Why doesn’t the government just print money instead of charging taxes?

I’ve been doing some thinking about this question.

It would be possible, but here’s why you wouldn’t want to do it.

Firstly, inflation, classical inflation targets are set at around 2%. That represents the amount of money that is printed each year to pay for the additional spending not covered by the taxes raised.

If you replace taxes with money printing, that number would rise to something like 60 - 80%

This assumes you don’t tax anything, no income tax, corporation tax, taxes to pay for pensions, health care, welfare, military, everything.

In reality running a country, any country is expensive and most of the work you do as an individual is towards that end.

That would be a hard sell for any government to convince their electorate.

But you still wouldn’t want to do it because hyperinflation would kick in and you would be regularly changing your monetary base unit accounting system, unless you’re happy paying a billion dollars for a loaf of bread.

That’s not the main problem however. The U.S. dollar is the global reserve currency, by printing money to pay for government spending, you’d be “taxing” all holders of the U.S. dollar. Foreign nation states, corporations and private holders.

This would not be tolerated and the dollar would be abandoned very rapidly, which is what’s happening, but slowly.

Taxing people within your borders and your citizens outside of those borders, ensures only people benefiting from government services contribute to it financially.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Taxation is theft. Inflation is taxation.

Ok sure 😂

But serious question. If you accept what I’m saying above, how else to you pay for things as a government?

Or do you think I’m wrong, if so, how?

Well, I think your inflation figure is way off. Yes the "aim" is 2% and in general, the govt. produces figures that roughly match that. In reality it is nearer 10%. Often higher. Their basket choice is highly manipulated!

Your question can be boiled down to "but who will build the roads?". The answer is that no one builds them now and we pay a fortune for them. So, who cares? The other major problem is that the corruption is through the roof! Things do not cost what we pay.

You can probably tell that I am a bit of an anarchist. That doesn't mean I want a " Purge" situation. It does mean I believe we should end all benefits, scrap the NHS, use the government only for refuse collection. Sounds draconian but it's about time we were allowed to live freely.

Small government may work buthonestly I don't trust any of it. In general people would run things fairly. "But who would enforce the rules?" We would

Thank you for correcting a figure I did not quote 😂

I've spent a lot of time thinking and refining my thinking on this. Even more on writing a concise explanation.

I hope it helps move the narrative forward.

I thought you wrote 2%?

I didn't mention actual inflation at all.

No, the target. I simply pointed out (as I'm sure you are aware) that that is part of their deception. Maybe my skills as a writer don't pass muster.

I've written a book and my writing skills certainly don't pass muster.

Yep. Pretty much. As it is, debtors are already not particularly happy about the melting ice-cubes that are U.S. dollars, treasuries, etc. There just haven't been many better alternatives. Of course, Bitcoin has the potential to fix this (or break it - depending on your perspective). 😄

One clarification: the rate that represents the amount of money that is printed each year to pay for the additional spending not covered by the taxes raised has been more like 8% (sometimes more; sometimes less) for at least half a century (that's as for back as the Fed chart I found goes).

The 2% 'inflation' target represents this 8% after accounting for technological deflation of consumables. That is, advances in technology cause consumer products to get like 5-6% less expensive in real terms every year (on average); but when you add 8% due to monetary expansion, the result is a 2-3% higher nominal price tag.

Conversely, the price inflation rate of harder assets that don't really benefit as much from technological advances - like gold, real estate, etc - tend to track the 8% monetary expansion rate much more closely in the long run

I am worried about the amount of debt being laden on Bitcoin, I wrote about it here. It's a bit rambley, but I was thinking as I was typing and I haven't cleaned it up.

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzp6pmv65w6tfhcp73404xuxcqpg24f8rf2z86f3v824td22c9ymptqqxnzdenxgerjdeexqmrzdfkacyprc

Cool! I'll take a look and get back to you to let you know what I think.

In the meantime, I wanted to mention that my comment about Bitcoin fixes this wasn't in regard to fixing U.S. debt. It was in regard to providing a viable alternative for the would-be creditors of U.S. debt. (also, I mistakenly said 'debtors' in that comment when I should have said 'creditors'. oops).

I suspect it has less to do with the figures and percentages than it has to do with the government ensuring that you use their fake currency. They don't need your taxes, but they fo need you in servitude.

In the UK, government employees are called "Civil Servants" 😂

Same but here in Canada we now call them Authorities and they've forgot who the boss is.

Ah, I see you're Canadian.

I was close 😂

Now you're talking like jfk and Abraham Lincoln. Dangerous questions. Printing money from the treasury when you could borrow from bankers across the ocean! At interest! For a fee.

You socialist you!