Abschaffen wäre vielleicht unpopulär. Daher den Preis so hoch ansetzen, dass es weniger genutzt wird. Dann kann man es mit der Begründung auch abschaffen.
Abschaffen wäre vielleicht unpopulär. Daher den Preis so hoch ansetzen, dass es weniger genutzt wird. Dann kann man es mit der Begründung auch abschaffen.
Remember, they just approved putting the working German into further debt - you and your kids into further debt - to fund necessary programs instead of raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy. Remember that when you look at the parties tax plans, most of the German parties want to increase the tax burden on the working class or the state - to protect and enrich the wealthy.
They’ll increase the cost of public services instead of investing into it. They’ll decrease the quality of public services instead of raising more funds from the ultra wealthy. They will put you and your family into poverty to protect the rich, unless you vote like you’re being impoverished intentionally and for the benefit of no one but the ultra rich.
I agree with most sentiments but I want to say that national debt is not debt in the common meaning of the word: it’s creating additional funds, making the already circulating money worth a bit less (if the amount of goods in circulation stays the same) effectively taxing everybody but having arguably more impact on stationary money, so wealth. It does not drive inflation as long as it can cause more productivity instead of increasing competition on finite goods. If invested in infrastructure and coupled with measures to protect workers (e.g. raising minimum wages and whatever you can come up to bolster the underbelly and middle-class in absolute terms (meaning lower incomes profit more relative to their income)) it can actually be a good part of lowering inequality.
Sure, I agree in theory, but spending national debt means issuing more bonds right? That’s how it worked in the US to my understanding and I assume that’s how debt is paid for in most countries. Bonds are assets and assets are bought by people with money. Increasingly the people with money and the people buying assets are the ultra-wealthy. I have no doubt that when evaluated the majority of governmental debt can be traced to or through massive corporations and the ultra wealthy. But I’d love to be enlightened here, when I hear a government issueing debt I assume that means our government is getting poorer and borrowing money from the rich.
Yes, I completely agree that that “juice is worth the squeeze” when done correctly. A government taking on debt and investing it in good train/tram/bus based public transit pays for itself and the interest in economic productivity and efficiency over time. But a government led by conservatives and centralists, taking out 400 billion in debt before they slash corporate taxes, to fund military contracts do not seem like good stewards of that cash. How inefficiently will that money be spent in terms of creating benefits for the common worker? How many jobs with a thriving wage will be created vs CEO bonuses paid?