this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
103 points (98.1% liked)

Canada

10682 readers
439 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
103
Mark Carney’s first budget projects $78B deficit, program and civil service cuts (www.sootoday.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by Rentlar@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The theme seems to be "reduce operating spending, increase capital spending". We'll see how that will blow over with the opposition.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem with the existence of billionaires is really the wealth inequality itself, not the number of dollars in their bank accounts.

Inequality is what gives the ultra-wealthy their outsized influence in the political economy.

Dollars are not scarce items; the government can issue currency essentially at will. Taxes aren't there to fund services. They exist to reduce inequality.

So yes, tax the billionaires. And if they leave: we're better off that way too!

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry, I seriously disagree with about all of this.

Inequality is what gives the ultra-wealthy their outsized influence in the political economy.

This is about Canadian politics. We have strict rules and limits on donations, advertising and support. Like anything, could probably be better but it's a pretty fair balance.

the government can issue currency essentially at will.

Apologies but this is childishly ignorant. Look to most countries in South America about the consequences of doing so. Inflation is very real and reducing the value of the Canadian dollar hurts those who can afford it least.

Taxes aren’t there to fund services. They exist to reduce inequality.

Absolutely not. Being equally poor without teachers, doctors, roads, defence, I mean my God.

tax the billionaires

We do. You let me know how much you think we do currently, how much more you would like.

And if they leave: we’re better off that way too!

Who needs hospitals, schools, emergency responders etc anyway? At least we won't have dumb ol' rich people anymore!

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're welcome to disagree - but everything I said is factual. If there's something you don't understand, I'm happy to explain - just ask.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

the government can issue currency essentially at will.

Okay, sure, this is technically true. In the same way that technically, you can drink bleach it's just a very bad idea.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's literally how we dealt with the first phase of the Covid pandemic. Was keeping millions of Canadians from being evicted a bad idea?

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Covid, and emergencies like it, are entirely the point of fiscal responsibility!

In an emergency, you can max out your credit. If you do that on the regular, for non emergencies, not only will you end up paying an absurd amount of interest, but you won't be able to borrow more when the next emergency happens!

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Great ok so we at least agree that issuing currency is not the fiscal equivalent of drinking bleach, and that there are good and bad reasons to do it.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Dollars are not scarce items; the government can issue currency essentially at will.

Edit: You CAN drink a small amount of bleach. Just like you CAN print money during a generational event.

A small amount of bleach will burn a bit. A small amount of printing money caused inflation that we also haven't seen in decades. It hurts families now but that's the price we paid to help during covid.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Taxes, then, are disinflationary, right? Which is why we need to tax the rich especially

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No, that's not at all how that works.

At all.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry, but if the first claim is that government spending is inflationary, then there's no way to claim that taxes aren't disinflationary.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Lol, wait, what?

Just... Walk me through how you think this would work, say as Canada's inflation rate hit 8% in summer 2022. Who would you have taxed, what would you have done with said taxes and why you think this would somehow lower inflation?

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

https://www.marketplace.org/story/2019/01/24/modern-monetary-theory-explained

Really just linking this for the diagrams, which are the most succinct explanation for this that I know of - but this is the theoretical basis for what I am talking about

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I get the misunderstanding now! I figured it was something similar to this, which is why I asked whom you would tax and what you would do with the taxes.

So, a handful of things. First, this is a theory that is pretty much rejected by almost every mainstream economist (it's rare you see both the Chicago school of economics and Paul Krugman on the same side but here we are.) You might take a quick google at Modern Monetary Theory critiques.

But, ignoring that, if you dive into the theory a bit, you'll see it doesn't work as you've outlined. Looking back to your original point "Dollars are not scarce items; the government can issue currency essentially at will. Taxes aren’t there to fund services. They exist to reduce inequality."

