Are you OK with printing more money for the govt to spend?

(disclaimer- some inflation may be necessary to match increased production of goods... this thread is about printing money just so govt can spend more when we're not producing an equally higher amount of goods, as has been the case for some decades- inflation and money printing far outpacing increased production)

Before you answer, consider the following.

Printing money causes inflation, and inflation from money printing is a tax.

"

• If the money supply increases faster than output then, ceteris paribus, inflation will occur.
• If a government prints extra money, households will have more cash and more money to spend on goods. But, if the amount of goods stays the same, the extra cash will just cause firms to put up prices."

Why Printing Money Causes Inflation - Economics Help

"Inflation is when the general price of goods and services increases across the economy, reducing the purchasing power of a currency and the value of certain assets. The same paycheck covers less goods, services, and bills. It is sometimes referred to as a “hidden tax,” as it leaves taxpayers less well-off due to higher costs and “bracket creep,” while increasing the government’s spending power."
Inflation: A Hidden Tax? | Inflation Tax Basics | TaxeDU (taxfoundation.org)

So when we print more money to spend on things we couldn't afford from revenue, it means the govt can buy more and you can buy less. That is the same result as increasing taxation.

For those of you who support raising taxes on the rich but not the poor- consider who is more impacted by a loss of purchasing power- people already struggling to make ends meet, or people who are not struggling? Inflation effects the prices of ALL goods, people who can buy what they don't need can adjust by buying less of what they don't need. People who only buy what they need CANNOT ADJUST.

And yet, it seems the people most content to let the govt print whatever extra money it needs ALSO tend to be the people who prefer to raise taxes on the rich to benefit the poor. Printing money does precisely the opposite of that. So where's the logic? It seems more like any method that gets the govt more money is really the goal, not actually helping anyone...

And lets not pretend that one 'team' or the other doesn't print money just to be able to spend more. The problem is bipartisan.

 

You forgot that it isn't just printing money and taxes but also the auction and sale of treasury assets (bills, bonds, etc.). It's either going to be available as an investment or it won't be. I hear that investors are getting good interest rates now. That's adding to inflation and it won't be drained through income taxes because it's a capital gain.

It's at this point that we talk about a wealth tax. Not for any spending priority but to drain the excess cash in the system. We know that it has already taken place on main street, now it's the wealthy's turn. Not because of greed, but because the extra money is killing us with an uncounted inflation cause.

 

It doesn't matter if we the people are okay with it or not. They're going to do it when they get good and ready.

 

we either force the rich to trickle down, or we print more money, simple

as the population gets bigger, and the rich get richer... money needs to be printed

the money to be from the bottom up though, make the rich create jobs to get that money

the reality is, the more hands a dollar touches, the better off society is

 

If thats the terms you want to put it in, then the point of the OP would be 'the more dollars there are, the less hands they touch.'

You can't 'make' the rich do anything. They have to be incentivized, usually with things that can make them more rich. Printing money certainly makes them more rich relative to the rest of us, but it doesn't incentivize them to do anything beneficial.

 

That's not going to work. I'm no genius with investing, but even I know how to hide wealth from taxation. Rest assured, the instant it looks like a wealth tax is to be implimented, trillions of dollars are going to flood back into the market and valuable, storable and hideable assets are going to dissapear. Inflation will skyrocket, the rich will be rich in property instead of dollars, and those left with dollars will have little to buy with them. It simply isn't possible to use the bureaucracy to take peoples stuff when the people whose stuff you want to take have influence within the bureacracy. You can try to take it by force (though that comes with a whole sleugh of even worse problems...), but riches can buy a lot of force too.

Incentivization is the only realistic way to increase economic activity, which is what makes money valuable.

 

I couldn't vote because what I believe was not there. Option 2 was closest. It said ...

I oppose printing more money- govt needs to reduce its costs to match tax revenue.

But what I believe is this: Government needs to reduce its spending to match tax revenue or raise its revenue to match its spending.

In other words, if we spend it, we pay for it out of our checkbooks.

There would be no better way to inhibit wasteful, pork barrel, unnecessary spending than making us actually pay for it - every nickel.

 

So you're saying there's no way to stop the tide of a growing money supply... I suppose that within a few years, inflation will turn into hyperinflation. What with all the hundreds of trillions of secret money that aren't counted and can't go away?

 

I support printing massive amounts of money and building power and more technological advancement including photonic computers which run faster are immune to emp and reduce electrical usage by 90%. Also invest in AI. Also nano technology. Also automated farming and vertical farming etc... Also cancer research and finally

These are all worthwhile investments that will reduce energy expenses and increase productivity thereby offsetting inflation.

 

Ummm... if we stop printing money, the money supply will stop growing.

 

That can all be done without priunting more money. Also, printing more money isn't going to make all those things happen.

On what basis are you suggesting the two are linked?

 

Fair enough I guess. I assumed that option predicated raising taxes to increase spending. Raising taxes tends to require a lot more voter participation (or perhaps it illicits a lot more voter participation) than printing money does.

If pork bills also included a tax rate hike to pay for them, I think it would be a lot harder to pass them. ...or at least there would be a lot more congresscritters getting voted out for passing them.

