Pretty obscene that somebody could have so much wealth that $7,000,000,000 is just the tax bill. Also weird that it's framed as a "gift."
There is an element of competitiveness there. Some rich want to be known as rich and so they can brag about paying the most taxes that in turns implies they have the most money. Others want to be quieter about their wealth and so don't want you to know they have it and wouldn't tell you how much taxes they pay.
And it's a good thing that government is strong enough to be able to collect large taxes. Contrary to popular opinion, rich people are mostly OK paying large taxes, but only as long as all other rich pay their share as well. The grudges they hold are only about unfairness, not about amounts.
In fact we should probably celebrate gifts to the US government more than we do.
Jeez the pedantry around here.
Let me spell it out: Upper class people don't have to work to maintain their existing lifestyle. Steve Jobs could have continued wearing black turtlenecks and paying fines for parking his Mercedes in handicapped spots for the rest of his life, without doing a lick of work. That he didn't is a credit to his work ethic and passion for the work.
I wouldn't want to live like that and I wouldn't wish it on even the most undeserable (life without parole prisoneers). you could do it. Some do it for a month or two in college as they see the world - but they go back to a more normal life and just fondly tell stories.
One can of beans is ~400kcal and costs ~$1.30+tax in my closest QFC, so you need around $4 per day just for beans (3 cans). 5lb bag of rice (50 servings, 160kcal per serving) is $5.50, & you need 5 servings per day to reach 2000kcal, so +55¢. That's $135/mo just for rice and beans, and I have not checked if that satisfies daily protein intake needs.
Where will you set up your tent without getting arrested? Needs to be walkable from a Goodwill, otherwise you need transport once a year. How are you cooking the rice? Where are you getting the potable water from?
Decent sleeping bag is another $100.
Even your unserious response is underestimating the amount of money required.
Sorry, but with such an outrageously low estimate (US poverty line is $15k a year), you have to put in a bit more effort and show some receipts.
Generally speaking, the sad truth of a complex economy is that coordination is hard, and there's usually a short-term privatized gain to be had by someone willing to poison the future and the commons. No amount of benefit to humanity overall or even the specific society such a person lives in will convince a person who simply doesn't care about anyone else. Fortunately for humanity, a very small minority of people actually operate like that. Unfortunately for humanity, some of them have managed to accumulate a lot of power
Society is about the compromise. However that compromise makes nobody happy.
I had the idea that we should put a donation box on tax forms. The 100 top donators get on the “US 100” list (like Forbes) but it’s based ONLY on how much you donate, not how much you claim to be worth.
It’s one thing to claim to be rich to a Forbes reporter, it’s another to have the (tax) receipts to back it up.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrickcai/2021/09/28/elon-musk...
> Flaunting would definitely be getting your name on a list that you don't need to be on.
Oh, like a list of the largest yachts and their owners?
But some do.
> 57th place means nothing.
It means you're on the board and got one higher than 56th place. I'm a top 50 rails contributor, that means something to me and to others.
It's kinda like F1. Some teams are racing for the constructors championship. Some teams are racing for the midfield. All of them are racing for even a single point and to stay in the game.
I don't believe it's on a tax form, but you can absolutely just donate money to the US. They make it very easy, just go to pay.gov.
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
I like your idea of adding a leaderboard.
What puts a lid on how much money the Fed creates is the desire to keep inflation to reasonable levels, preferably 2% per year. Your burning your cash allows the Fed to create more while adhering to their inflation target. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that although the Fed decides how much money is created, the Fed is not allowed to keep or to spend newly-created money, but rather must give it to the Treasury (perhaps through some complicated or non-obvious mechanism) which makes it available for the government to spend.
Predictably, politicians who support MMT only did the printing part and skipped that bit once inflation started.
MMT emphasizes that taxation (P-G) is not necessary to "fund" government spending. Instead, taxation primarily serves to control inflation and create a demand for the currency. Taxation creates a value for the currency since taxes are payable only in the government's currency.
When we hold the P-G-P view of government spending, we assume it operates like a household - that a government has to collect taxes before spending and this is viewed by MMTheorists as an antiquated perspective. The misconceptions of "The government as a household" were based on the gold standard or fixed exchange rate systems, which since 1971 no longer apply.
An additional point to add is the mechanism by which taxation controls inflation. Tax serves to suppress demand in the private sector, freeing up resources that can then be bought at non-inflated prices. This is why super wealthy people are irrelevant to a sovereign government's ability to spend; their marginal propensity to consume is too low to be seriously impacted by normal levels of taxation. It's also why tax has to be broad base to be useful.
