Well, since the billionaire class doesn’t pay it’s fair share of the tax burden, that money has to come from somewhere.
This is a popular thought, but even if we take 100% from the billionaires it pays for almost one year for the US.
While I understand what assumption you’re running under no one said for only billionaires to pay. The idea is progressive tax brackets the less you make the less you pay percentage wise. We also need less loopholes for the people that can buy lawyers and manipulate their funds to get out of paying what they should. There is no reason companies and the extremely wealthy should be paying an effectively less tax percentage than the diminishing lower middle class.
It’s not about only billionaires paying, it’s about them not being a magical money source. A higher rate might feel better, but it’s not solving government revenue problems.
Now imagine if we had taken 30-40% from billionaires every single year… hmm…
We could have a couple year of almost not having a deficit.
I wonder how many debt collector calls the Whitehouse gets a day
putting people in debt is how people with already too much money make even more money from people who never had enough
How much does the USA have in assets? I’m willing to bet more than $34,000,000,000,000.00.
They could sell Wyoming to Canada, that’d be alright with me.
Canada couldn’t afford it, their monopoly money is worth almost nothing.
Are you immortal? Do you have an income vastly higher than the servicing cost of that debt? Do you owe the large a majority of that debt to yourself? Are you able to, if push came to shove, tell your external creditors to go fuck themselves and dare them to so much as try to collect on the debt you don’t feel like paying? If you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions, you aren’t the US and have a debt situation that has absolutely nothing in common with the US debt.
US debt is currently higher than their GDP. Even if they could leverage the entire country into only paying debt (they can’t), it would take over a year to pay off. At the current average interest rate of ~3%, that’s enough to pay for the entirety of NASA’s budget five times over.
The last time US debt was greater than their GDP was the second world war.
They said service the debt, not pay off the whole thing. For an analogy, your whole mortgage being less than your annual salary isn’t a requirement; your monthly mortgage payment being a fraction of your monthly salary is.
…or, since the federal reserve creates money, they could do quite literally 100 strokes on a keyboard at the FED and repay the debt. A state doesn’t fund itself through taxes, taxes serve many purposes but funding a state isn’t one of them.
Ignoring, for a moment, the inherent and fundamental differences between an individual and a state…
…in my late 20s and early 30s I bought a new car.
At the time, that car cost more than I had in my accounts plus my other possessions at the time. In fairness, my annual income was more than the total cost of the car, buuuut I also was carrying tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt as well, meaning my overall total debt was significantly higher than my annual income, or my “personal GDP” if you will.
Yet when I applied for my car loan, it came through with easy approval and I even qualified for the best possible interest rate.
Why? Because I’ve always paid on my debts adequately and promptly.
Nobody bats an eye when a couple buys a house that costs more than what they can cover with their combined income in one year. Why? Because that’s an arbitrary and unrealistic yard stick of comparison and nobody expects them to pay off a house in a year. They’re able to buy their house and live in it immediately, and pay for it incrementally, over time, as they earn over the coming years because of debt. And the bank is willing to lend the money because they’ll make money in the long run through interest.
Similarly, it’s unreasonable to imply that the US shouldn’t carry more debt than it’s GDP because the two metrics aren’t directly linked in any way. And since the US has excellent credit worthiness, that debt is far safer than the bank’s loan to the homebuyers. And the US gains access to borrowed funds by setting it’s own interest rates through the Fed, which tells lenders exactly how much they’ll make in interest if they let the US government borrow some of their money.
And since the US is a safer bet than homebuyers, that’s why home interest rates are higher than the rate at the Fed: if they were equal, banks would never lend to homebuyers since they could get the same return by lending to the government. So instead, they set their own, higher rates for homebuyers, to account for the higher risk of lending to a party who has a much higher likelihood of default.
Do not forget that you are also the very entity that hands out the currency you hold your debt in.
It’s like Dwight printing IOUs for Schrutebucks
Wait till you learn about how the stock market works. Everyone with a share actually just holds an IOU in the DTCC.
It’s all built on bullshit
I remember users on another platform went into full rage mode when I said the stock market was just legalized gambling, telling me how SAFE!!! IT IS IF YOU DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!>
Okay. Black Friday and Too Big to Fail only happened in my dreams.
have you considered printing your own money?
Yes I have but then I relized hey that’s illegal
Printing imitation US dollars is illegal. Printing Varven Bux is legal! They may not be accepted everywhere, though.
