No. Corruption of blood is a constitutional term that specifically means penalising children for the crimes of their parents. It's related to crimes. Racking up the national debt is a bad thing to do but it's not a crime, and it's something that affects everyone equally, not specific individuals or subgroups.
Arguing, as so many people on HN unfortunately do, that white men deserve to be dumped on because in times gone by some other white men did something the speaker did not like, is a lot closer to the original concept of corruption of blood, even though it's not exactly the same thing as what the constitution is talking about.
But I don't understand why you dragged us down this irrelevant tangent. My point was that explicitly penalising people for things their ancestors did or supposedly did is bad and wrong. Yes, I am also a supporter of balanced budgets because making children pay for the mistakes of their parents is also bad. This has nothing to do with the general principle of tax - it's just a logical fallacy wrapped inside a straw man. Governments can easily tax and spend whilst also not borrowing.
Arguing, as so many people on HN unfortunately do, that white men deserve to be dumped on because in times gone by some other white men did something the speaker did not like, is a lot closer to the original concept of corruption of blood, even though it's not exactly the same thing as what the constitution is talking about.
But I don't understand why you dragged us down this irrelevant tangent. My point was that explicitly penalising people for things their ancestors did or supposedly did is bad and wrong. Yes, I am also a supporter of balanced budgets because making children pay for the mistakes of their parents is also bad. This has nothing to do with the general principle of tax - it's just a logical fallacy wrapped inside a straw man. Governments can easily tax and spend whilst also not borrowing.