3 ms·

Government spending is neither fixed nor wholly paid for via taxes (a lot of it is deficit spending). So while it's a stupid group to give a tax break to it's

Government spending is neither fixed nor wholly paid for via taxes (a lot of it is deficit spending). So while it's a stupid group to give a tax break to it's not necessarily a tax burden increase on the rest of us. Heck, if we stopped being world police or fixed our healthcare we'd have a bunch of slush money on the table for whatever boondoggle tickles your fancy.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
are there no people who, even today, advocate for reducing spending to be closer to revenues? if so, forgoing revenues in such a scenario would consequently lead to such people advocating for even less spending, and/or higher taxes on the rest of us, even if we'd rather have the spending and also higher taxes on the parties in question tl;dr: Your comment is based on the fallacy that a) government spending can't be maintained at current levels while simultaneously removing this loophole and taxing the parties in question
- benj111 4y ago
  There are people that advocate that. I wish there were some good write ups on money printing after the 2008 crash. Theoretically that should lead to higher inflation, which it didn't until now (and for different reasons). So yes established theory used to be that spending should match revenues, with the difference being made up by inflation essentially. What the latest thinking is, and the implications of that I don't know.
  - mamonster 4y ago
    Well technically speaking it did lead to higher inflation, it's just that the things that got inflated(assets, especially financial ones) are not part of what people look at when they look at inflation.
    - benj111 4y ago
      Are they more inflated than prior to 2008? By and large you need a relatively small amount of money to inflate an asset. The difference between all bitcoins being worth $10k each or being worthless is potentially just one person willing to pay that $10k for only one.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago

are there no people who, even today, advocate for reducing spending to be closer to revenues? if so, forgoing revenues in such a scenario would consequently lead to such people advocating for even less spending, and/or higher taxes on the rest of us, even if we'd rather have the spending and also higher taxes on the parties in question tl;dr: Your comment is based on the fallacy that a) government spending can't be maintained at current levels while simultaneously removing this loophole and taxing the parties in question

benj111 4y ago
There are people that advocate that. I wish there were some good write ups on money printing after the 2008 crash. Theoretically that should lead to higher inflation, which it didn't until now (and for different reasons). So yes established theory used to be that spending should match revenues, with the difference being made up by inflation essentially. What the latest thinking is, and the implications of that I don't know.
- mamonster 4y ago
  Well technically speaking it did lead to higher inflation, it's just that the things that got inflated(assets, especially financial ones) are not part of what people look at when they look at inflation.
  - benj111 4y ago
    Are they more inflated than prior to 2008? By and large you need a relatively small amount of money to inflate an asset. The difference between all bitcoins being worth $10k each or being worthless is potentially just one person willing to pay that $10k for only one.