Re: There are no taxes in socialism
Posted by Arota on 2025-December-3 10:28:02, WednesdayIn reply to There are no taxes in socialism posted by Pharmakon on 2025-December-3 05:12:19, Wednesday
|
It all depends on the definition of socialism. Out of necessity, the USSR had an almost entirely planned economy, which had its own deficiencies. Obviously Scandinavian countries are not socialist, during their more left-wing periods, they were essentially just social imperialist, but nowadays they're actually models of neoliberal policy, with some welfare thrown in. China's economy has a different model, where the banking system is almost entirely from state-owned banks and the state has a large role to play in the commanding heights of the economy. Lately, I've been reading and watching videos about Modern Monetary Theory, which turns the traditional thinking on its head. The traditional thinking is that the government can only spend money by receiving money through taxes and the deficit is important for this reason. The thinking behind MMT is that money only exists because it is issued by the government and that taxation is a method for legitimizing this money (because everyone has to pay taxes in the local currency) and for achieving specific social goals or encouraging/discouraging certain behaviors. If that's the case, then taxation still makes sense, because economic activity is still ongoing, but taxation is a method for regulating the behavior. The problem with sharing profits among the whole population in a simplistic way is that it would discourage investment into increasing productivity and efficiency, when it should ideally be directed into productive sectors and increasing productivity and efficiency and prioritizing long-term goals. In my view, socialism is not allowing everything to be determined by market logic, but having a government which is accountable, transparent, and meritocratic, so that it serves the interests of the people, even and especially when it conflicts with vested interests. I find this model directly in conflict with electoral democracy, which has accountability only every few years, and for which there is no meritocracy to speak of. There is a market, but it's limited in scope and the state has the final say. It doesn't exactly fit a clear definition, but that seems the most rational form of governance. |
Follow ups: