Thread by @Noahpinion

Today's @bopinion post is about a subtle divide I see emerging in thinking on the left: Standard progressivism vs. a new left-populism.

bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…

The standard model of social democracy involves high tax rates, high REVENUE, and high government spending on social programs.

And the standard justification for this is welfarism - the idea that poor people need the money more than rich people do.

But a number of people on the left are now centering the argument that taxing the rich is good in and of itself, regardless of the revenue it raises for the government.

nytimes.com/2019/01/22/opi…

Proponents of this idea do come up with various justifications for how getting rid of rich people's fortunes would trickle down and boost the living standards of the poor...

...But to be honest, these feel pretty hand-wavey. They feel like people went looking for a theory to justify a policy they already knew they wanted.

It seems clear that the real idea here is just that income and wealth inequality are bad, and that reducing them is good, regardless of whether the poor or middle class is made materially better-off in the process.

It's important to stress that for now, traditional progressivism and the new left-populism DON'T ACTUALLY DISAGREE on much.

They both want to raise taxes on the rich.

They both want to spend more on the poor and middle-class.

But the difference is worth highlighting anyway, because differences will probably eventually emerge.

I see left-populism as pushing the left relentlessly toward an embrace of MMT.

If taxes are for eliminating riches rather than raising revenue, but you still want increased spending, you basically need MMT.

Personally, I'm more on the side of traditional redistribution. I don't think we know nearly enough about MMT yet. And I'm skeptical that banning billionaires will actually make anyone richer.

But if people want to ban billionaires, so be it. This is a democracy!

(end)