Hacker News Reader

Comment by TechBro8615 | Hacker News Reader

Maybe we should stop paying taxes since the FED can just print new money when we need it.

Your comment seems pretty unserious, but modern monetary theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory) adherents assert that the point of taxes is not to "fund" anything, but to engineer incentives, redistribute wealth, and remove excess money. And that, yes, we should simply print money, to the extent that we need to, subject to the constraint that excess money causes inflation in specific circumstances.

upvote! MMT founders think we can eliminate income taxes and get by with state taxes. One has said a national real estate tax would be fair in leu of income taxes. But they all agree taxing is necessary to maitain demand/need for the currency and to slow down the economy if needed.

Many non MMTers think we can get rid of income tax too.

but those others believe taxes fund federal government which MMT has shown to be not exactly true.

In all circumstances. It’s a nonsense theory that is entirely based on the idea that everybody in the world will accept the value of our currency is maintained while no other country on earth gets this benefit.

The sarcasm was warranted.

I don't remember adding a sarcasm tag. :)

I do agree that only the US (or whichever country controls the reserve currency) could really get away with this. But it already gets away with quite a lot, including "exporting inflation," so why not squeeze the dollar for all its worth as long as it's printed by the world's only superpower?

I'm not an expert on MMT, but I've never heard anyone say that. MMTers say that a government cannot be forced to default on debts denominated in its own currency, but that doesn't mean it can control exchange rates if it chooses to prints money to pay them. MMT encourages a broader range of thinking about what's possible, but those possibilities aren't free of consequences.

Those consequences are a soft form of default. They played some word games and turned hard defaults into soft defaults. Great?

You've never heard anyone say the main - and very popular - counter argument? (which is correct IMO)

Seems disingenuous.

Re-reading the comment, I misunderstood what they were saying the counterargument to MMT was. But I still think they're wrong. The rest of the world accepts all sorts of things that we might not expect, such as a debt to GDP ratio over 100. A lot of conventional economic arguments are rigorously weak, and while I think policy recommendations from the MMT camp are very debatable, I find their model to be thoroughly thought through.

Hum... I only disagree that people keeping calling it "modern".

The actually modern theory has a much more complex lifecycle for money. Yep, government spending creates it, and taxing destroys it, but between all the kinds of money and the entities that can create them, it's not automatic that the government numbers are the important ones.

As far as I know, MMT accepts all of the theory of money supply. The main break with mainstream economics is in asserting that government spending beyond taxes collected need not be financed with borrowing. The borrowing is an option, which may be desirable, but a government could also choose to print the money instead, and doing so wouldn't automatically be inflationary. In many ways, this is a recognition of the fact that it's not just an unbalanced budget that creates money.

Well yeah and I think the main difference is that MMT ( and it has been called chartalism as well) recognizes that money derives it value from the state via the imposition of taxes at the barrel of a gun ( you goto jail if you don't pay). So money, at the federal level, ( and there is broad money which is money at the bank level) is essentially a tax liability. Therefore in order to provision itself, the state (feds), must first spend money into existence before collecting taxes as a point of logic. Therefore federal deficits are a necessity . The only question is how big ? And , given the imposition of taxes, the private sector is unemployed in the currency in which the tax is levied, so it must make itself available for employment in order to pay taxes. Thats how the government provisions itself. And you can say the government causes unemployment when it taxes and should therefore as a social goal, guarantee work to anyone at a living wake. So called Job guarantee, which MMT thinks is better than an income guarantee. There rest of the economy you build up from there. Its gets more complicated when you factor in banking and bank money which is the form of money that makes up 90% + of the money supply.

I wish MMT adherents would lobby harder to tax capital gains at the same rate as labour.

I'd say get rid of all federal taxes except a real estate tax which I find to be fair. The bigger , the more valuable the more you pay. And then distribute money to the states on a per capita basis. States have funding problems. Especially during downturn and they provide much of the valuable services to live day to day. We need new sewers and state and county roads. Municipal infrastructure needs improvement.

This is essentially a tax on wealth stored in the form of dollars, right? Which some folks would generally be in favor of, if not for the fact that the super-wealthy tend not to store their wealth in the form of dollars sitting in a bank account (or mattress). Seems rough of retirees and other folks on fixed incomes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com