Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
Why are NatACTs obsessed with reducing government spending as a proportion of GDP? It's like indexing tax rates to Goat aBdominal Product (or the entrails of a goat).
What increased public spending does is make more public goods (eg infrastructure) and public services (eg healthcare) available, adding to the real economy. Often by funding people who can do that using underutilised skills and resources. But NatACTs seem to think it takes a bigger bite out of an economic pie that stays the same.
Are the NatACTs really that thick, or do they just think we are?
Another thing NatACTs do is talk about taxpayers funding things. This fundamentally misunderstands what taxation does (maybe intentionally?). Just as in the previous example, they fundamentally misunderstandsl how government spending works.
Taxes don't fund anything. What taxation does is remove dollars fron the country's money supply, just as spending adds dollars to it.
(1/2)
We want a govt to tax more than it spends (to 'run a surplus') when the real economy is shrinking. So that the money supply shrinks along with the supply of goods and services, and each dollar can still buy roughly the same stuff (it 'holds it value').
But if the economy is growing, we want govts to spend more than they tax (to 'run a deficit'). So the money supply increases, and there's enough extra dollars in circulation to be spent on all those extra goods the economy is producing.
(2/2)