You know sort of like we believe here on MMM that we have financial freedom through badassity. Somehow this concept escapes us when we talk about the government.
Nah, you are just confusing personal economy with a national economy.
tax revenue does not dictate government spending! governments don't need no tax revenue! ever heard of MMT? aka Magic Money Tree?
Ah, I see the capitalist propaganda working here!! ;)
To get the facts down, MMT does not say government does not need taxes. The point MMT makes is that government spending can be higher as tax income as long as certain economic factors are true.
For example a state can spend money on e.g. infrastructure
if the infrastructure-building industry is not fully utilized. Then the using of the prior unused economic capabilities does not lead to inflation. (And
might even result in a better revenue for the state subsequently, as more people have work and pay taxes instead of getting social security. Which leads to more demand etc. But those factors are not new.)
The difference is, of course, that neoliberal theories have failed again and again, while MMT and it's earlier versions have worked most of the time. (compare Greece and Portugal in the last crisis)
Long-term, most government will at some point have to raise taxes and/or cut spending
No. There is a third way, used by kings and other leaders for as long as history knows about. (In fact the first written document we have is about that third way.)
But I think that's taking us away from the central point of debate which is whether we have an obligation to care for the less fortunate in society via redistribution, beyond the essentials (which most would agree consists of providing enough food and shelter that the crime rate doesn't go way up).
Oh, let's using Germany here okay?
Because we have our enlightened phrase of the dignity of the human all state actions have to protect.
Do you think human dignity includes more than "enough food and shelter that the crime rate doesn't go way up"?
