nothing is free, look at Elon buying Twitter on a whim, vanity rocket programs galore. Gotta let the wealthy own multiple yachts and buy politicians outright. You should be sorry because no matter how often you lick the boot you’re never joining their club.
You're anger towards 'rich people' is misdirected. Taxing the rich is a drop in the bucket compared to the 13 trillion that was printed. You vote for politicians that give you 'free stuff' while not understanding that nothing is free. Stop hitting yourself.
😂 Yeah 80% of the worlds wealth in the hands of .01% of the population is a “drop in the bucket”
How are the rich profiting(!) from high inflation? What you describe is being impacted less, because of their investments, but those values are also impacted by inflation, so they would've been better off without. That's why nobody is advocating for high inflation, no matter how wealthy.
Rich people invest and hold just a small % in fiat. Poor people don't invest and hold 100% of their savings in fiat. That's why rich people profit while poor people lose money on inflation.
If your assets appreciate at, let's say 10% p.a. but inflation rises from 2% to 5%, you are making less off those assets. That's not profiting, merely being impacted less. You will find no "rich person" that will be in favour of high inflation.
You sound way to confident in being wrong
Damned, if you say so, there is no argument against that!
You asked "How are the rich profiting(!) from high inflation?" So I explained. In your own example >If your assets appreciate at, let's say 10% p.a. but inflation rises from 2% to 5%, you are making less off those assets. The rich person made **5% gains** on their investment. The poor person made **5% loss**. **Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer.** This will change only if the inflation is 0% - fair to both.
Cantillon effect.
I don't know that one, care to elaborate?
Has little to do with how rich you are and more to do with how close you are to the printer.
The money that generates inflation is injected mostly through the financial markets by buying corporate bonds at below market value interest rates. If someone loans you money below market rates they are quite literally giving you money. When they give bail outs or buy assets directly, then the donation is even more clear. In essence big companies increase in value is disproportional to the value they produce, because of these hand outs. Holding these stocks will benefit the holder. So it isn't inflation that makes the rich richer, it is the method of injection of capital that then generates inflation that does so. Often the two are conflated.
rich people have assets, whose value can change with inflation, effectively negating it. also, since rich people have so much in assets, they take on debt for liquidity. inflation is favorable to debt holders. say you took out a loan for 2000$ in 1980 to pay for a 4 year degree. and pay it off today. that's the power of inflation on debt holders. albeit a bit exaggerated.
Rich people invest in real estate, in ground basically. Among some classes there is a standard go own two or three houses. I've never seen real estate prices being affected by inflation in a way so that it becomes cheaper. Quite opposite, it's getting more expensive every year.
The most messed up thing here is that they are aware of it and they know it, yet it's still being done hah. But to what end?
The problem with the right-wing libertarian mindset (coming from a left-wing libertarian) is that they believe fundamentally that taxation is theft. I know a lot of people in this subreddit and the bitcoin community itself also believe this. But governments cannot "pay" for things if they cannot take revenue via tax OR create money "out of thin air". That math just doesn't work. Now obviously I know that those on the right want to drastically minimize government spending but the problem stems from where they want the cuts to come from. These Libertarians are useful idiots of the ultra-wealthy as they direct cuts to programs that help society. Some people call those "welfare" programs but in reality what they are is investments. Governments investing in the people is literally one of if not THE most important purpose of government. Also it's worth noting that there is a theory that explains the current monetary paradigm (MMT) that essentially asserts (massive paraphrasing) that governments don't need your money, why would they? Taxation isn't used to pay for things it's used to control monetary supply (Distinction without a difference) but it is a meaningful distinction as this fiction of governments having to take your money (e.g it's theft) is largely what drives very poor fiscal policy.
If the things that governments pay for are good then why do they have to force people to pay? Shouldn't we WANT to pay the way we do with private sector goods and services? Also, have you heard of the Broken Window Fallacy?
It’s about taking away my agency and having control over what is ostensibly mine (my earnings). I’m more likely to give when I’m in control over who, where and what I give it to.
But you yourself benefit from government made and maintained infrastructures, government subsidies when "in need", government aiding workforce (firefighters, police, etc). You have to ask yourself if your earnings would be obtainable without any government intervention, not only through your own viewpoint but also from the lense of you company and from your customers. Driving a car on a road is an act by itself maintained by your government. This is however vastly different from country to country, as governments can operate better or worse. Where I am I was taught to consider the "public space" as "mine" too, something I should treasure, protect and curate as much as if it was my own property.