Imitation is illegal… Smh why does nobody just print real money? Am I the only one seeing this loophole?!
Money = reputation
It’s not even about reputation, it’s mostly about taxes. You enforce the private sector using the state’s monopoly of violence to pay tributes in a currency that you create. This way, when there are transactions in the private sector, the main currency that people will want to use (provided it’s stable enough) is the one that lets them pay their taxes later. You can’t pay taxes with dollars in Hungary, which makes Hungarian people use Hungarian currency instead of Chinese Yuan even if the Chinese Yuan is a much stronger currency.
And yes, the state having the monopoly of violence and enforcing taxes is a good thing, before anyone accuses me of being an anarchocapitalist.
So I have a money for putting out easily? That tracks, actually.
Credit scores require you to get some kind of debt. This is because it’s not a score of your financial health. It’s a score of how reliably you repay your debt.
Terry Pratchett’s “Making Money” taught me enough economics to know that individual debt and national debt are two different things.
if it makes you feel any better you’d go to prison if you decided to run a ponzi scheme… unless you’re a bank, that is
Wait a bank is a Ponzi scheme
Not literally. I bet the poster notices the overlap between ponzi and fractional reserve lending and doesn’t care about the differences
Which is?
Lota of differences but the key is: A ponzi scheme pays returns out of future investment. Fractional reserve lending pays returns from interest collected on investments.
Bank is legal because… reasons…
Countries can print money. If the debt is denominated in your own currency you will never not be able to pay them.
I get your point, but they cant just “print” currency so we could actually not be able to pay when people/countries stop buying the bonds or lose faith in the system.
No, that is not true. That states sell bonds is a self-imposed rule.
As long as a state collects its taxes in its own currency there will be demand for that currency.
What happens when they run out of people to sell bonds to and they run out of money to tax?
Then stop selling bonds and start investing directly (build schools, repair bridges, pay your employees, etc.).
Countries don’t have to take the detour through state bonds because they can make money out of thin air. State bonds are a self-imposed and there’s no law of nature that mandates using them.
How do they make money out of thin air?
Serious question? Money today is nothing more than a number in an account. When a country needs more of its own currency, it can increase it’s account by that amount.
No they cant, that is illegal. You could say they will change the law so that they can do that, but that is not possible (in america) at this time.
This.
More people need to understand that the debt of a sovereign nation isn’t analogous to that of a household.
Public sector debt is private sector surplus.
The current American debt is more than the current GDP. That would be fine, if we were paying it down, but it’s growing faster than ever.
It would also be fine if it was healthy debt. Debt taken to improve infrastructure in meaningful ways, improve education, shit, even a war debt to create an old school tributary state (economically speaking).
And it would all be fine if everyone in the room were adults, and there wasn’t a significant portion of America actively and willfully trying to cause governmental collapse.
The American citizen, on average, will spend $37,000 in the next decade to pay the interest on that debt, $12.4 trillion in total.
All without universal healthcare mind you. Or, on average, a reasonable retirement age.
You need to start asking yourself whether the people who keep assuring you not to worry your pretty little head about the APR on your loans, and they are ultimately partly your loans as a citizen, are actually acting in your interest.
Your comment stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of public institutions and how money works.
It doesn’t matter that the debt is higher than the GDP if it’s debt in the currency that the state creates. Japan has a debt of 250% of the GDP and it’s always going to pay for it. Why? Because it’s in Yen, and the Japanese public sector is the ONLY institution in the world capable of creating Yen. If they wanted, the Japanese central bank could quite literally perform 100 keystrokes on a keyboard, and repay all debt early tomorrow, at a cost of exactly 0 yen to the taxpayer.
Taxes aren’t the way a state funds itself. Again, the state creates its own currency, why would it need tax collection to get that currency if it can create it at will at a keyboard’s stroke? Taxes serve many purposes, such as forcing people to use your currency in the private sector (they will need that currency to pay for the taxes so it’s the one they will use), such as disincentivizing certain behaviours (tax on tobacco for example), or such as reducing inequality (progressive income taxes), or also importantly, removing money from the private sector to reduce or prevent inflation. But the one thing taxes don’t do is funding the state budget, since the state’s budget is unlimited in theory. There are practical limits, but availability of currency really isn’t one of them.
