Taxes are not “used to enrich your fellow man”. They are used to limit the amount of money in circulation. A financially sovereign state can issue however much money it wants - money is not a limited resource for such a state.
Yes (which depends on the way an economy is organised, by the way). But that just means that there are factors that influence how much currency a financially sovereign state wants to issue, rather than that they can’t issue that currency.
Again, what actually can be used for improving the conditions of one’s fellow workers are budgets dedicated to relevant policies, rather than taxes that simply reduce the amount of money in circulation.
I think you’re arguing in favor of some other philosophy and not disagreeing with their central point. It’s implied that the tax revenue is spent on nice things, not that the taxes themselves are the benefit. They’re not talking about inflation.
Saying “tax revenue is spent on…” is misleading. Taxes are used to take currency out of circulation (roughly speaking, destroy the currency). A financially sovereign state can issue however much money it wants, i.e. it can form whatever budgets it wants. Money is not a limited resource for them. The fact that it will not want arbitrary budgets is a different manner.
They’re not talking about inflation.
I covered a more broad case than inflation, but if they were not talking about it, then their comment makes no sense.
If you think that financially sovereign states have some limited supply and can run out of money, you are welcome to explain what would prevent them from simply issuing more money in that situation.
Not sure where this hostility is coming from, but if you want to say that tax revenue is spent on something, rather than that that something is prepared a budget for and money is issued according to the budget, but then angrily retort that I am the one talking about money running out is silly.
Taxes are not “used to enrich your fellow man”. They are used to limit the amount of money in circulation. A financially sovereign state can issue however much money it wants - money is not a limited resource for such a state.
Do you know what happens to countries and economies that just “print more money”?
Yes (which depends on the way an economy is organised, by the way). But that just means that there are factors that influence how much currency a financially sovereign state wants to issue, rather than that they can’t issue that currency.
Again, what actually can be used for improving the conditions of one’s fellow workers are budgets dedicated to relevant policies, rather than taxes that simply reduce the amount of money in circulation.
I think you’re arguing in favor of some other philosophy and not disagreeing with their central point. It’s implied that the tax revenue is spent on nice things, not that the taxes themselves are the benefit. They’re not talking about inflation.
Saying “tax revenue is spent on…” is misleading. Taxes are used to take currency out of circulation (roughly speaking, destroy the currency). A financially sovereign state can issue however much money it wants, i.e. it can form whatever budgets it wants. Money is not a limited resource for them. The fact that it will not want arbitrary budgets is a different manner.
I covered a more broad case than inflation, but if they were not talking about it, then their comment makes no sense.
It sounds like you’re proselytizing MMT
I am not. That’s just how states literally work.
If you think that financially sovereign states have some limited supply and can run out of money, you are welcome to explain what would prevent them from simply issuing more money in that situation.
Nobody is talking about running out of money but you
Not sure where this hostility is coming from, but if you want to say that tax revenue is spent on something, rather than that that something is prepared a budget for and money is issued according to the budget, but then angrily retort that I am the one talking about money running out is silly.