MMT alone may not provide sufficient guidance on how to adjust outlays and receipts to manage employment and inflation.
MMT may not be politically feasible. Politicians may not be navigate politically unpopular but economical necessary.
MMT may be domestically sound, but challenging to implement regarding international trade. It may result in devaluing compared to other currencies.
MMT may suggest that interest rates can be kept low indefinitely. It's unclear if this would result in excessive risk taking.
MMT may not be applicable to developing economies.
MMT may work in the short term to manage employment and demand but fail to cultivate long term economic development.
MMT's implication as having a larger governmental impact on investment may crowd out private sector investment.
MMT if implemented could be constrained by international investors. If international investors dislike a policy, it may have domestic implications.
MMT depends on having a government effective enough to implement it. If a government is too dysfunctional, MMT may fail in practice.
The primary policy prescription of MMT is the job guarantee, which explicitly addresses the question of how to manage employment and inflation. The job guarantee defines the value of the currency, with other spend floating relative to that, whilst simultaneously providing full employment. In any case, the current model is pretty broken in which fiddling with interest rates is assumed to have a direct casual link to both (and depressingly in opposite directions).
> MMT may not be politically feasible. Politicians may not be navigate politically unpopular but economical necessary.
Insomuch as descriptive MMT is what happens in most sovereign currency areas, this is just a problem of communication. You are right that getting the politics correct is both hard and important. I'm not sure the policies will in aggregate be very unpopular though once a non-made-up description of what limits spending is understood better by the population.
> MMT may be domestically sound, but challenging to implement regarding international trade. It may result in devaluing compared to other currencies.
A floating exchange rate is a feature not a bug. Current attempts to maintain a soft peg are deeply damaging domestically for many countries. In any case, countries that are confident in their monetary and fiscal policies and that have a sound economy seem to be more robust than those that try to maintain a soft peg (see Japan).
> MMT may suggest that interest rates can be kept low indefinitely. It's unclear if this would result in excessive risk taking.
Excessive risk taking needs dealing with at the political level with actual laws and regulations. Interest rate policy is a crap tool to deal with such problems.
> MMT may not be applicable to developing economies.
Why not? It explains what their actual constraints are and the risks of taking on foreign debt or pursuing an export led growth strategy etc.
> MMT may work in the short term to manage employment and demand but fail to cultivate long term economic development.
I'm not sure what this has to do with MMT. The post war period with much higher employment and stronger government intervention had much higher growth than the following monetarist/neoliberal era, so perhaps the status quo is the problematic position.
> MMT's implication as having a larger governmental impact on investment may crowd out private sector investment.
Far from crowding out, it crowds in in practice:
https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=12022
Again, the historical evidence shows when governments stop spending, private investment collapses.
> MMT if implemented could be constrained by international investors. If international investors dislike a policy, it may have domestic implications.
What domestic implications? If you're thinking about direct foreign investment, this is problematic in its own right. It might increase domestic employment and potentially increase local skills, but it is also extractive and drains the nations' equity. This possibly has stronger implications for low income nations that don't have a good education base and well developed industries, but MMT at least makes clear where the trade-offs lie.
> MMT depends on having a government effective enough to implement it. If a government is too dysfunctional, MMT may fail in practice.
True, but then so do all political systems. MMT "failing" is also a strange concept given MMT describes the system since the fall of Bretton Woods. What's remarkable is how stable (notwithstanding the obvious "shocks") the system has been despite most governments operating as though they were still inside the Bretton Woods system.
There is nothing to disagree with, no claims were made!
(Of course, the Austrians have a peculiar notion that inflation can by definition only be considered as such if it's associated with increased money supply. Another reason to ignore them completely)
What would happen if we halved it? Dunno, but to achieve that, stuff has to happen, and depending on that stuff, you might get price changes. I expect if the gov engaged in QT to achieve it, very little would happen.
Except Real estate prices more than doubled. Also the Dow went from ~11k to 32k . So almost triple.
YES! YES! YOU ARE CORRECT, THAT'S MY POINT. Lowering the interest rates is how you EXPAND THE MONEY SUPPLY.
But what would you do to not spend it? Put it in the bank? Buy bonds?
There's another very important effect which is the spending on things that matter induces taxation (employment taxes to deliver the thing, sales taxes etc). This is a geometric series reducing the money supply on every transaction of real goods. What matters is the flow, not the stock.
https://new-wayland.com/blog/structural-deficits-are-deflati...