In the MMT, taxes both fund services (say, the CERB) as well as help stabilize inflation. So, in your CERB example, sure, government prints a bunch of money which would cause inflation and then, you're now saying the government should just tax it back to get to a neutral rate. Which, fine, tax the CERB back. But then what was the point of issuing it in the first place? If the answer is "well we just tax the rich" then what's the point of printing a bunch of currency instead of just using the tax proceeds from the rich?

To quote Kelton:

That means the government then has to start slowing it’s rate of spending, or you can open up the drain and let some of those dollars out of the economy. And that’s what we do when we collect taxes.

So, to stop the inflation caused by government spending on CERB, we just tax the money back and hold onto it (instead of using it on services, otherwise you're back to the same inflationary pressures.) In essence, you've just changed all the programs from help to those who needed it, to a predatory loan.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Krugman has come around on it over the last few years actually, through discussions with noted MMT proponents Rohan Grey and Nathan Tankus. So you might want to search for more recent stuff.

In the MMT, taxes both fund services

incorrect, in MMT taxes remove money from the economy

In your CERB example, there are a lot of factors involved. One is that there really were supply chain disruptions as spending shifted from services to material goods, combined with a lot of intentional price gouging as inflation narratives took hold.

Neither these phenomena nor the disinflationary effect of taxation are immediate or direct in their effects, so I definitely feel for policymakers when crises like these hit.

But we're now very far from the original point, and you seem to be pointing to an exceptional circumstance to try to prove a generality, as well as trying to claim I'm saying things about that exceptional circumstance that haven't said.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Krugman has come around on it over the last few years actually, through discussions with noted MMT proponents Rohan Grey and Nathan Tankus

Can you share anything to this end? I've looked and found a couple of interviews with Tankus but nothing that at a glance would seem to change Krugman's assertion that MMT is essentially Calvinball. (I'd rather not read through all their chats.)

But we’re now very far from the original point, and you seem to be pointing to an exceptional circumstance to try to prove a generality

Pal, you were the one to bring up Covid/CERB as your first defense of printing money!

It’s literally how we dealt with the first phase of the Covid pandemic. Was keeping millions of Canadians from being evicted a bad idea?

But at the end of the day, whether the program happened in a pandemic or not, the core issue remains. Governments have deficits to cover spending, e.g., on public servant salaries. According to MMT, this isn't an issue because you just print money to pay your debts and then tax money out of the system to prevent inflation. Which, groovy but that spending was there for a reason! Like, okay, keep the salaries but then what, just tax everyone else more? You've just created austerity with more steps.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Tankus has blogged about Krugman's evolution.

And my "defense of printing money" was not a judgement about the inflationary pressure of doing so, it was a recognition that there are more things to consider - such as the risk of millions of people being evicted from their homes or going hungry.

You're still trying to put words in my mouth, and you're not engaging earnestly, so, goodbye

(edit: typo)

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Tankus has blogged about Krugman’s evolution.

So nothing from Krugman himself? Seems reasonable...

You’re still trying to put words in my mouth,

Lol, yes by quoting you and adding the exact context.

I strongly recommend, just give a quick look at any of the dozens well rounded critiques of MMT. Some may be a little obtuse if you don't have an econ background but feel free to reach out and i'll explain as best I can!

Cheers.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

I am pointing to Tankus' blog because he outlines the things Krugman has said.

Second: would you have not issued CERB and had millions lose housing? Or would you issue CERB and accept some inflationary pressure (keeping in mind that much of the inflation was gouging and supply chain issues)? You had made a blanket statement "issuing currency is drinking bleach" and I gave one of many possible examples for why that is a ridiculous statement.

And in terms of your arrogance around understanding what you're talking about:

"Taxes fund services" is flat out wrong from a MMT perspective, quite literally it is the most fundamentally wrong thing one could say about it as an economic framework, so I suggest you develop a better understanding of the thing you claim to understand the critiques of. Or perhaps read critiques from those who actually understand it.

Cheers