I’d prefer it quite frankly above everything else.

Fucking Commie! /s

There’s a bit of a capitalist propaganda over here (even if unintentional). The underpriviledge class in many ways exists because of wealth inequality. And statement like this normalizes putting the burden of the underpriviledge class back on to the working class (this underpriviledged class is often also part of the working class). This will further create wealth inequality.

So yes, we should support underpriviledged class but we should also understand the bigger picture and demand that these supports should come from the owning class either through wealth tax or by increasing the minimum wage etc.

Same. I’d rather my taxes help people survive than disappear into waste and excuses.

I’d gladly pay more to have everyone be able to eat and sleep comfortably.

If we got rid of the extra 50% profit all these companies charge us, we could easily pay for all the things we need and more.

I have no problem paying more to help people, but we are paying more to hurt people now and it doesn’t make sense.

Question why there are any hungry and homeless.

I don’t mind if a homeless person spends money on things other than the bare essentials.

Nerd communist / MMT economics time:

Your taxes don’t pay for anything actually. States can create arbitrary amounts of currency (USD in the USA, GBP in the UK, Yen in Japan…), they don’t need your taxes to pay for anything.

Taxes have several purposes, the main ones being:

1. Forcing people to use the state’s currency by forcing taxes in that currency. Without dollars to pay your taxes denominated in dollars, you go to jail, so the currency you definitely need are dollars

2. Removing money from certain sectors or people to reduce inequality. Taxing the richest businesses and companies can lead to decreases in inequality and to a more level playing ground.

3. Removing money from the private sector economy altogether. Too much money in the private sector can, in some circumstances, lead to inflationary tendencies in market economies or to shortages in planned economies (though the relationship is more complicated than neoliberals want you to believe)

4. Disincentivizing certain behaviours. Easy example is a sugar or alcohol tax.

The state can invest arbitrarily big amounts of money feeding the hungry or housing the houseless without the need for taxing this money first. The relationship between state deficit and inflation is not straightforward, and in fact there’s no serious empirical evidence suggesting that, in developed economies, deficit is a good predictor of inflation. Inflationary episodes mostly can be explained through supply shocks, more easily than through state deficit (where deficit means the state pouring more money into the economy than it pulls out through taxes).

For more nerdy communist / MMT economics, reply to this comment 😎

I don’t mind if my taxes go to funding people who want to doss around making weird art, impractical furniture and/or shit music all day

Hell, I don’t mind if my taxes destroy the housing market entirely. A housing market should not even exist until everyone has a house.

Or feeding the homeless and housing the hungry.

What I DON’T want my tax money going to is rich people and corporations why don’t fucking need it.

Shut up tankie!!! /s

Also: I’d rather pay the government for healthcare than pay an insurance company, who then pays the doctors.

I dont care if there are lazy unmotivated people getting food and housing with my taxes.

But if we help one group, other people in need might want help too. /s