She raised tax in the name of ''social justice''

because it's a counter-movement to fix the limited time of Keynesian policies
Keynesian economics work well to improve economy but only for a limited period. Then you need neoliberal policies
Then neoliberal policies (which are also limited) create high inflation and low economic growth and you need Keynesians again

The amount of butthurt this woman still creates, 27 years after she left office, is wonderful. It's as if American leftists still blamed Bush senior for all their problems, or everyone. She's as far away in the past as East Germany or Liverpool winning the league, but still she looms large in the psyche of the British left like a submerged memory of childhood abuse.

None of that explains why it is a left wing ideology.

because it fixes the keynesian economics (which is a leftist policy) and it only benefits the left
Imagine without neoliberalism people would look at the past and blame keynes for the economy stagnation and high inflation. They blame neoliberalism and keep keynesians pure(without guilt)
Neoliberalism also helps to extend the welfare state

>what is the neoclaissical synthesis

>(which is a leftist policy)
It isn't. Keynesians are spread across a number of political positions.

>Imagine without neoliberalism people would look at the past and blame keynes for the economy stagnation and high inflation. They blame neoliberalism and keep keynesians pure(without guilt)
This is straight up ridiculous.

>Keynes was a neoliberal

>The labor party used a lot of her policies in the 2000s
Pfft fuck Blair and his scum

>lol without neoliberalism to be used as a scapegoat no one would shit on Keynes
So leftists asked Thatcher to implement neoliberalism so they can scapegoat it to keep Keynesian viable?

>This is straight up ridiculous.
I wouldn't call it ridiculous but actually crazy
That's why I asked if I'm becoming crazy.
Which I can't help to notice the patterns... Keynes then neoliberalism, going back to keynes, back to neoliberalism, a few more years of kaynes then back to neoliberalism
It's changing the system but actually just keeping it on life support

No.
Modern orthodox economics is mainly neoliberal, as are most policymakers. Their main school of thought is the neoclassical synthesis. It is possible to be a neoliberal and yet subscribe to some keynesian ideas, such as sticky prices.

>That's why I asked if I'm becoming crazy.
Doubtful. People see patterns like that in politics all the time. You have to step it up a bit more to be worthy of the crazy label.

>it's that schizophrenic who thinks everyone is a secret communist again
Holy shit, do you ever take a break?
And yes, you are insane.

if I understand correctly the Chicago school is neoliberal?

This to be honest, I know little about her other than she decided she wasn't gonna take shit from some argies in the nether region of the world.

Almost correct. It's actually the new neoclassical synthesis now. Basically the neoclassical synthesis injected with more modern keynesian economics that worked on micro principles.

The idea that keynesianism is the antithesis to neoliberalism is simply untrue. Don't pretend you understand economics or political theory when you do not.

Yes, but no one calls it the new neoclassical synthesis.

but i'm not pretending, I really don't understand why I was taught all my life neoliberalism is the opposite of keynesian economics... which is why I started to see a lot of neoliberal policies being used by leftists and neoliberals using policies largely promoted by leftists
Since my understanding of economics is limited i kept it in the political level

Yes, which was part of the neoliberal movement of the 1980s. Nowadays, that movement is part of the mainstream together with New Keynesianism.

is there any economy movement that rejects keynes, neoliberals( chicaco school and milton friedman)?

Neoliberalism was originally a response to the old Keynesianism, so it’s not technically wrong depending on which time period you are looking at.

Sure, most mainstream economists seem to go by new keynesian.

Blame politicians and journalists for abusing terms probably. There's a stupid view that seems to be common that fundamentally more government spending = more keynesian. This is more 'vulgar' keynesianism.

You're right to see that there's plenty of actual overlap between neoliberals and keynesians. For instane actual neoliberals ought to support some sort of raised government investment in a recession (tax cuts count).

Auatrians and Marxists, which are pretty much ostracized from the mainstream. They are not completely useless, but almost no one takes them seriously.

Picketty is a Marxist, tho he is informed by the scientific innovations of the last century. You shouldn't make so much of these classifications. Economics is a science, not an ideology.

