>>28490682
It's pretty obvious that *you* are not tall enough for this ride, but let's break it down for the benefit of anyone else in the audience reading: tax 'the consumer', transactions go down, and 'the producer' pays for it too; tax 'the producer', prices go up, market activity also goes down, and 'the consumer' pays for it too. All costs are passed on.
Not only does a tax on any group member cost every group member, it also, even, and especially costs *the body collecting the tax themselves*. They get more coupons relative to their subjects, but there is now *less capital* they can command with those coupons. All signs, no signified.
So say property owners get squeezed; and so prices go up, wages go down, potency facilitating activity contracts; and so in the end you have less to take in tax anyways, but as an added bonus, have less to pay *for*, to boot.
None of this shit happens in a vacuum.
The idea that there are no costs associated with taking things from people is pie theory economics; the ‘fair share’ meme is pie theory economics; that value is neither created nor destroyed, merely apportioned. In reality, all modern countries today are taxing so hilariously far beyond the laffer curve it's not even funny. Which goes to show that animating values of incumbent ruling classes are not being 'personal utility maximizing econobots'; when many of them say they are selfless and don't *really* care about money, in a manner of fashion, they're telling you the truth!
If they wanted The People to have more capital the first thing they could do is take less from them to begin with. And you know never mind if they wanted The People to have more capital; if they wanted more money *for themselves* - if they wanted money that was actually worth more things to begin with - all they would have to do is just engage is less banditry.
(But the banditry is not an accident or 'regrettable side effect'; the banditry is the point.)
