this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2025
105 points (100.0% liked)
Economics
2179 readers
16 users here now
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't buy this. You wrote, “It's not really cheaper for those who matter (the bourgeoisie).” and then “Cheaper for government isn't the point that drives policy.” Yes, it is! Because the government is the government of the bourgeoisie. It is the ruling assembly for their capitalist economy. Ultimately, it is the working class who funds the government because it is the class which does all work. So, you could pretend that costs do not matter for the capitalists. But the working class can only pay in taxes what they got in wages. This means higher costs for government lower the profits of capitalists. (And we know that capitalists want to slash government spending wherever possible.) And that is why it is a cost to everybody in society when politicians decide to punish the poor for what is not their fault, when, for example, they maintain a homeless population at great costs while it is cheaper to house them in existing empty housing. This hurts the homeless the most, at the expense of everyone.
Not the American working class. The global working class which subsidizes the living standards of the American worker while also lining the pocketbooks of the American bourgeoisie.
Also it must be understood that the US government because of dollar reserve currency status, because of the levers it has can functionally print as much money as it wants and other counties have no choice but to pay for it. Thus there is no real correlation to how much tax money is raised off of workers in the US and how much the US government can spend. Especially on important matters like war.
They don't though. Many of them want to cut streams of money to the poor to as low as possible an amount, but they don't want to slash for example spending on Pentagon contacts for Raytheon. They don't want to slash the FBI, the CIA, etc. They don't want to slash government spending that amounts to contracts and awards that dumps money in their pockets to provide services that could be done by public entities for less if the goal was not turning a profit but providing a service.
I've already explained why this isn't the case. Let me leave you with a Steinbeck quote from a hundred years ago that encapsulates part of the issue here.