>
> That would be a dangerous social situation, given the millions of empty
> houses that must necessarily be a by-product of all those evictions. I think
> you'll find that the market price of residential rents would also be
> impacted. So that part of the capitalist class at least would be paying the
> price, the working class would only be affected nominally, by having to pay
> rent rather than a mortgage. But it would have to be an affordable rent, so
> they would be no worse off in reality.
Yes, the market price of rents is affected: rents tend to rise when house prices fall, because buy-to-let mortgages become more expensive and more difficult to secure. If you were right in your assessment, there would not be a sharp rise in both official and unofficial homelessness during periods of capitalist slump.
When
> the government starts trying to pay these trillions back,
>
Back to who? The lenders? I think it likely that inflation might make it
> relatively easy to repay. Inflation of course is a serious concern to those
> who have accumulated serious cash, but less of a problem to those who have
> less.
I am afraid I am quite unconvinced that over ten trillion dollars is 'relatively easy to repay' on account of inflation. And incidentally, your discussion of inflation - as with much else - is highly abstract. Inflation in 'luxury' items is certainly less of a problem for people who have less cash. Inflation in essential goods such as food and energy is a real problem, particularly if it coincides with a weak bargaining position for labour and an aggressive government policy of reducing wages.
As I have already explained, only the employing class pays taxes. The market
> price of wages is denominated in take-home pay, not nominal pay. Employers
> pay the difference.
To be strictly accurate, what you actually did was to make an assertion: you didn't 'explain' anything. As I indicated, I understood one possible thrust of your argument to be precisely what you are now saying that it is. But your argument is myopic. The market price of wages is not always what is paid. It requires, quite often, class struggle to achieve said market rates. And the rhythms of such struggle are overdetermined by politics, namely the extent to which antisystemic movements can mobilise working class militancy.
What will restrict the consumption of the working class is the profit system
> itself. Dramaticalloy higher taxes could make it unprofitable for the owners
> of the means of production to produce things, which creates shortages.
It would be more pertient to say that what *ultimately* restricts consumption is the profit system itself. But the demands of the profit system can make themselves felt in a number of ways. One of the achievements of the UK profit system in the 1980s was to effect a shift in the burden of taxation from higher incomes, inheritance and profits to indirect taxation on goods and services which are disproportationately paid by the poor. It is certainly true that this contributed to the risk that production would be unprofitable, but is one of the many reasons why 'First World Debt' exploded - to make up the shortfall in consumption effected in part by a deliberate redistribution of wealth through the tax structure (when average hourly wages in the UK could not be suppressed).