A friend sent me an email the other day, complaining about the 70 percent marginal tax rate floated by Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the new wealth tax proposed by Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Playing the victim is the most pathetic excuse the wealthy use to hide their greed.
MMT is important, but don’t use it to justify pandering to the looting class. There’s no good reason not to lift the highest marginal tax rate into the stratosphere – 70% should not be a starting point demand, we should start with 95% and if we have to compromise we can return to what it was post-WWII, 91%. Yes the looting class will fight it. That’s not a good reason to pre-compromise our demands. Funding programs is not the sole, or even most important, reason for higher top marginal tax rates. We need to reduce their wealth and power. One way, or another.
So please explain - in “Option C”, how do you get the money to pay for all those services, unless you either take it away from the rich (Option “B” in disguise) or inflate the currency, so that, in effect, you move everyone down the ladder. The writer needs to go back and understand economics. Services aren’t free - someone has to pay for them.
The system has been assiduously constructed so as to assure that those who extract in the current status quo, are situated on a fully greased pivot to hide the not only the multitude of methods, but the VARIETY of variants written into the system TO EXTRACT WEALTH from THE COMMONS.
Part of that kabuki mask is the media pounding of the rowing rhythm to negate ANYTHING other than the arguments their mouthpieces present and to feign surprise so deep, when the sheer scale of fed-uped-ness that is rising, that they can claim ‘Russia did it’, in an attempt to herd public opinion.
As for Dalio… we are at the point where talk like that of he and his cronies is so cheap with rot it reeks.
This is going to be a fight for generations and these types can only be turned around by being stronger, more resilient, more unified in our diversity, more informed with historical documentation and - believe it or not - more loving than they can even imagine.
Actually nobody has to “pay” anything. Economics is a construct and systems have exist and can exist where it not all about “How will we PAY for this”.
As example up until 1974 Canada funded its health Care via the Bank of Canada using its power to issue currency. Contrary to claims made by the Bankers this did NOT cause the inflation of the 1970’s. That inflation was caused by the Vietnam war and Nixon unilaterally pulling the plug on the US Dollar being redeemable for Gold.
The Incan Empire never even had money yet had a fully functional economy.
That the outcome you outline may or may not happen has nothing to do with that it MUST and everything to do with it how the system designed. Scrap the system. The system BY DESIGN is intended to ensure wealth flow to the 1 percent as the Commons stolen from the people.
I noticed that we’ve supposedly inflated the currency with over $20 trillion in deficit spending already.
Any comment on that?
Yes, it shows how the government is no one’s friend regardless of who is in power. Neither party gives a damn about the citizens beyond cadging them into voting their particular brand of crooks into office.
Balance the budget for reasons of democracy efficiency that have nothing to with economists.
Stephanie Kelton uses standard economics mumbo jumbo to explain it is okay to just spend some new money from a new deficit. She believes her own crazy profession’s propaganda.
This economist and 99% of economists pay no attention to reality. Who will say what to spend the newly created money?
And what will they spend the money on? Take a look at current deficit spending as an example; The US has killed twenty million completely innocent people since the end of ww2 with deficit spending. that’s where the money is.
But what about all that inflation you said would happen?
|Cumulative price change||197.48%|
|Price difference ($1 base)||$1.97|
|CPI in 1980||82.400|
|CPI in 2017||245.120|
Inflation is always happening
Over 38 years, that’s paltry. But nice try.
The only sectors where inflation is problematic are healthcare (our system is unsustainable), housing (prices are cooling off), and education (Bernie actually offers a great plan there).
I notice no one ever proposes raising taxes to pay for the military. Deficit spending, cha-ching.
Inflation is problematic if one is stupid enough to save money.
Skeptic - inflation steals value everywhere. fast or slow, it’s a “tax” just as much as any other tax. The US has been lucky to date, because productivity has offset most of the impact (although I do remember the 10% inflation of the late 70s). Look at other countries as well - if inflation isn’t controlled, you get Argentina.
My point remains: If someone like you claims we have to pay for services somehow and that inflating our currency to do so is bad and yet we’ve run up huge deficits over three decades without runaway inflation, then your argument holds no water.
If you’re truly worried about inflation, I’d focus on the international movement to replace the US petrodollar. That’s gaining momentum rapidly.
Skeptic - services aren’t free. Someone pays, whether directly, in taxes, in lost purchasing power, or by charitable contribution (foregoing payment for services provided). Nothing is free. I’m merely pointing that out in the original post.
And MMT states otherwise: You can print endless supplies of a currency you control, paying moderate amounts of interest on the nominal debt. Trump just ran up over a trillion more in debt last year.
Our military budget is the example I’ll refer to again: We never raise taxes to pay for it.
Yup the elite have become so arroant they have forgotten what Marx’s said. Capitalist will need to through the proles a bone now and then to keep the system going.
Look into MMT, referenced by the author. Plenty of ways to manage an economy. And plenty of establishment economists on board with MMT.
The supposed boxes we are in of deficit and debt and tax and spend are, as Suspira notes, constructs, as are any economic or financial systems. The present constructs serve particular interests.
The reason so many things are “off the table” (not just in economics) is not due to their being actually impossible, but due to entrenched power refusing to allow consideration of constructs that would diminish their power and wealth.
For example, accounting. What do we account for? What do we not account for? These are choices, constructs, that serve particular interests. The fact that we do not account for ecological devastation in business accounting, or social impacts, but only financial matters, serves specific (wealthy and powerful) interests in society and the economy, and harm others.
I can’t help but wonder, considering peoples feelings about this tax, that 1.5 trillion just slipped through everyone’s hands, and into the pockets of the rich. Enlighten please.