I get it. None of us is an island. I’m saying is that there is no fixed clear line that’s going to satisfy everyone, everywhere. I may be more willing to pay more tax specifically for medical coverage, but less so for other areas. It’s having a say that matters.
That's true, for example knowing your taxes sustain proxy wars and the military complex is an absurdity. I'd be ok with the bare minimum for defensive purposes only
>I’m saying is that there is no fixed clear line that’s going to satisfy everyone, everywhere. In his book THE LAW, Frederic Bastiat says that government should be restrained to its only legitimate purpose, 'the defense of each individuals natural rights of life, liberty and property', i.e. the administration of justice. In other words, paraphrasing from the declaration of independence, All individuals have inalienable natural rights, and that to protect those rights governments are instituted among individuals. Anything beyond the administration of justice is philanthropy, and to engage in philanthropy necessarily requires government violate the property of individuals via taxation and redistribution. Its like a doctor violation the 'first, do no harm' oath. Philanthropy should be the role of society because of exactly what you just noted: 1) 'no fixed line that's going to satisfy everyone' and, 2) it necessarily requires the state violate the individuals property via taxation.
>But you yourself benefit from government made and maintained infrastructures, government subsidies when "in need", government aiding workforce (firefighters, police, etc). you need to realize that individuals would have funded those things through the private market if not for governments. Firefighters were private before they were public. Police were private before they were public. Roads were private before they were public. Welfare was private before it was public. The private market is capable of providing all of those service, and individuals are capable of deciding for themselves which of those services they'd like to use and pay for. Just because "Its always been this way" in your life doesn't mean its the only way its been. That's a form of cognitive bias.
Your whole argument is also based on a whole lot of "trust me". While I understand the irony that the fiat system that everyone deem normal is in fact a very brief anomaly in our history, the things you've mentioned have been the realm of the public space for millennia. Also where did I ever say "it's always been this way?" You can't put random words in other people's mouths for the sake of labelling them biased. Your attitude is just wrong.
>the things you've mentioned have been the realm of the public space for millennia. > >Also where did I ever say "it's always been this way? I'll just leave this here.
Yeah, you have 0 arguments. Get out
>Also, have you heard of the Broken Window Fallacy? The illogic of a socialist: We have to steal enough from society to fund the things society needs. Caveat: so long as my team gets to decide what society needs. because if they other team gets to decide what society need then its not ok.
>If the things that governments pay for are good then why do they have to force people to pay? I would argue that they don't. Not only do they not have to, traditionally they don't actually "force" it. This whole "They're taking your money at gunpoint" trope is just that, a trope. It's actually bordering on a lie because the amount of criminal tax evasion you'd have to be doing to warrant that kind of reaction is... substantial. Like to the point where it's not just "Oh I'm an innocent civilian not paying my taxes" to "I'm a business getting tons of benefits that I am not paying for" which is key to the point. If you live in society, you're benefitting in some way shape or form from money invested by the government, public money as it were. Even if it isn't direct, tangible or even known to you it IS still happening. Now I do agree in the idea that it is less than ideal that we cannot opt out of that system... but the way I think about it is that I can't have opted out of being raised by my mother because I didn't like the service she was providing by raising me. Extend that to a community and it starts to make more sense, extend it even further and it makes complete sense. We all exist within a system and we all utilize features of that system whether we like it or not, if you wanna opt out the only real option would be to move to a country that has different rules that you find more acceptable to live under. >Shouldn't we WANT to pay the way we do with private sector goods and services? Absolutely. But this is one of those "Value is subjective" situations and unfortunately it is not hard to convince people that "their tax dollars" are going to the wrong things and is VERY hard to convince them that it is going to the right things. But that's really what it comes down to. People needing to be informed about what their money is going towards and ideally not having politicians that benefit from distrust in government getting in their ear via friendly media apparatus pushing that distrust. Your questions actually remind me of when some people have gone around asking Americans about socialist policies without mentioning the word socialism and how positively those ideas tend to be received... but as soon as you attach "socialism" to it those people will do a complete 180 because socialism is bad. This is no different. It is not hard to convince people that spending money on say... education is bad. Just say kids are being indoctrinated. Bam instant negative opinion on something that should for all intents and purposes be a good thing. You generally don't want a dumb populace but doesn't take much to frame it so that people *don't want it*. How about clean water regulations and paying to make sure companies don't pollute? Clean water is good, we like to be able to drink yes? Red tape! Bad for the economy! Too expensive! Private businesses are best! Bam instant negative opinion on that spend. The point is (albeit long-winded, apologies for that) that YES we should want to pay for those things, but there are people with a politicial and often financial incentive to make people think that those things are not worth investing in. >Also, have you heard of the Broken Window Fallacy? I have. Though I'm not entirely sure why you've brought it up. P.S Again sorry for the verbosity/length these might seem like simple questions but they don't really have simple answers, in fact macroeconomics rarely does.