 

Right. Printing money is the politicians' easy way out. It gives Republicans the ability to declare "NO NEW TAXES!" and Democrats the ability to SPEND and shamelessly claim that all that spending is good for our economy.

Right. There would be pressure within the Congress from both sides of the aisle to hold spending to the level of revenue. And if Congress wanted to spend more than the revenue, they would have to dig into our pockets more to do that. Now ... How do you think that would go over with voters? Not so well I'm thinking. And hey, whaddayaknow? All of a sudden, both sides become budget hawks.

 

It can be done but printing money to accomplish this is necessary to really compete with China on the level we need to.
It will be slower to get where we need to be and many companies will go under due to the high risk factor in how long it takes to get from research to building industry to actually producing and selling.

At the very least we need to fund building the factories through a no risk loan to recover the costs years down the road.

If we fail todo this. Not only will we fall behind on other technologies and yet other technologies as we enter into a new era of AI that leads us to further advancements. We will have a really dangerous disadvantage militarily, and infrastructure in terms of national security.

Imagine what China can do with quantum computing and decryption in stealing military/tech/business secrets. Or just how they could hack our systems and with the help of quantum computing and AI to completely win a cyber war.
Also imagine the advancement in drones with Photonic Circuits which are immune to EMP and use less electricity and don't produce heat. This means they will be able to go longer distances and respond to situations faster than our equipment and they will not be susceptible to an emp attack.

Frankly, if the government fails to invest in this to the degree they should. They are sending us down the road of probably one of the greatest failures of our history.

And like I said before the investment will pay for itself down the road. The faster we get this technology up and running hte faster we can reap the benefits and reduce the energy expenses and increase the standard of living by 10fold due to AI and further advancments due to the help of AI learning.

 

Yes, but how does the average Joe get enough cash currency to carry out their average economic activity as more and more cash is funneled into the bank accounts of the wealthy? It seems to me that the central bank has to print more money all the time just to keep up with the amount of currency demanded and required to achieve the same level of economic activity from one year to another.

 

So, we already print money. I propose getting rid of income taxes. Pass a balanced budget Amendment, and have an office with a couple of people. Maybe one of them is named Herbert. And they are to review how much the US GDP was in a given year, and then print a % of that for Government to spend. No more tax evasion. No more 87,000 armed agents to attack us. No more penalties and carrots and anything from the tax code.

 

If you had 10x more money than you have now, and everything cost 10x more than it does now, would you be better off?

 

K, but I fail to see how printing money helps. Unless you're suggesting the govt needs to be able to fund these things without us voting to raise taxes. And if thats what you're suggesting, why isn't it already investing as you suggest? It could, but isnt (much).

 

A tax directly impacts the American People. Using inflation as the tax will be partially covered by other nations holding the USD which they should help pay in order to conserve global order under USA dominance.

I would consider doing otherwise if we redirected the entire military budget toward this technology and brought all our troops and equipment home and let the other nations cover the entire cost of their own defense.
If we are going to act like an empire, we should tax like an empire otherwise we need to stop acting like one.

 

Ok. Thats a pretty good point.

I wouldnt swap the 'entire' budget over... but a lot of it.

 

Quantitative easing should only be done in times of recessions, if needed. Printing money devalues the currency. Governments should ideally by a law leave balanced books at the end of their term.

 

Inflation is known as the cruelest tax. Are you saying the solution is to increase taxes? Can you walk me through how that works?

 

Inflation is the result of an overabundance of currency in circulation. (It's also because businesses raise prices, but I don't cover price gouging here.)

The Federal Reserve has the Treasury Department print a certain number of bills and coins for use in the economy so that people can receive income and purchase goods and services in the economy. (It's also been used to buy people, organizations, and countries off, but I don't cover corruption here.)

Every dollar in circulation adds to inflation, so to get inflation under control, the Fed has to reduce the amount of currency in circulation.

But here's the problem: some people acquire large amounts of wealth, and for every dollar they own, the Fed must increase the number of dollars in circulation to cover both the wealthy's savings and supply enough currency for common economic activity.

The fastest way to eliminate excess currency would be to collect large amounts of money into piles and shovel them into an incinerator. Inflation solved!

The second fastest way to eliminate excess currency would be to tax large sums of it away and throw it into the black hole that is the government's budget.

Ever since the Great Recession crisis, the defacto way to clear out excess currency has been to drain it away by making life so expensive that people go through their savings and then start draining their retirement accounts. This method focuses on the middle class and the poor.

However, getting the currency away from the wealthy requires some extra thinking. This is where most of the money is placed, and it tends to be placed into activities that grow its value/making inflation worse. (We could also stop paying terrorists and despots not to harm us, but I don't cover international intrigue here.)

So, to summarize:
Excess currency causes inflation, and we should look for any and all methods to reduce the amount of currency in circulation, many things not considered. Taxes are one method.

 

You said that businesses raise prices. Business is the main source of wealth. If you tax the wealthy, who ends up paying?

People love to point fingers at the "wealthy" and chant "Take from them". In the end, the workers are the ones paying.

 

Ok, so I've been told that we need the next recession to lower prices again.

This is good because I'm arguing that wealth is causing inflation.

I'm not arguing that they should replace their wealth by passing their tax expense on to customers. I'm arguing that we need to take that wealth out of the system altogether.

Wealth is an unsustainable economic activity.