If we are serious about getting things done — universal healthcare, basic income, solving climate change — we need to reject the taxpayer money myth in its entirety.
The idea of the government telling banks to change people’s bank values is a bad example, but I think the core is accurate. The government has a role to play in the economy and we have only decided arbitrarily that taxes will fund coffers that get spent “responsibly”. But there is really no necessary corelation here. We have just sort of arrived here, at this metaphor, to make sure the government doesn’t do something stupid like buy everyone a puppy.
For those who believe in markets, keeping the government largely operating within markets (taxes, expenditures, deficits, etc) is a useful proxy. But when the markets are so far distorted and the lives of poor and working people are at stake? Yeah it’s clear something has to change.
Please no. It’s hard enough to exist in the world as someone with allergies. Also, pets being just kind of shoved at people without their input seldom goes well.
Yes, the example is a pretty poor one, but the idea has been around for a while. I’m surprised that the author didn’t even mention it, since it’s become more mainstream over the last few years, with books and academic papers written about it, and some economists adopting the idea. It’s called Modern Monetary Theory (i.e., “MMT”).
i’m not sure there’s a lot of value in arguing that, since we have a fiat currency, the government can just make new money and no one has to pay for it. the argument will simply change from “people who need welfare are mooching on taxpayers” to “people who need welfare are causing inflation”. it’s not really changing anything
the argument we should be making, as progressives, is that it’s fucking inhumane to let people die on the streets. we’re wealthy enough as a country that we can afford the taxes to ensure that never needs to happen. of course, if we implement universal healthcare, then you’ll be paying for your own healthcare, as well as others’, and we’ll all benefit from it being cheaper
the same goes for housing, etc. but arguing from a position of strength (i.e. we live in a country wealthy enough to do this) feels a lot more persuasive, to me, at least for an argument in the abstract - something you’d see on television, for example. it’s less persuasive for individuals who are obviously struggling, but for them, the argument is simply the fact that the system isn’t really working for them. and what would universal healthcare, etc, do…?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Interesting.
The idea of the government telling banks to change people’s bank values is a bad example, but I think the core is accurate. The government has a role to play in the economy and we have only decided arbitrarily that taxes will fund coffers that get spent “responsibly”. But there is really no necessary corelation here. We have just sort of arrived here, at this metaphor, to make sure the government doesn’t do something stupid like buy everyone a puppy.
For those who believe in markets, keeping the government largely operating within markets (taxes, expenditures, deficits, etc) is a useful proxy. But when the markets are so far distorted and the lives of poor and working people are at stake? Yeah it’s clear something has to change.
Out of interest. Where do I sign on to this buy every one a puppy stress reduction initiative. That is some spending I can get behind. ;)
Please no. It’s hard enough to exist in the world as someone with allergies. Also, pets being just kind of shoved at people without their input seldom goes well.
Yes, the example is a pretty poor one, but the idea has been around for a while. I’m surprised that the author didn’t even mention it, since it’s become more mainstream over the last few years, with books and academic papers written about it, and some economists adopting the idea. It’s called Modern Monetary Theory (i.e., “MMT”).
i’m not sure there’s a lot of value in arguing that, since we have a fiat currency, the government can just make new money and no one has to pay for it. the argument will simply change from “people who need welfare are mooching on taxpayers” to “people who need welfare are causing inflation”. it’s not really changing anything
the argument we should be making, as progressives, is that it’s fucking inhumane to let people die on the streets. we’re wealthy enough as a country that we can afford the taxes to ensure that never needs to happen. of course, if we implement universal healthcare, then you’ll be paying for your own healthcare, as well as others’, and we’ll all benefit from it being cheaper
the same goes for housing, etc. but arguing from a position of strength (i.e. we live in a country wealthy enough to do this) feels a lot more persuasive, to me, at least for an argument in the abstract - something you’d see on television, for example. it’s less persuasive for individuals who are obviously struggling, but for them, the argument is simply the fact that the system isn’t really working for them. and what would universal healthcare, etc, do…?