Why conceding the ‘scarce money’ narrative just to tax the rich is a bad idea. They hit back with this
“If we tax those investments we end up with less produced, less produced means lower wages and lost pensions, that means a worse life for all of us.” bbc.co.uk/news/business-…
“If we tax those investments we end up with less produced, less produced means lower wages and lost pensions, that means a worse life for all of us.” bbc.co.uk/news/business-…
We see it time and time again:
Right: “we want to reduce deficit”.
Left: “I agree it’s necessary let’s do it by taxing the rich”.
Right: “good you agree it’s necessary, so best make sure we don’t spook the investors who have all the money. Let’s not tax the rich”
Right: “we want to reduce deficit”.
Left: “I agree it’s necessary let’s do it by taxing the rich”.
Right: “good you agree it’s necessary, so best make sure we don’t spook the investors who have all the money. Let’s not tax the rich”
Once you concede you are dependent on the rich for investment you also undermine your argument for limiting their profits.
That’s why Thatcher made sure people believed the Government had no money of its own.
That’s why Thatcher made sure people believed the Government had no money of its own.
Reducing inequality cannot be achieved through a technocratic desire for deficit reduction. By highlighting how little we need the rich we can make it about democracy, about the unfairness of the rentier economy and about working conditions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
