iAsk.ca

Europe does not have to choose between guns and butter. There is another way

(5 months ago)
Shahin Vallée, Joseph de Weck
EuropeNatoEuropean UnionRussiaArms tradeUKMilitaryWorldTax and spending

AI Summary

TL;DR: Key points with love ❤️

An opinion piece arguing that Europe does not need to cut social spending to increase defence budgets, but should instead raise taxes on corporations and capital. It critiques the "guns or butter" dilemma, suggesting that the "peace dividend" of the 1990s primarily led to tax cuts for the wealthy rather than significant social spending increases for the working-age population.

Trending
  1. 1 Early 1990s: Collapse of the Soviet Union, leading to defence spending cuts ("peace dividend").
  2. 2 Mid 1980s - 2023: Corporate income tax rates fell by half within OECD.
  3. 3 2009: Germany adopted constitutional "debt brake."
  4. 4 March (unspecified year, likely 2025): Emmanuel Macron warned citizens of budget sacrifices.
  5. 5 Last month (June 2025): Nato summit in The Hague, members pledged to increase defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035.
  6. 6 Current: Debate on how to finance increased defence spending.
  • Potential weakening of the welfare state
  • Increased public debt
  • More equitable financing of defence through higher taxes on the wealthy
What: Debate over how Europe should finance increased defence spending.
When: Current (since Russia's invasion of Ukraine), 1990s (historical context), last month (Nato summit).
Where: Europe, The Hague (Nato summit location), UK, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland.
Why: To address the urgent need to rearm Europe due to Donald Trump's uncertain commitment to NATO and Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
How: By increasing taxes on corporations and capital gains, rather than slashing social spending or increasing public debt.

An opinion piece arguing that Europe does not need to cut social spending to increase defence budgets, but should instead raise taxes on corporations and capital. It critiques the "guns or butter" dilemma, suggesting that the "peace dividend" of the 1990s primarily led to tax cuts for the wealthy rather than significant social spending increases for the working-age population.