The American citizen won’t spend a single dollar paying back state debt, in fact it’s exactly the opposite. The state creates the currency with which it pays back the debt, and it’s private citizens and corporations who the state owes the interest rate to. If you buy a bond for $1000 at an interest rate or 3%, next year you’ll have $1030. The state, through debt, literally creates money for the private sector. It makes people and companies wealthier. Taxes make people and companies poorer, but taxes and debt are completely unrelated to one another, since the state really doesn’t need taxes to pay the debt.
I fully agree with your analysis of the poor usage of the state budget and people not getting the welfare state they deserve by right, but that’s not something that has to do with debt, it has to do with the government representatives not acting for the benefit of the majority but a select elite of capitalist owners. Debt is purely a financial tool that serves purposes such as creating money, or controlling the interest rates of the country so that people and companies will take more or fewer loans, which has an effect in the economy.
Thank you for typing up the reply I hadn’t gotten to yet.
You the real MVP
Always, my friend <3
Your misunderstandings stem from being gullible, lol.
ThE aMeRiCan PeOPlE wOnT sPeND a DImE
Public sector debt is private sector surplus.
Yes! This is the very essence of our monetary system that nobody seems to understand.
The other person who responded to me made a very all written post but it gets a core assumption completely wrong.
They seemed to think that tax revenue in some way has to happen for spending to happen. That’s why they think GDP has anything to do with our ability to service debt. But the federal government creates money ex nihilo.
Money has to be created before it can be destroyed through taxation. Spending and back stopping creation of money by private banks through the reserve system comes first. You can’t destroy something you haven’t created.
It’s sad, really. Economists and politicians have blinded everyone with what I think of as “the money delusion”.
It doesn’t matter if the money can be “gathered up” to be spent on things we need. We do not rely on the money of the wealthy. What matters is actual, real resources and services we can provide.
The national “debt” is a misnomer. That’s the amount of dollars left in circulation that have not been destroyed through taxation, as well as the “dollars” that pay interest which we call bonds.
I’m glad to see at least a handful of other people who understand. Fight the good fight, fellow human.
They seemed to think that tax revenue in some way has to happen for spending to happen.
Noo!
But the federal government creates money ex nihilo.
Yes!
Money has to be created before it can be destroyed through taxation.
Yes!!
We do not rely on the money of the wealthy. What matters is actual, real resources and services we can provide.
Yes, yes and yes!! ❤️
Thanks for your concise explanation of MMT! I wouldn’t be able to phrase it this well. ❤️
But you do have to pay that shit back … forever. And printing money leads to currency devaluation, makes everything else more expensive
Even if you don’t think the debt itself is unmanageable, you start having problems like
The economist ewww. The limits to how much money you can print is defined by the productive capacity of your country. If you print more money to increase productive capacity then it’s generally not a problem. The debt is simply an accounting fiction at that point.
Two things:
- if you owe the bank $34,000, it’s your problem; if you owe the bank $34,000,000,000,000, it’s the bank’s problem.
- its a big club, and you’re not in it.
That’s a lot of zeros, when written like that
Yes, and it is the correct number of zeros to use. I find it helps to put things into scope. “Trillion” is an abstract magnitude to most people. Writing it out numerically makes it clear how absolutely enormous the number is.
International associations managing countries credit scores are all located in the usa. Therefore the incentive to valorize debt.
Credit scores are just some fake shit that boomers made up. It’s so dumb.
Only people who are bad credit risks ever come up with this take, lmao.
The sole function of credit scores is to benefit people who are reliably ‘good for it’ when they borrow money. Without them, everyone is treated as just as high a risk as the worst borrowers who are least likely to pay back their debts, and you gain no benefit from reliably paying back your debts. But with them, your good borrowing is kept track of, and good reputation means lenders trust you more to pay your debts back, so they’re willing to lend more, and they are willing to charge less interest.
Removing credit scores changes nothing for bad borrowers, and hurts good borrowers.
The thing is you’re forgetting who are good borrowers and who are bad borrowers. A person with a low income with a precarious job will be a very bad borrower, and imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin. We generally believe universal healthcare is good, and we don’t want to discriminate “good health” and “bad health” people and make unhealthy people pay more, do we?
imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin.
That’s the only way to justify loaning to people like that at all, given how much more often they default (and the lender never gets repaid at all). If lenders were forced to give the same interest rate to everyone, that would cause them not to lend to “A person with a low income with a precarious job” at all.
You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt. They also don’t have good credit. They’ve never missed a payment. They’re good for the money. But they don’t have a history showing that because they’ve never needed that.
