3 ms·

"The government regularly spends more than it takes in from taxes by issuing bonds. [...] That in turn lets the government spend money, which ultimately makes i

"The government regularly spends more than it takes in from taxes by issuing bonds. [...] That in turn lets the government spend money, which ultimately makes its way into the economy as a whole" This is straight up nonsense. All currency issuers have the ability to spend which is skew from their need to tax. Taxes do not fund Federal spending. Taxes destroy money, and thus control inflation. That is a fundamentally different role. https://www.bradford-delong.com/2013/04/abba-lerner-1943-functional-finance.html https://www.bradford-delong.com/2013/04/abba-lerner-1943-fun...

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Taxes destroy money? How so? Taxes take money from some private entity, and give it to the government. The government then spends the money, usually by buying something from some private entity. How does that destroy any money?
- RockIslandLine 7y ago
  We're not on the Gold Standard. We don't have to track Pretty Yellow Rocks. The rules are different for Currency Issuers (nations with a fiat currency) versus currency users (citizens, provinces, and nations on the Gold Standard). For the United States, which is a currency issuer, Congressional appropriations create money. Taxes do indeed return money to the government from the private sector, but there is no need to claim that money is "recycled" for spending purposes. Revenue is an obsolete concept for currency issuers.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I call BS. > For the United States, which is a currency issuer, Congressional appropriations create money. What is your basis for claiming that this is true? > Taxes do indeed return money to the government from the private sector, but there is no need to claim that money is "recycled" for spending purposes. Are you saying that it isn't recycled? If not, what do you think happens to it, and what is your basis for claiming that it is true? > Revenue is an obsolete concept for currency issuers. Only if you want staggering amounts of inflation. It is true that a currency issuer can just issue more money, and therefore could survive (short term) with no tax revenue. But that debases the currency, and in the end destroys it. And, I'm going to need to see better answers to these points than "But MMT says it's true!"
    - RockIslandLine 7y ago
      >> Revenue is an obsolete concept for currency issuers. >Only if you want staggering amounts of inflation. "Revenue is an obsolete concept" does not mean that taxes are an obsolete concept. One purpose of taxes is to control inflation. Please argue honestly.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Taxes destroy money? How so? Taxes take money from some private entity, and give it to the government. The government then spends the money, usually by buying something from some private entity. How does that destroy any money?

RockIslandLine 7y ago
We're not on the Gold Standard. We don't have to track Pretty Yellow Rocks. The rules are different for Currency Issuers (nations with a fiat currency) versus currency users (citizens, provinces, and nations on the Gold Standard). For the United States, which is a currency issuer, Congressional appropriations create money. Taxes do indeed return money to the government from the private sector, but there is no need to claim that money is "recycled" for spending purposes. Revenue is an obsolete concept for currency issuers.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I call BS. > For the United States, which is a currency issuer, Congressional appropriations create money. What is your basis for claiming that this is true? > Taxes do indeed return money to the government from the private sector, but there is no need to claim that money is "recycled" for spending purposes. Are you saying that it isn't recycled? If not, what do you think happens to it, and what is your basis for claiming that it is true? > Revenue is an obsolete concept for currency issuers. Only if you want staggering amounts of inflation. It is true that a currency issuer can just issue more money, and therefore could survive (short term) with no tax revenue. But that debases the currency, and in the end destroys it. And, I'm going to need to see better answers to these points than "But MMT says it's true!"
  - RockIslandLine 7y ago
    >> Revenue is an obsolete concept for currency issuers. >Only if you want staggering amounts of inflation. "Revenue is an obsolete concept" does not mean that taxes are an obsolete concept. One purpose of taxes is to control inflation. Please argue honestly.