>Economics is a science, not an ideology.
I know but every time I read people like him still insist on progressive tax I can't help but to think only about politics... which is something related but not exclusive to politics, I know there is an economy basis but I simply can't even read the economic reasons for it
So it seems, generally speaking, the austrian economists (followers of Mises and Hayek?) support a global capitalism?

Piketty is not a marxist. He has not even read Marx and his economic research operates entirely within mainstream economics (even if contested, though some of the reaction to it has been overblown). His political solutions are to the left of almost everyone else within economics, but even then they are not 'marxist' (taxing the rich more is not marxist, he does not want a socialist revolution).

>Why leftists hate her?
she would not allow farleft unions to cripple the entire country with strikes. thus leftists were forced to wrok for their money. leftists hate working and hate people that make them work.

>taxing the rich more is not marxist
Not him but if that was the case I'd actually vote for the two biggest socialist parties in my country. But I know because of recent history the people who work with them won't do that. The day they have to put in practice the tax the rich issue they will sell themselves (betray) and tax the middle class, which is both easier to do and more reasonable explained in political terms(although I don't find it reasonable, people's don't get angry when they hear ''don't worry it's only for the first year).
Not that I find nice to tax the rich more but they won't do it anyway

There aren't economic reasons for progressive tax without normative concerns. Scrap that slightly, you can make arguments just looking at gdp that progressive tax (and redistribution) may help boost gdp.

Most tax research operate around efficiency.

It's fine for economists to then make political remarks about tax policy. You can take a normative concern x and then say well y is the best way to get this outcome looking at economic research on this topic.

...ok? It still isn't marxist lol. Neither taxing the rich more nor taxing the middle class more are marxist approaches.

Progressive tax is marxist, isn't it?
I mean in theory a rich would pay more tax than the middle class, right?

Like I say, don't make too much of the classifications. Economics is a science. Every serious economist uses all the scientific tools available to them.

The classifications do describes a preference for a particular theoretical framework or set of concerns. Picketty's framework and concerns are Marx's theory of capital accumulation and wealth inequality more generally.

I find it hard to believe that he has not read Marx when his major work builds on a Marxist theory and he names the work after Das Kapital.

>Progressive tax is marxist, isnt it?

It's extremely simplistic but
35% tax for someone who make 3k USD month is a lot of money
How is this justified in any circumstance? Considering also you pay sale tax and other taxes

inthesetimes.com/article/16722/taking_on_capital_without_marx

I must also point out that prominent mainstream economists unreservedly praised Piketty apparently without any one realizing he was "Marxist".
Marxist economists have evolved their own parallel literature that is unmistakable for what Piketty is doing, by the way.

No. Progressive taxation is not marxist.

It is a gigantic stretch to say just because Piketty looks at inequality and capital that he is within a marxist framework. Actual marxist economists (thankfully there are few) operate in an entirely different way, generally rejects mathematics, empiricism and so on. Look at the crap economists at umass amherst pump out for actual marxists. Their research generally rejects economics as a science in the way that piketty and others (samuelson onwards really) take it to be.

He has explicitly said he does not care nor has read marx in interviews, I choose to take him at his word.

But marx and engels proposed progressive tax in many texts..

tell me if I'm wrong
Piketty finds no problem with taking someone making 3k/m 35% income as long as you tax 50% the ones who make 100k
Big deal, the 50k left for them is a lot of money while for the 3k group is barely above poverty

You're wrong because of everything else about the system it operates in. Socialists, communists, marxists etc. want to fundamentally change the structure of the economy. Debates on tax levels are for those who accept capitalism as a system and thus distinguish themselves from marxists/socialists/communists.

You can of course find marxists who support raising taxes. But they won't be satisfied by just doing that and will be quite open about it.

>socialists, communists, marxists etc. want to fundamentally change the structure of the economy.
but in this transition of changing the structure of economy, aren't they in favor of progressive tax as a mean to change the system?
What are they proposals to change the system regarding taxing people (before the complete transition to communism)?