> and putting it towards (wasteful) government programs to "burn it" in a sense.
This claim isn't congruent with the idea of MMT.
One way to look at MMT is asking, does our government have to operate like it has a checking account, or can our economy act like an MMORPG economy?
For example, Blizzard has no obligation to collect coin before distributing coin. Blizzard thinks in terms of coin sources and coin sinks and adjusts source and sink policy in response to aggregate demand and player engagement goals.
If the taxed dollars ended up with say hurricane victims or other struggling Americans, those dollars would chase goods and services domestically driving up the price of those goods.
Now consider if instead you helped fund Israels socialized medicine program or paid off some of Ukraines debt or paid interest to Chinese creditors. Those dollars wouldn't have much effect when it comes to increasing the price of eggs in the US as they are being spent far away in another economy.
A similar effect could occur if the money ended with the wealthy folks, say wealthy owners of private defence contracting firms, as those dollars might chase building a super yacht (inadvertently employing some people but also consuming foreign made materials and labor) instead of trying to rent an apartment in Iowa. Less dollars chasing Iowa apartments, considering supply and demand, lower prices, lower CPI.
Take dollars from the middle class who will drive up the cost of the American dream and instead give them to people who will drive up the price of luxury goods.
It's never explained this clearly beacuse people would riot, but with this framework the choices of government in the last few decades or so suddenly makes more sense.
(I don't endorse MMT)
Insomuch as "implemented" means using the policy prescriptions (specifically, the job guarantee), there are no countries doing that, but various real world experiments have touched on it.
Japan had done things differently (albeit from a different perspective of mainstream economics) and is a good test case for the MMT model, especially given how many bet against the yen (and lose), implying the mainstream models are struggling there.
> Insomuch as "implemented" means using the policy prescriptions (specifically, the job guarantee), there are no countries doing that, but various real world experiments have touched on it.
Something that you can't implement, doesn't work. In practice MMT is a smokescreen for politicians to print money for their friends.
I can find you far more people who wish to abolish the fed and return to the gold standard than people who are willing to have the levels of taxation required to limit the inflation caused by funding the government with unsound money.
MMT's advocates policies would work if it wasn't for that pesky democracy and realities around campaign finance.
Or they are a rent-seeker, or a straight-up thief that sucked a lot of value out of the world. (Or one of their ancestors did, etc, etc.)
Or they robbed Peter to create value for Paul, and took a share of the difference.
These are all tried and true mechanisms for wealth generation. Without any information, you shouldn't assume that their contributions were net-positive.
For detailed counter arguments, see Branko Milanović Global inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, James Kwak Economism: Bad Economics and the Rise of Inequality, Walt Bogdanich & Michael Forsythe When McKinsey Comes to Town: The Hidden Influence of the World's Most Powerful Consulting Firm, and many other books.
Doing something positive-sum is a way to become a billionaire, but many people are very handsomely paid to ensure that their clients are on the good side of zero-sum transactions.
That money management service includes, amongst other things, picking stocks. But that's the tactical "what". The value-added element is that he preserved and grew that wealth instead. It turns out that is hard to do, and is indeed a positive sum service to customers. They get to relax _and_ make money. Great outcome.
Only if the shares are newly-issued, though.
Usually your counterparty is just someone with different cash flow needs, or who disagrees with you about the future. No benefit accrues to the company.
Where "well-managed" means "good at delivering money to its shareholders", which is at best obliquely related to a positive impact on the world. (Also, I'm skeptical that the stock price in itself makes that much of a difference to what the company is able to do.)
> Another net positive of stock trading is making buyers and sellers available all day, for anything on the market. Yet another benefit of stock trading is to make it more difficult to manipulate the market - there's a reason why pump and dump scams only occur with assets that see very little attention (i.e. are low-volume).
In other words, the benefit-to-the-world of stock trading is that it makes it easier to trade stocks? And both of these are the result of unprofitable trading as much as profitable trading, so they can't be the proof that the money comes from the value delivered!
But stock trading also penalizes well-managed companies in slow-growing or more mature industries by giving them a higher cost-of-capital, just as it would if they were poorly managed. It seems a haphazardly blunt instrument for allocating liquidity to value generation. It piles on where rewards seem ready to be reaped, and makes it harder for mature sectors to renew or reinvent themselves.
Given the way everything is being made into its crappier form, it’s arguable that even tech isn’t “adding value” anymore.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
>The gift tax is a tax on the transfer of property by one individual to another while receiving nothing, or less than full value, in return. The tax applies whether or not the donor intends the transfer to be a gift.