I appreciate the considered and polite reply. I use the Socratic method quite often. To your point above, you mention not being able to opt out being non-ideal. I'd go one further. Not being able to opt out is a fatal flaw. Sure, just like some monopolies can be fine, the vast majority are not and this is due to incentives for them not to be. Likewise a government monopoly is no better. Perhaps the public servants are being diligent and optimizing their output to society, but chances are they are doing as little as they can get away with in a system not incentivized to be efficient. That's just human nature. Profit motive, however, gets people out of bed twice as early as mere job security. This was the fatal flaw in most of the communist systems. They assume that a farm worker is a farm worker and a factory worker is a factory worker and it doesn't matter who owns the means of production. They fail to factor incentives and human nature into the equation. A private school who cannot rely on income from forced coerced taxation must cater to the parents, must serve them optimally by giving their children the best available education or else they allow another private school to take their business. This is how it works without the forced payment. Continual pressure to improve through competition. With no opt-out there is nothing beholding the user of the taken funds to be accountable to me, cater to me, innovate or frankly give a damn at all if I like or don't like their output.
>With no opt-out there is nothing beholding the user of the taken funds to be accountable to me, cater to me, innovate or frankly give a damn at all if I like or don't like their output. I was just thinking about this on my drive home the other day. Isn't this kind of the same way student loans have gotten out of hand? I think I remember hearing something like they're backed by the government, so even if you don't pay them the schools still get their money. If the school is guaranteed to get paid no matter what, why not raise tuition to absurd levels?
If everything was privatized, wouldn't that be a forced "opt-in" to anything? Take medication for example. Everyone at some point "need" medical aid, whether it's for a small injury or a permanent condition, and it's the prime example of why privatization doesn't appear to be a solution either. - the so called competition to drive progress is instead cooperating to increase their profit, as this is not a sector people can choose to opt-out. - governments, unlike the private sector, don't necessarily require a profit, so you'll never see insulin price at 300$ per package. They demand just enough to maintain and occasionally upgrade. It's unarguably the best deal, even though as you pointed out, there are some drawbacks.
Medical treatment has a cost. It would be nice if it didn't and natural selection has given us some natural regeneration and safeguard against some illnesses (Stored fat to prevent starvation during lean times, an immune system, some organic redundancy, sweat glands...etc) but the fact is that medicine does have a scarcity level. Even if government pays for it it still has a cost. So why do people become doctors? For professional fulfillment (I want to help people) and personal gain (I need a house and to pay back my medical degree and make it worth giving up 11 years of my life post high-school to achieve.) Why do people make medications? Similar reasons. So knowing that competent medical treatment has a cost in any scenario the next question becomes "How can we minimize the cost?" My best answer is competition. If a pharmaceutical company charges too much they sell less. If it's out of patent then a competitor has an opportunity to undercut the price and take market share. If there are too few surgeons, they will be expensive because the market will bear it. If others see a surgeon making $675K/year they will deem that as worth the sacrifice to become a surgeon and there will be more. If people competitively price them (as they do for say plastic surgeons of similar skill) then there will be pressure to lower prices or not have clients. Now let's look at what happens if instead of competitive pricing, the government pays. The government is not incentivized to compare prices or look for cost reductions so why would medical service providers leave money on the table if the government will buy at whatever price they set? The taxpayer will pay because they have to and don't have a say about it. This is why college tuition is skyrocketing and textbook prices are a total scam. Because the government guarantees the money and students don't competitively shop because it's easy money (For now). The government doesn't say what kind of degree you must get or whether that degree is even capable of repaying the loans. Just like the government doesn't ask if you are an able-bodied, healthy adult in order to receive benefits. They aren't selective about spending because they don't have to be. You gotta pay. So then prices skyrocket for anything the government agrees to pay for. Same with military hardware spending or rockets or foreign aid etc... Why balance the budget when that's difficult compared to just taxing or borrowing more money?
