> not print money to cover their spending? [...] Would inflation of 4% be that bad Inflation is a tax on currency holdings. So if a person has $10,000 and infl

> not print money to cover their spending? [...] Would inflation of 4% be that bad Inflation is a tax on currency holdings. So if a person has $10,000 and inflation is 4%, they are effectively paying a $400 tax on it –– because the -4% loss of value is transferred to the one causing the inflation, i.e. the printer of money, which is the government. The people would just divest their US dollar holdings, and switch to investments with better capital preservation, and ROI. > a rigged system where the wealthy can avoid paying their fair share [...] But inflation in a sense is unavoidable and progressive Most people with non-trivial savings invest their money. People who have a basic level of understanding of how to manage their finances understand that cash in a bad investment. The US dollar has an effective "investment yield" of -2%. The best interest rates you can get in the US, don't exceed 2%. If I lock up my money in a 5-year CD (certificate of deposit), I get close to 0% returns. Why would I ever settle for 0% returns on such a terrible illiquid investments? Most sensible people will invest any cash (USD/etc) they have, and will aim to maximize their investment returns, concordant with their investment goals. Most of the wealth in the world (held by people with lots of savings, and by companies/institutions) is in the form of stock/shares and bonds. Currency is just a medium for transmission/exchange of money. Most of the wealth in the world is held in stocks, bonds, and property, and not in currency. > the wealthy can avoid paying their fair share through loop holes and classifying their income differently than mine The solution to that is simply going back to classifying capital gains[1], dividends[2], and carried interest[3] as regular taxable income. The current regular federal income tax system[4] is very progressive and effective. Getting rid of that would be the wrong thing to do, FICA taxes are a bit regressive, but that can also be easily fixed by eliminating the Social Security wage base[5]. References: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_Unite... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_tax#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_tax#United_States [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest#United_States [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_schedule_(federal_income_tax)#Format https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_schedule_(federal_income_... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base