3 ms·

You act like these are wild approaches. But during this this current term we've already done #1 via the 1Trillion tax cuts to mostly the wealthy. Those (many of

You act like these are wild approaches. But during this this current term we've already done #1 via the 1Trillion tax cuts to mostly the wealthy. Those (many of us on here) who won't use it for goods and services, but instead to further prop up your asset bubble of choice. Ie not improve the economy much, but make the appearance of improvement via higher asset pricess. Then we've done #3 via re-introducing QE via the fed. Both back in September, and again last week, and why yet again just 30 mins ago. While we call them short term loans, they still haven't been paid back since the start of the GFC. And not only have we continued printing more via the Fed, when the fed finally tried to get some companies to pay them back a year ago the repo market siezed up last fall. The fact that there was a flood of Treasury Securities on the market to pay for item #1 (it increased supply by 50%) likely had a lot to do with it. If you want the economy to function, then get money in the people who will spend it. What's the factor? For lower incomes every extra dollar they have, introduces 1.5x or 2x or something into the economy. And for every dollar given to middle-high and high incomes only 0.4x or less actually goes into the economy. Propping up assets isn't a functioning economy.

xyzzyz 7y ago
> You act like these are wild approaches. But during this this current term we've already done #1 via the 1Trillion tax cuts to mostly the wealthy. $4T a year, required to pay for monthly basic income of $1k to all Americans is much wilder than $1T of tax not collected over 10 years, yes. The former number is 40 times larger than the latter. > Then we've done #3 via re-introducing QE via the fed. No, we've done only small part of 3) via QE. QE over its history had bought around $4T of assets, which is a far cry from what's required to pay every American $12k/year. QE also doesn't directly "print money", and so Fed buying $4T of assets has much smaller inflationary impact than actually printing $4T and giving it to the government or people. What I want is for people to be honest about how much basic income actually costs, and where will that money actually come from. Quite simply, you cannot double federal government spending overnight by some clever accounting trick or increasing taxes on "the wealthy": there aren't nearly enough wealthy people to cover that.
- BoiledCabbage 7y ago
  > $4T a year, required to pay for monthly basic income of $1k to all Americans is much wilder... "one-time payment of $1,000 to every adult who is a U.S. citizen or a taxpaying U.S. resident, and $500 to every child who meets the same criteria." You're arguing against something nobody proposed. Please compare the numbers with whats actually being proposed.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    Nobody, except the commenter I directly responded to: > This is how we should manage the money supply, and it should be monthly.
oat_bravo_nap 7y ago
> But during this this current term we've already done #1 via the 1Trillion tax cuts to mostly the wealthy. Tax revenue has not decreased. The deficit is a spending problem not a revenue problem.
- BoiledCabbage 7y ago
  > The deficit is a spending problem not a revenue problem. I'm not certain what you're getting at. The deficit is defined as the delta between spending and revenue. It's as much one problem as it is the other. Could you clarify what you mean?
  - oat_bravo_nap 7y ago
    It does not matter how much money the US government takes in taxes. They will continue to spend more than that causing a deficit. For example if tax revenues increased by 500 bln, that could be used to decrease the deficit by 500 bln if spending was not increased. However, what would happen is that the government would increase spending by say 1 trillion so the deficit would continue to grow despite higher tax revenue.

xyzzyz 7y ago

> You act like these are wild approaches. But during this this current term we've already done #1 via the 1Trillion tax cuts to mostly the wealthy. $4T a year, required to pay for monthly basic income of $1k to all Americans is much wilder than $1T of tax not collected over 10 years, yes. The former number is 40 times larger than the latter. > Then we've done #3 via re-introducing QE via the fed. No, we've done only small part of 3) via QE. QE over its history had bought around $4T of assets, which is a far cry from what's required to pay every American $12k/year. QE also doesn't directly "print money", and so Fed buying $4T of assets has much smaller inflationary impact than actually printing $4T and giving it to the government or people. What I want is for people to be honest about how much basic income actually costs, and where will that money actually come from. Quite simply, you cannot double federal government spending overnight by some clever accounting trick or increasing taxes on "the wealthy": there aren't nearly enough wealthy people to cover that.

BoiledCabbage 7y ago
> $4T a year, required to pay for monthly basic income of $1k to all Americans is much wilder... "one-time payment of $1,000 to every adult who is a U.S. citizen or a taxpaying U.S. resident, and $500 to every child who meets the same criteria." You're arguing against something nobody proposed. Please compare the numbers with whats actually being proposed.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Nobody, except the commenter I directly responded to: > This is how we should manage the money supply, and it should be monthly.

oat_bravo_nap 7y ago

> But during this this current term we've already done #1 via the 1Trillion tax cuts to mostly the wealthy. Tax revenue has not decreased. The deficit is a spending problem not a revenue problem.

BoiledCabbage 7y ago
> The deficit is a spending problem not a revenue problem. I'm not certain what you're getting at. The deficit is defined as the delta between spending and revenue. It's as much one problem as it is the other. Could you clarify what you mean?
- oat_bravo_nap 7y ago
  It does not matter how much money the US government takes in taxes. They will continue to spend more than that causing a deficit. For example if tax revenues increased by 500 bln, that could be used to decrease the deficit by 500 bln if spending was not increased. However, what would happen is that the government would increase spending by say 1 trillion so the deficit would continue to grow despite higher tax revenue.