You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt.
No I’m not. Those people are unknown quantities, and so also suffer if credit scores go away, because bad borrowers are worse than first-time borrowers, so without credit scores, first-timers will be treated worse.
I’m saying people who don’t play this credit game but otherwise are good financially also think it’s dumb. Not just bad risks.
…except that it used to be that your ability to secure a loan was based on where you went to school, how firm your handshake was, and if you happened to have the right skin color and sex organs.
The current system certainly isn’t perfect; and if you’re denied a loan you have a legal right (in the US) to know the reason.
There are systemic issues, to be sure. But the nominal goal is absolutely better than what we used to have.
We can’t ignore that there are other ways of doing it besides credit scores or overt racism. Some countries have no credit scores at all and just base loan eligibility on your salary and employment history.
And how exactly is guessing your credit worthiness based on those factors a better system than literally keeping track of what happened each previous time money was lent to you, when it comes to making a decision on lending money to you?
This is like arguing it’s a better idea to select NBA players by their height, than by their performance in high school and college basketball games.
Sorry, I’m not sure how to answer “how is measuring your credit worthiness based on your income a good way to determine how much to lend you.” I would think it’s pretty obvious that your capacity to repay a loan is dependent on your current income, not how many loans and credit cards you’ve had active in the past.
1 in 4 households earning over $100,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck–not because they can’t make ends meet, but because their money management sucks. A high income has very little relationship with responsible borrowing, despite what many would assume.
If you stop paying your car or home loan it gets repossessed, people with bad money management still have incentives to pay those on time.
My mom should have amazing credit, but she doesn’t. She does literally everything right.
Meanwhile I have really good credit and have no idea why.
It’s just made up shit and we should find a better system.
and have no idea why
Just because you refuse to learn doesn’t mean it’s magic. It is very simple to understand why exactly you have the credit score you do. Maybe mommy isn’t being entirely truthful with you.
I’d definitely recommend getting a credit report (not from the websites that advertise with an insane jingle, but from the actual credit bureaus — you’re entitled to a free report). Mine had debt from a relative with a similar name; I was able to get that removed. They will also tell you in more detail what goes in to calculating it.
I agree that it’s not perfect, and often very opaque, but you should be able to get some understanding of why she doesn’t have good credit.
Most people who think they understand how credit scores work…don’t understand how credit scores work.
The biggest things are loan-to-limit, payment history, and average age of accounts.
Loan-to-limit is easily achieved by keeping balances below 50%, and ideally below 30%. It’s also helped tremendously by not carrying a revolving balance (paying the statement balance in full each month) and not closing idle cards.
Payment history is of course helped by making payments on time.
And AAoA is probably the easiest. Just don’t close cards. Call and “downgrade” a card if it isn’t worth the annual fee. If there’s no annual fee, there’s no reason to close a card.
Just make sure you use it every now and then and pay it off. I sock-drawered one of my oldest cards a long time ago and it just closed last month from being idle, and that took a hit to my score (high limit gone and it’s no longer incrementing time in my AAoA).
It’s also worth mentioning that credit scores don’t matter until you are looking for credit. Credit cards are probably the easiest way to build credit, as long as they are used properly. But they’ll give a basic card to any schmuck. Where it really matters is getting mortgages and larger loans like cars. That’s where having a good score matters. And also better cards that earn more points/miles/cashback and have other fringe benefits.
Does your mom have debt that she pays on time? Is her “doing everything right” visible to credit scoring agencies and aligned what statistic says about good borrowing customers?
Credit score doesn’t mean “runs a good personal economy” it means “likely to pay their loans on time, consistently, based on statistics that are observable”.
Crypto
Unstable, and mostly used for speculation or illegal activity. Ew.
for now
Forever until a powerful state starts to charge taxes in crypto.
Technically, at least where I live in Canada, you have to pay taxes on crypto income and capital gains. It’s possible for goverments to track crypto transactions.
That being said, if you think normal fiat currencies are without crimes and illegal activities, you’re kinda stupid.
I’m not talking about the current way, I’m talking about the possibility of a privacy-focused crypto, issued by the state, where transactions can be made private with the Blockchain. This crypto, as it would be used for normal transactions, wouldn’t have more variability or speculation than the variability and speculation in converting US Dollars to UK Pounds. The post talks in hypotheticals, I do too.
I don’t think fiat currency isn’t used for illegal activity, I think crypto is mostly not used for normal transactions.
