←back to thread

95 points gmays | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.506s | source
Show context
from-nibly ◴[] No.41084584[source]
A reminder that taxes don't fund the government they curb inflation. The government funds itself by printing money and taking out loans.
replies(4): >>41084595 #>>41084780 #>>41084882 #>>41089588 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.41084595[source]
> reminder that taxes don't fund the government they curb inflation. The government funds itself by printing money and taking out loans

Sort of. Modern monetary theory ignores any stocks of money or money-like instruments at the government, focussing instead on flows. Spending and paying debt is inflationary, taxing and issuing debt deflationary.

As an economic model it’s nice. As a policy framework in a democracy it’s nonsense. Practically nobody during the inflation scare proposed raising taxes to destroy cash.

replies(4): >>41084662 #>>41084678 #>>41084980 #>>41085426 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.41084678[source]
> Practically nobody during the inflation scare proposed raising taxes to destroy cash.

They did though, they just don't call it that because it's implicit in the existing tax system and happens without any legislative action.

Capital gains tax includes a tax on inflation. If you own a $100 asset and its real value doesn't change but you have 10% inflation, its nominal value is now $110 and the next time you do a transaction the government will call this a $10 capital gain and collect tax on it, even though the real gain was $0.

replies(2): >>41084856 #>>41084919 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.41084919[source]
> They did though, they just don't call it that because it's implicit in the existing tax system and happens without any legislative action

Those gains also fuel wealth effects. Our tax take as a fraction of GDP has been flat since WWII [1].

An MMT anti-inflationary cash-destruction programme would involve hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, of borrowing or tax increases (with no increase in spending). That didn't happen for obvious reasons.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

replies(1): >>41084947 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.41084947[source]
"As a fraction of GDP" is kind of the point. If you have 10% inflation and taxes as a percent of GDP are flat, the inflation has increased nominal tax revenue by 10% and caused 10% more nominal dollars to be removed from the economy.

The part that didn't happen is that the government then needs to not spend that extra money, or else it goes back into the economy and continues inflating prices.

replies(2): >>41085208 #>>41085518 #
ffgjgf1 ◴[] No.41085208[source]
What exactly is the government spending that money on makes bug difference on inflation, though
replies(1): >>41085557 #
1. AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.41085557[source]
That doesn't matter a lot. They pay it to Lockheed who pays it to employees or subcontractors who buy stuff at Walmart and then prices at Walmart go up by supply and demand. The same thing happens if they pay it to General Electric or Pfizer.

To reduce inflation they'd have to throw it in a furnace or otherwise prevent it from going to anyone who would spend it.

replies(1): >>41107693 #
2. ffgjgf1 ◴[] No.41107693[source]
> That doesn't matter a lot

Depends on what do you mean by “a lot”.

I don’t think that many people working at Lockheed spend their entire salary at Walmart every month.