3 ms·

You’re crazy. Printing money funds socially useful things in government. Losing money to scammers is pure destruction. The idea that we should put up with massi

by TimPC 4y ago

You’re crazy. Printing money funds socially useful things in government. Losing money to scammers is pure destruction. The idea that we should put up with massive amounts of fraud in order to destroy social safety nets is quite laughable.

roenxi 4y ago
Can you think of no other way to fund the government than printing money? Because if not, you aren't trying very hard.
- TimPC 4y ago
  You seem to be taking the position that printing money is the worst form of funding government and we should only do it if there are no other ways to do so. Printing money functions as a distorted but less bureaucratic and less invasive wealth tax. I don’t think it’s especially great but I think it functions reasonably as a piece of the puzzle. Without printing money we need to raise government revenues by close to 50% which is a rather drastic increase in taxation.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > You seem to be taking the position that printing money is the worst form of funding government and we should only do it if there are no other ways to do so. I'd be perfectly eager to take that side of the debate if you want to argue about it, but that isn't really what the topic was in this thread. I was observing that subjecting yourself to a voluntary wealth tax could reasonably be a worse option than taking a risk of losing everything in one ugly crash. That isn't a crazy position. It does require a tolerance of risk. > Without printing money we need to raise government revenues by close to 50% which is a rather drastic increase in taxation. People are already paying that tax though - the wealth that the government is moving around had to come from somewhere. We know the government isn't creating it otherwise there'd be no need for the money printing to happen. We just aren't sure who specifically is paying how much. So it would be a drastic increase in observed tax, but probably not a big change to most people's lifestyles.

by TimPC 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

Can you think of no other way to fund the government than printing money? Because if not, you aren't trying very hard.

TimPC 4y ago
You seem to be taking the position that printing money is the worst form of funding government and we should only do it if there are no other ways to do so. Printing money functions as a distorted but less bureaucratic and less invasive wealth tax. I don’t think it’s especially great but I think it functions reasonably as a piece of the puzzle. Without printing money we need to raise government revenues by close to 50% which is a rather drastic increase in taxation.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > You seem to be taking the position that printing money is the worst form of funding government and we should only do it if there are no other ways to do so. I'd be perfectly eager to take that side of the debate if you want to argue about it, but that isn't really what the topic was in this thread. I was observing that subjecting yourself to a voluntary wealth tax could reasonably be a worse option than taking a risk of losing everything in one ugly crash. That isn't a crazy position. It does require a tolerance of risk. > Without printing money we need to raise government revenues by close to 50% which is a rather drastic increase in taxation. People are already paying that tax though - the wealth that the government is moving around had to come from somewhere. We know the government isn't creating it otherwise there'd be no need for the money printing to happen. We just aren't sure who specifically is paying how much. So it would be a drastic increase in observed tax, but probably not a big change to most people's lifestyles.