|
Raising taxes on the rich during a recession is also a form of austerity. Are you guys gonna oppose that?
|
# ¿ Jul 21, 2015 23:35 |
|
|
# ¿ May 9, 2024 20:04 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Not sure how that has anything to do with austerity, given that it's sort of the complete opposite of what the people championing austerity are doing. Austerity is by definition raising taxes without increasing spending, or cutting spending without also cutting taxes. Raising taxes on the wealthy without a corresponding raise in government spending is austerity. I'm simply wondering if you guys are against austerity in all its forms.
|
# ¿ Jul 21, 2015 23:39 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Raising taxes without increasing spending seems kind of pointless but it's better than cutting spending I guess? It's not if you plan on reducing the deficit or if you plan on servicing or reducing the debt
|
# ¿ Jul 21, 2015 23:45 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Is that very necessary? If you are greece then yes it probably is
|
# ¿ Jul 21, 2015 23:50 |
|
OwlFancier posted:It doesn't seem to be doing them very much good so far. So let me get your position straight. If a country is running a serious, unsustainable deficit like Greece was during the 2000s, you would be opposed to increasing taxes on the wealthy to reduce said deficit and instead keep borrowing from international creditors like Germany to finance the gap between consumption and taxation.
|
# ¿ Jul 21, 2015 23:54 |
|
OwlFancier posted:I would suggest that "raise the tax rate on the wealthy" would make bugger all difference to Greece's debt problem. I got a feeling if I simply called it a "wealth redistribution program" instead of "austerity" a few posts ago you'd be all for it right now.
|
# ¿ Jul 22, 2015 00:11 |
|
Voyager I posted:Austerity, in the context we're discussing, involves attempting to close the deficit primarily by reducing government spending. The whole implication of the world 'austere' is doing without something, which isn't applicable if you aren't giving anything up. Somebody is giving something up, in this case the rich now have to pay more taxes
|
# ¿ Jul 22, 2015 00:43 |
|
Voyager I posted:By this definition, shifting towards a Scandinavian welfare state could be considered Austerity so long as the additional taxes on the wealthy outweighed the increased benefits to the poor. But that's literally what it means. Running a fiscal deficit also involve a huge scope of policies and values that are often explicitly contradictory towards each other. I get it that austerity is a trigger word on D&D, but the OP asked what austerity is and this is an answer. You could oppose the current implementation of austerity too and that's valid.
|
# ¿ Jul 22, 2015 00:56 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:It doesn't matter what the dictionary definition is because you know that's not what people are talking about so shut the gently caress up about the dictionary. In the exact same sense the right "knows" that fiscal deficit means giving welfare money to poor undeserving people. Sorry that words don't mean what you hope they mean.
|
# ¿ Jul 22, 2015 02:03 |
|
Mo_Steel posted:Oh boy, are we at the stage where we all post definitions to suit our fancy? Notice how those definitions states that "reduce a budget deficit, especially by reducing expenditures" instead of "reduce a budget deficit by reducing expenditures". Which means they don't preclude reducing the deficit through tax increases. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6254/economics/what-is-austerity/ quote:Austerity involves policies to reduce government spending and or higher taxes in order to try and reduce government budget deficits.
|
# ¿ Jul 22, 2015 03:44 |
|
Mo_Steel posted:You realize I'm mocking you for cherry picking definitions to make a worthless argument, and as a response you cherry picked not only from the definitions I linked but also went out to again cherry pick a definition, right? I'm concerned you may have missed it because I didn't spell it out plainly enough. I'll try again. oh D&D how I've missed you
|
# ¿ Jul 22, 2015 05:07 |
|
fspades posted:Worthless pedantic arguments over the definition of words that everyone IRL understands is a time-honored tradition of D&D and one of the reasons why it's a bad sub-forum. So you might like to get off your high horse over there. nah The fact that certain D&Ders are like the most easily riled up group of people on the internet might be though
|
# ¿ Jul 23, 2015 18:38 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Shooting all the bankers for the past twenty years would have prevented the debt crisis. Shooting all the people for the past twenty years would have prevented the debt crisis, global exploitation and climate change.
|
# ¿ Jul 24, 2015 20:13 |
|
Pohl posted:I gave up arguing a long time ago and just ask him how he is going to feel when his family is hanging from light poles around town. You might think I'm joking, but I'm not. no offense dude but you probably shouldn't talk this way to people irl even if you do on the internet, it's a good way to lose friends and friends are awfully important even if they are assholes sometimes.
|
# ¿ Jul 24, 2015 20:17 |
|
down with slavery posted:wow you're almost as much of an rear end in a top hat as he is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ pretty much the reason why the fringe left will stay on the fringe forever
|
# ¿ Jul 26, 2015 11:00 |
|
|
# ¿ May 9, 2024 20:04 |
|
Pohl posted:
VitalSigns is being sarcastic
|
# ¿ Jul 26, 2015 21:37 |