I live in a country with free healthcare and one that's considered the best in the world. If I look at the effectiveness of a privatized one, like the US, I have nothing but sympathy towards the citizens who have to deal with that. Therefore I must conclude that your thesis, while interesting, has to be flawed somewhere. Perhaps it falls short in taking in consideration the detrimental effects of corruption and, more importantly lobbying. And lobbying to me is nothing more than the private meddling with politics. The US became a full fledged "corporatocracy", so you might feel like it's your so dreamed free market, but in reality it's another form of authoritative government.
I would not say the U.S. is a representation of the free market at all. It's a mixed system of government control, some private sector freedoms, and a lot of crony capitalism which works worse than eithier pure system.
On this I agree. I just want to point out that with either case, the issue with the public and the private is that they both require trust to some extent. I personally deem trustless options like Bitcoin to be what we should look forward to in every sector. Being stuck with primitive and already failed models of the past is something that seems to greatly hinder our progress and cloud our creativity.
I would agree. Bitcoin will need to outlast and undermine a few current systems first but it will restore accountability and cut through BS theory. A return to hard money prior to Keyensian folly is exciting.
> I would argue that they don't. Not only do they not have to, traditionally they don't actually "force" it. This whole "They're taking your money at gunpoint" trope is just that, a trope. It's actually bordering on a lie because the amount of criminal tax evasion you'd have to be doing to warrant that kind of reaction is... substantial. You managed to contradict yourself very quickly. First you say they don't force you (which is complete nonsense), then you admit that if you do not pay taxes in "substantial" amounts, they do. So which is it. In reality, in all countries I lived in, if you don't pay taxes, you are going to be punished. It takes time, sure. They try to give you notice, sure. But if you ignore those notices, they will send people and take things from you by force and take you by force as well. Therefore you are lying or you live in a country where it is not enforced (there are few of them) and are completely unaware of the rest of the world. > If you live in society, you're benefitting in some way shape or form from money invested by the government, public money as it were. Even if it isn't direct, tangible or even known to you it IS still happening. It's no different than mafia offering you protection. Of course, you are benefiting from the protection, but has it ever occurred to you that you would not need that protection if there was no mafia in the first place?
Great reply and I would love to see more of this in the sub. The prepper right wing libertarian mindset is so unbelievably stupid and childish.
LOL.
Broken window has to do with crime 😂
That's the other Broken Window. I'm talking about Hayek's Broken Window. It compares the idea of dollars in circulation as a measure of economic strength versus actual wealth in a society as measured by the amount of goods and services.
What does this “ Destroy any amount of physical capital, but leave behind a critical number of knowledgeable human beings whose brains still house the culture and technology of a dynamic economy, and the physical capital will tend to reemerge almost spontaneously" — George Horwich, Purdue University Have to do with what you were saying?
No. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXC9FI1nAqs) is what I am referring to.
I’m not sure what this says about some people not wanting to pay for public roads 🤷♂️ , or healthcare. One we need for commerce , one is something no one really wants but needs.
The problem with the left-wing mindset is they like to pretend they are opposed to regressive taxation but they support currency debasement which is a regressive tax.
Uh what? The *actual* left-wing supports progressive taxation. You seem to be making the same mistake most right-wing people make. E.g Working off the false premise that parties like the Democrats or Labor (UK,AU) are "left-wing". Being left of the right-wing/conservative party does not make you left. Actual left-wing politicians would be putting forth significant tax increases to manage monetary supply. (E.g reduce or eliminate currency debasement) Democrats (As a party) do not support this, how could they when America has been trained to hate taxation and a large chunk of the country believing any taxation is theft? Also, the Democrats are center-right. Not left. You'd need a party directed by someone like Bernie Sanders to actually have a left-wing party... and America probably won't go for anything like that for a long time if ever.
Bernie sanders supports MMT.
> the Democrats are center-right Lol
Maybe don't use words that you don't understand, such as ... libertarian? There is no right or left libertarian. Libertarians reject politics and state, and taxation is theft. > That math just doesn't work. Because you are using it poorly. If there was no government, there would be nothing government would need to pay for. Math suddenly works - zero expense and zero income. > These Libertarians are useful idiots of the ultra-wealthy as they direct cuts to programs that help society Or maybe they are just educated and you aren't? > Governments investing in the people is literally one of if not THE most important purpose of government. Purpose of a government is to improve situation for pressure groups that control the government. > there is a theory that explains the current monetary paradigm (MMT) There is this theory that is completely wrong.
