This is similar to the claim that seizing Microsoft's vast profits still wouldn't make up for the even more vast economic damage their monopoly has done to the economy

And it's correct. But the answer isn't a shrug, it's coming up with a plan to ensure that there are no giant rent seeking monoliths distorting the economy and paying off politicians to get a slap on the wrist every time they illegally extend their power.

> But is it really that easy?

It's never that easy, obviously. But just like private planes only account marginally to the CO2 emissions, it's all about the example. If we want to ask the middle class to contribute more, we can't let the ultra rich do whatever the fuck they want.

Seems like a blatant strawman. Just because a single action doesn't solve every imaginable problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

I think panic is unjustified. A lot of the deficit is essentially a baked in inflation of the already existing debt. If US budget deficit was 6.4% in 2024 and debt to GDP ratio was 124%, inflation 2.9% and GDP growth 2.8%, the budget deficit actually meant a decrease, not growth, of debt to GDP ratio. And some slight increase of debt to GDP ratio is normal because of population ageing: that debt is boomers' pensions funded by everyone else.

Just normalise it, it's not a problem at all.

> Even the social democratic Scandinavian countries that collect 14 percent of GDP more than the US do it almost entirely from their VAT and higher payroll taxes—which come from everyone, not just the rich.

This is ... wrong? I won't comment on the first part, just the second part that argues that revenues from VAT and payroll (income?) taxes come "from everyone, not just the rich". The rich are not affected by payroll/income taxes and when you have enough money you can always stash it somewhere so it doesn't get taxed. VAT as well as taxes on tobacco and liquor disproportionally affect lower incomes. "We're all sitting in the same boat" except when we're not. Look, I know there's an oil refinery down on the coast that's billowing smoke and polluting the waters. But you know what? If we were to shut down that refinery then other polluters might in the future refrain from investing and polluting here, and also, shutting it down would only lower emissions by a bit and not forever and not in other countries, so it's not a solution, like, at all. It's almost like we have no choice!