47
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
47 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
3579 readers
53 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Okay, fine. If you tax the ultra-wealthy at 100% for example, then they have no incentive to work and therefore will no longer be ultra-wealthy and that will pay for what maybe 1% of what's necessary to fund these services and now there are no more ultra-wealthy people so who are you going to tax? The middle class of course.
The key thing to recognise here is that we're not talking about high income earners. We're talking about people who are wealthy due to owning massive amounts of assets which generate passive wealth, and they acquire that wealth because they belong to wealthy families. They don't contribute to the dynamism of the economy. These people don't earn money from working, they suck up all the money from the productive workers. If you're grinding it out and earning 200K that's fine, more power to you. Those people aren't the people I'm talking about.
Right, but the government is a very wasteful spender. As an example, the US government spends the market cap of Apple Incorporated every 100 days. If Apple did that, they would not exist in 100 days. But the government continues to exist. I completely understand that once you obtain a certain amount of wealth, you really don't need any more. However, with that said, I think taxation is the wrong way to handle it and that using another service is the correct way to handle it.
The government spends money, and takes that money back through taxation. If the government spends money, incurs debt, and doesn't get the money back, it's due to a failure of taxation policy. Government money spent on services that are valuable to the public is not wasteful, which is the key point you are not understanding. They don't need to generate a profit, like Apple does. They need to ensure that the wealth flows through the appropriate channels, which they have neglected to do since the advent of neoliberal policies. The government has no imperative to further technological innovation, like Apple does. It's not their business. They are in the business of maintaining a basic quality of life for the population.
Okay, if the government is supposed to provide a basic quality of life, then they are failing at that job and need to be replaced.
Absolutely, and that sheds some light on the commonality between our countries, even if the politics are a bit different. Major parties have abandoned the working class. Which requires better political engagement so we can vote ourselves out of this situation to get a fair deal and avoid what looks like the inevitable rise of right wing populism, which won't help progress the situation at all.
Exactly, which also shows the differences because I very firmly believe that we cannot vote hard enough to escape this situation. I and many others have lost complete trust in our institutions and we act accordingly. Why vote when it does no good? In fact, if anything else, I would be willing to vote for shit policies in order to watch the train wreck happen faster in order to get to a better place faster.
I don't know how the USA can fix its shit political situation. You guys should have had a chance at voting in Bernie in 2016, but you didn't have the chance. Australia isn't as far down that path yet, but at least we have mandatory voting, so have a better chance at achieving a good result through political education, which will only occur through discussions with our social circles. I don't think accelerationist ideas will achieve a positive outcome though. It's first about imagining a better alternative, and being vocal about it. Every person who works for a living should have affordable housing and healthcare, for example, without incurring a 30 year debt or going bankrupt. It happened in the post WW2 era, it can happen again if enough people demand it.
I love how you dont even understand the concept of a line of credit and everything is a zero sum game. You have a very broken outlook on life. Very toxic mindset.
Credit and the I must have it now mentality is most of the problem with people today. You don't need credit when you actually have money.
The 'asset wealthy' being spoken of here use credit all the time as they arent in a liquid position to transact at that point, but provably do have the capital in assets to satisfy the transaction. And we all use credit, often in very reasonable situations.
For instance, a first home buyer borrowing when interest rates are low, locking in a low interest rate for a long period, can be very beneficial for the individual concerned, where house prices get higher for an extended period. Even if it does lead to some perceived realty market stickiness.
Widespread use of Credit is not the problem (in this regard), and in fact could be a sign of a more trusting global society beginning to establish itself.
Credit is also bot new. It is the OG, and has been with us since well before tokenised money. Read David Graeber's 'Debt'. And look up debt sticks, or the origin of the yin-yang symbol. The essence of David Graeber's argument is tokenised money, uniquely gold, is used when you transact with someone you are unable to trust, credit is used when you can trust.
It's of course more complicated now, the vendor is not so reliant on trusting the individual in front of them, and more reliant on the name on a bit of plastic in their pocket.
That's true. And by locking in a low interest rate on a home, for example, the buyer is basically shorting their fiat currency and saying that they believe it will be worth less in, say, 30 years than it currently is right now. And they would be right. Inflation is only going to get worse and worse as time goes on, and the government's financial situation gets more and more dire. And so they turn to the printing press, which then dilutes the value of the fiat currency that has already been issued, hurting the individual. So what an individual should do is take out a super low interest loan on something like a home and convert the majority of their money out of their government fiat currency and into something tangible such as gold or Monero where inflation won't ravage it away. Shorting government fiat currency is a great way to preserve your wealth.