>But marx and engels proposed progressive tax in many texts..
So did literally millions of people who were not Marxists by any reasonable definition.
Almost every country on Earth has progressive taxation because basically everyone agrees it's a good idea. Many Western countries, such as the US, already had progressive taxation in the 19th century.

>Piketty finds no problem with taking someone making 3k/m 35% income as long as you tax 50% the ones who make 100k
>Big deal, the 50k left for them is a lot of money while for the 3k group is barely above poverty
And what's Marxist about that exactly?

Taxing people more changes very little about the system. They want a change in the means of production. For instance government running companies or worker co-operatives doing so. They want to remove the capitalist, the person stumping up capital and then employing people for profit.

>And what's Marxist about that exactly?
Then 100% of socialist/communist parties in this whole world aren't marxists.
The economists, political scientists, etc all inside these parties claimed to have read marx and some are even called ''orthodox marxists'' all of them promote this Pikkety system of taxing the middle class high but also taxing the rich very high
they simply forget the high tax for the middle class leaves them in the poverty line

But the point is: aren't they marxists when they use the tax system to concentrate economic power to the state? (which they claim the state will invest for the people)?

>the high tax for the middle class leaves them in the poverty line
That's not how it works, sweetie.

>For instance government running companies or worker co-operatives doing so. They want to remove the capitalist, the person stumping up capital and then employing people for profit.
and if the company they work for makes more money than needed (profit) they will distribute them among workers?
Let's say in one year they made more money selling fish because some country bought more and there is money left, what's the money's destination?

explain please

To the workers or reinvested in the company. The points is that it's the collective workers' decision. That is the fundamental distinction from capitalism.

Because they don't like women who don't advance their cult agenda.

ok, fair enough, better than actual capitalism

My main problem is
A worker makes €19,882/year in Netherlands. From 19k he will pay 33% tax.
However if you make €33,000 you'll pay 41%
The 33% for the one who makes 19k (15k) is devastating. To the one making 33k 41% not that much.
How do you expect someone to live with €19k or €15k to pay 33% of income and have a life that is not barely above poverty?

Let's say a marxist takes the country of Netherlands. What would the first measure be regarding this?

I don't really know, I don't agree with marxists or even non marxist leftists so it's difficult for me to answer.

It's fair to say that they can come in different stripes. But the marxists concern will probably be around having the government run things (like water, rail, electricity etc) and helping the absolute poorest. The will probably also look to raise corporation taxes, capital gains taxes, maybe some sort of financial transaction tax etc so the government can grow and run more things.

I think this ends in disaster though so eh

Beyond this in looking at the tax system with a more economist style lens you can't view it without also looking at transfers. So taxes on poor people seem high, but do they get benefits in return (a working tax credit for instance), are medical costs covered, help for paying certain utility bills and so on? I don't know the netherlands system, but the point that you should look at tax AND transfers when judging stuff like this is important.

>I don't know the netherlands system, but the point that you should look at tax AND transfers when judging stuff like this is important.
fair point
I don't know if the netherlands offers much help for those who make less than 20k/year, but I assume you can't get a lot of help since basically everyone in that country making 20k a year (after tax around 12k left) is nothing and the person will need not only ''free'' healthcare but probably help to buy food and medication (which is not always covered by healthcare)

I don't think people in the netherlands need help buying food desu. For international comparisons and the like you need to adjust to ppp and various other things.

Here's an oecd comparison oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/

You seem to be complaining that the lower tax brackets are taxed too heavily and the higher tax brackets could be taxed more.
So apparently you want a more progressive taxation rate that would shift the burdern from the lower brackets to the higher brackets.

Which... I'm pretty sure is what most leftist parties would promise you too.

I'm quite surprised that people who make as little as 20k/year in the Netherlands are taxed at 33% though, in France they would be taxed at 14% despite the fact that the cost of living is likely cheaper. You're only taxed at 30% when you reach the 26k-70k bracket.
(That's for individuals, households of 2 adults + 1 child are taxed at 30% from 65k/year to 175k/year, which is even more generous.)

