I’ve seen a few posts here on Hexbear where people lament their taxes being used for things they don’t like. I get the sentiment, but I think it’s mistaken because it’s not a zero-sum equation where the state must have a monetary revenue equal to or greater than expenditure.
In a state with monetary sovereignty, the taxes citizens pay are not what enables the state to spend money and procure weapons etc. If US citizens paid a billion less in taxes, for example, it would make no difference for military spending.
It’s also a rhetorical mistake in that it plays into right wing framing that justifies austerity, and implies the idea that the wealthy who pay more in taxes are the ones who keep society running and support the poor.
If I say “Isn’t it such shit that our tax money goes to bombs and guns instead of hospitals and schools, and in fact those bombs and guns are so that we can blow up hospitals and schools in countries that have never been a threat to us?”
And the person I’m talking to responds, “Yeah we should do austerity, the wealthy can’t keep babysitting the rest of society.”
I can be reasonably assured that I wasn’t going to be getting anywhere with that person, and they were never worth my time.
I feel like we should take it in stride that libs are susceptible to certain rhetoric only, and we should work towards refining that rhetoric, but the “taxes for bombs” argument is pretty effective for the average person who really only cares about cost of living issues, I don’t think we should throw it out entirely.
I’m open to alternative approaches of course.