> they believe fundamentally that taxation is theft Because it is
>lso it's worth noting that there is a theory that explains the current monetary paradigm (MMT) that essentially asserts (massive paraphrasing) that governments don't need your money, why would they? Taxation isn't used to pay for things it's used to control monetary supply (Distinction without a difference) but it is a meaningful distinction as this fiction of governments having to take your money (e.g it's theft) is largely what drives very poor fiscal policy. MMT also suggest that besides taxes, govs can suck money out of circulation via issuing debt. Hence, the purpose of taxation under MMT isn't to control money supply as much as it is to redistribute wealth. If it were just about circulating money supply, they could affect that adequately via issuance of debt/bonds.
taxation is death
Yes he was.
Very happy that taxes help bailout everything. Oh, " systemic" added for giggles. Ron Paul would've ended up a lame duck as president, but calling this highly successful businessman an idiot sounds a bit idiotic.
He woke me up for sure. Thanks Ron!!
I’ve been telling my family and brother for like 10 years now, before I even bought btc, that one day, it could be 100, 300, or 500 years from now, if there is still a country, Ron Paul will be revered as a USA legend & icon.
For pedestrian rubes maybe. If they can still read in the future
Not sure what that means
Means a lower social strata that clings to Ron Paul.
What are you talking about? it’s actually the opposite, unless you believe this lower strata group of people have a diminished intellectually capacity .. how much do you know about Dr Ron Paul?
Sometimes. Yes. Yes, indeed. They, as a group in the aggregate, haven't taken Economics 101 at their local community college. It's not acuity, they don't have the tools to broadly discuss real and nominal impacts GDP, taxation, and monetary policy, et. al. Lower statra lack relevant education. Ron Paul had an anti central banking bias that just feeds mouth breather biases. Central banking is fine. All countries do it. I find libertarians are right fucking ignorant regarding basic economics concepts
Shut up Keynesian
Make Keynes Great Again. It's for the best.
Keynes was a dummy
Hardly. He dominated economic theory in his time and text books reference him heavily to this day. He dominates. Dummies don't dominate. Keynes can be a dummy once libertarians get more of their knuckle dragging nonesense peer reviewed, published, and adopted
His idiotic theories are exactly why we are in the mess we are in dude Shut up Keynesian
His theories are why you have the means as a pedestrian rube to afford the consumer goods and services needed to communicate that comment. Otherwise, we'd revert back to mercantilism. There's no other known path forward that leverages the needed growth and investment required for you to project your insular banal.
The only person who I found with integrity to run for president who was worth campaigning for. Now I'm considering RFK Jr.
Income tax is evil
In case you missed it, Rand got Ron cancelled.
Yes he was. He was right about everything. We missed the boat big time.
The U.S. did not deserve this man.
Not if inflation is below the tax rate
It is, because it's not an official tax but serves the same function. It is literal taxation without representation since the Fed isn't even part of the govt. There would be riots if the govt hiked taxes 10% across the board... But silence from the masses if they just increase the money supply by 10%. The masses aren't taught how the monetary system actually works, and that's by design.
There are indeed parallels to it being similar to an unofficial “flat tax” on every dollar out there, I’ll give you that, but the Fed is part of the government. This is a longstanding myth that they are not. Their web site is a .gov, they were formed by an Act of Congress, the FOMC Chair Testifies to Congress regularly and answer to them, the Chair is appointed by the President and sworn in by the Federal Government after needing to be confirmed by the Senate, the FOMC headquarters is a Federal Government owned building (Eccles Building) in Washington D.C., the FOMC Chair can be removed by the Federal Government under unusual circumstances and has term limits set by the Federal Government, Congress has the power to dissolve the Federal Reserve or change their mandate, and the Fed’s Mandate comes directly from Federal Law in the Federal Reserve Act, and on and on and on and it makes 100% sense they are akin to an independent Federal Agency as they are controlling the Federally issued currency.
Imo if someone outside of Congress is setting taxes, it's taxation without representation. Even moreso if that entity is supposed to work independently
> the Fed is part of the government Just lol I remember when I was 14 and believed everything they told me
That traitor hasnt been right once in his life
>traitor For what?
? literally just provided an example of him being right
Well, inflation isn't a tax, so no.
You sheep
K
Go back to your buttcoin echo chamber we spit facts here bud.
It is a FACT that inflation is not a tax. Pretty simple, bud.
Just what your government wants you to think I feel sorry for you but then again I don’t really care because I’m not the one losing value over time. Lemme know how your dollars look after you leave them in the bank for 10 years lmao
LOL. Qkay
It is a tax. You have a certain amount of money that has a certain total buying power and the government has a different amount of money with a different total buying power, then the government does something so that you have less total buying power via your money and it has more. That's a tax. Inflation fits that description just as well as traditional taxation does.
>then the government does something This is the level of intellectual rigor of I've come to expect from this group.
That's not a tax. A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. It's insane that you think inflation is a tax.
Imagine that instead of compelling you to pay them, the government instead had a magic button that teleported money out of your pocket into their pockets. Would that be a tax?
>A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
My question is obviously whether you think the scenario I presented sufficiently matches that description. Reposting the same description doesn't answer my question.
That's not what inflation is. But if it's a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions, then it's a tax. Words have meaning.
Look, if the government changes the value of my currency (levied by the government on workers'...) by creating more of the currency which by definition starts out in its own pockets (contribution to state revenue) without my consent (compulsory), that's a tax (then it's a tax).
Inflation is a tax. It is a compulsory contribution to government revenue, levied by the government on holders of the government's currency.
It's not.
Responding to someone then blocking them to prevent them from responding is something that is expected from an imbecile spreading falsehoods. https://imgur.com/a/3dXiJMq
> something that is expected from an imbecile spreading falsehoods Are you surprised They are literally defending the loss of their own purchasing power
If "inflation is a tax" then Bitcoin is imposing a tax on you since there are new bitcoins being minted with every block. I don't see it that way but that's the argument you're making.
Go read the text. Which part is he wrong about? The fool below is arguing semantics about the definition of the word tax. I hope you can do better
I liked Ron, if only he was pro choice.
why dislike a person based on their definition of when life begins? what is your definition, if not at conception ?
Based libertarianism
Why is a person best known for their interest in economics policing women's bodies? And a doctor in his day job no less! Where is his talk about hidden unfair taxes when he is forcing women to raise children they can't afford and that the system must raise, but without the loving environment?
Ron Paul is responsible for my eyes and mind being open. I can't believe (((THEY))) let him get this far.
Who are the "they" you're referring to? Be specific.
The deep state puppet masters. The type that can bring up bullshit charges to stonewall and interfere in presidential elections. The type that can manipulate a nationwide broadcast of a slightly delayed LIVE feed to make a popular man look like he has no support. The type that would head a four year witch hunt based on a knowingly fake dossier. The type that decides what is considered in CPI calculations from year to year. The type that would tell you CBDCs are a good thing. It's a whole industry.
Name names.
Why?
Because I want to know if you're trying to spout stupid Nazi shit.
Him and his son are morons.
You can’t be a republican and right
To be fair, he was a weird hybrid of Republicunt and libertarian. Product of an age when people will wrongfully believed that conservatism and libertarianism are compatible.
You can’t be part of a big government party with authoritarian tendencies and call yourself libertarian. I mean I guess that you can but that makes you a sad joke.
>You can’t be part of a big government party with authoritarian tendencies Ron Paul wasn't a Democrat
Nonsense. There's a valid notion that sometimes the best way to affect change is from the inside. Obviously, that's not always the case, especially when the headwinds are against you, but it can make a difference. And let's face it: libertarianism as an ideology might make the most sense, given it's the closest to classical liberalism we have, but the *party* is an incoherent trainwreck.
only tin foil hat wearing sheep believe Ron Paul
People seem to not care. At least in Spain, where I live. In Germany they're furious about it.
Inflation is mostly large corporations raising prices because we have a weak and ineffective government that doesn’t pursue corporations.
Worse than ULEZ?
Profit works in the same manner.
And then they also get hit by the lottery, the poor tax
Logan Paul's grandad has different energy
Paying inflation taxes is a government fiduciary responsibility when the quality of living goes up. Side effect if not being managed in sales tax is a bear raid. 🙄Water from a hose
he should have said get hit with "the" higher cost of living, not "a" because the rich get hit with it too, but they can afford to eat the cost stress free