As for what actual Marxists would do, while they would surely take a shot at tax reform I think they would have other fish to fry.

> In the Netherlands, the average household net adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 27 759 a year
After healthcare, etc,etc? maybe not that bad. But also totally ridiculous considering you can set up a taco shop in Texas and make easily 120k dollars a year opening 5~7 hours a day

Let's say you make 33k euros a year, after tax you have left 19k. More ~1200euros for healthcare. You have around 17k left a year for food, medication, house, gas, electricity, etc.
Food is expensive in all europe, I didn't visit or live in netherlands but I don't know why it would be different there

>You seem to be complaining that the lower tax brackets are taxed too heavily and the higher tax brackets could be taxed more.

Half-right, the tax rate for those who make 15k, 16k, 17k, up until 20k is ridiculously high
You can't live with 11k euros a year if that's all you have left.
>So apparently you want a more progressive taxation rate that would shift the burdern from the lower brackets to the higher brackets.
No, I was simply pointing that a person who is taxed 50% of 100k still has 50k left, which is not bad at all and you can have a very good life with 50k a year after tax.
>in France they would be taxed at 14% despite the fact that the cost of living is likely cheaper
Not perfect but way better, a tax system which I wouldn't call fair but it is almost reasonable, considering things(food for instance) in France aren't overpriced.

france comes out different because of how social security is funded iirc, so the 33% for the netherlands is 25% social security, 8% income (but they both work as an income tax)

>taco shop in Texas and make easily 120k dollars a year opening 5~7 hours a day

[citation needed] but yeah the us has very high incomes for various reasons

adjusting for ppp and the likes also takes into account food costs, living costs and so on too - food costs do vary across europe

basically you can assume the vast majority of people in western europe are living comfortable lives, you don't need to worry

>and he names the work after Das Kapital
Pure marketing strategy. Nothing like a bit of controversy to sell your book.

>basically you can assume the vast majority of people in western europe are living comfortable lives, you don't need to worry
because they usually make way more than 20k a year.. they haven't suffered any major economic crisis (well other than spain and greece) but they are also have a high debt
I can't see how this system will work forever, such high tax system and still in debt. If something goes slightly wrong people will have to get used to buying canned food

european debt isn't any higher than us debt in general aside from edge cases like greece

>So it seems, generally speaking, the austrian economists (followers of Mises and Hayek?) support a global capitalism?
More or less. I think what unites them is the belief in praxeology.

>france comes out different because of how social security is funded iirc,
Does it? It seems both France and the Netherlands have split employee-employer contributions on the gross salary but I'm not clear on the details.

Countries are not people. Having a large debt itself is not an issue. What you have to worry about is your ability to pay interest. Countries like Japan have their debt at 250%, but ridiculously low interest rates. As such, their debt isn’t as expensive.

but it's still high
I'm not sure how USA will survive either. The debt there is a clock bomb
nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/germany
in France the debt is 96% of GDP

In Japan the debt is over 200% of GDP and it's not the end of the world.

having debt at 100% gdp or even 120, 130% hasn't been shown to cause any real issues to a country's economy

I would agree with generally having it lower, but it's not some ticking time bomb like some would have you believe

what's the interest rate of japan compared to germany or france?

so in other words.. they will never be able to pay it?
Hopefully it's not a clock bomb, since I don't understand about economics I couldn't tell much more than that

i doubt there will ever be a country that has a positive debt balance

i'd suggest that some countries could do with running a surplus to pay down some debt if it's above 50% of gdp at the right point in a business cycle, but not to worry too much as long as the economy is ticking along nicely and the deficit isn't notably higher than the gdp growth rate

They are all at 0%. Japan’s used to be negative.

>so in other words.. they will never be able to pay it?
Exactly. The idea is not to repay your debt, but manage your installments. Just keep rolling that debt ad infinitum.

what if japan is simply on a suicide run? they know their birth rate is declining
So they might just live the last years having a nice debt to pay for their last years on earth

50% of 100 is 50
50% of 1000 is 500
50% of 10000 is 5000
Let's assume the poverty line is fifty units, and the government needs 5550 units to function, under this flat tax, the poorest bracket lives under poverty, whilst the top two live over it.
If we adjust some numbers
40% of 100 is 40 (meaning 60 units are left over)
50% of 1000 is 500
60% of 10000 is 6000 (meaning 4000 units are left for this bracket)

Here, the government brings in 6540 units, about 1000 more than it needs to function, it can spend that money on funding projects such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure, all of which grow the economy, by progressively taxing the different populations, the lowest are kept out of poverty, whilst the richest brackets don't suffer as much, by virtue of not being anywhere near the poverty line, by having absolutely no checks against capital consolidation, communism and communist movements are excaerbated, not prevented, even Bismarck knew this.

>by having absolutely no checks against capital consolidation, communism and communist movements are excaerbated
why? The upper middle class in the end is the one who has the power to bring (or not) a communist revolution

lol
I’m not sure if you’re serious, but about 90% of Japanese debt is owned by Japanese citizens. It might become more difficult to pay interest given their declining demographic, but for now the problem is mostly on Japan’s own hands. They might have to venture outside once their population ages too much to buy their bonds, though.

i guarantee your strawman leftist would not get rid of state industries, so there you go

Because there are many upper middle class people who realise that by arming the peasent mob and presenting themselves as a vanguard party will allow them to take power and only deliver paltry reform.

>will allow them to take power and only deliver paltry reform.
isn't this what is happening in europe btw?
I mean, every 10 years the new left becomes worse than the old left and even though they keep promising the same 1917 reforms
Endless state socialism?
The way you wrote I had the impression you are talking about how they stay in power after generations and generations

>Picketty is a Marxist

Don’t be retarded

>having debt at 100% gdp or even 120, 130% hasn't been shown to cause any real issues to a country's economy
I mean, the debt itself is not an issue, but the problem is that the more they owe, the more tax revenue is required to maintain it once interest rates go up.

I think you mean what interest rate they pay on what they borrow for the public debt?
Well, it depends on credit ratings. S&P gives Germany an AAA rating, France AA, Japan A+. The Japanese agency gives them all AAA because they use another way of calculating. They're all great ratings so the rate is low. The 10-year rate on Japanese bonds is now usually around 1%, roughly a 0.1% yearly rate. At times it has been negative, meaning investors essentially paid Japan to borrow money. The rates in Germany and France are similarly low, and overall they've been dropping for the past 20 years which greatly encouraged countries to borrow.

In absolute numbers, France paid a little over 40 billion euros a year to service the debt for the past few years, the total debt is over 2 trillion euros. Germany pays less than 30 billions in interests for the same debt. Japan's debt is over 10 trillions and making sense of their budget + converting yen to euros is annoying but I think they get away with paying less than 80 billions in interest somehow?
I think you get the idea.

I kinda understand better, thanks user

>The labor party used a lot of her policies in the 2000s
The Labour Party under New Labour basically raised the white flag when it came to economics and basically adopted a milder form a Thatcherism as its new orthodoxy. It's only been repudiated with Miliband (partially) and Corbyn (totally)
to be fair she was the greatest reshaper of British society and orthodoxy since Clement Attlee, and essentially had repudiated everything the left had cherished and stood for. It's inevitable they would see the return to the old social democratic norm or further left as a root and branch dismantling of everything she achieved.
That said she will permanently be a literal devil in Northern England and Scotland

Britbong here from the north. I'm lately starting to wonder if the drugs epidemic up here is in some ways related to Thatcherism and New-Labour during Blair's rule? It kind of makes sense I guess when you imagine it. Thatcher made going on welfare look really seedy and nobody would touch it for social but it seems like the problems stemming from the Chav fiasco back in the early 00s have been swept under the rug in favour of diversity and SJW shit which is the new hotness. They didn't really help the problem much at all with how things are up here and just swept everything under a rug so everyone thought problems relating to white, working class Britain wouldn't be a problem anymore if they started catering the welfare system to refugees and people from overseas hence why they hopped on the social justice warrior bandwagon to make it look hip and trendy.

Not classical liberals?