If you support trickle down economics, do you support printing money instead using tax?

Trickle down economics say that if corporations, stores and wealthy get tax breaks, it will trickle down to everyone else through lower prices.

So, would you support printing money as a replacement for all taxes?

So instead of collecting 4 trillion in tax, you just print 4 trillion dollars.

Now, keep in mind that USA already prints trillions every year. It wouldnt be a significant change in printing.

However, printing money would mean that no money has to be spent on collecting taxes. Collecting taxes is expensive, because it employs lots of people.

Printing money might sound as unfair to the poor, but with no taxes, it also means everyone has more money.

And inflation has a delayed effect. It only comes into effect after printed money is mostly spent.

(Example: if you printed 10 trillions, but spent none, there would be no inflation because none of the printed money entered economy).

I know some of you will say "Germany printed lots of money and ended with mass inflation".

The difference is that printing can be limited. Germany printed too much money, much much more than few trillions per year, on a population much smaller than in USA.

So I am curious. How many of you think that printing money could/should replace taxes? It has already replaced good part of them, so can it replace all of them?

It's not an either/or choice. Some level of taxation is inevitable, because some level of government is inevitable. Ideally the latter would not exceed what can be covered.

The rich are getting better and better at finding ways to avoid or minimize federal taxes. Perhaps the GOP makes it easier, but it's lucrative enough that a large industry would spring up without us, and there already is one in the form of tax lawyers. Given that the Feds routinely try to make them pay more than their overall share of the national wealth, there are no moral implications in them trying to pay less. The game, if you would, is amoral. But in any case it's obvious that current levels of spending cannot be sustained through rich tax dollars alone.

We're going to have to cut the Federal budget at some point. The Republican says "Let's do so right now, while we could feasibly recover from the National Debt."

Would you support private healthcare, but government covers costs for low income people?

The main expenses in the budget are

1. military

2. Healthcare

3. Social security

Obviously, military budget should never be cut.

So that remains healthcare and social security.

Social security includes public schools, national services, welfare.

Healthcare includes covering costs for low income families.

Healthcare also includes(which in my opinion is bad) paying private workers per amount of work done. This motivates doctors and dentists to insist on unnecessary procedures to get more money from government, and patients agree because its not their money being wasted.

So yeah, I would say that system has many flaws. So, what to cut?

Government does not need taxation (by threat of force) to be funded. Why would it?

No, it's worse than taxes due to constantly throwing financial computations out of whack, especially how real wages are constantly reduced and are much stiffer than consumer prices which react very quickly. The integral between the curves represents consumers getting screwed over.

Theft is poison to the market regardless of its form or source.

"Look, we don't need to drink as much poison as that guy" may be true, but drinking poison doesn't help.

Just what amount of money printing are you fine with?

There is nothing free about printing money and then attacking people who don't use your monopoly money, and if you don't threaten people who try to use other currencies they won't use the one you're inflating for your own agenda.

Precious metals were fairly stable (meaning they couldn't just make more, they had to mine it or steal it if they wanted more).

Bitcoin can't be inflated.

Some countries can be slightly more trusted not to print every time some deep state goon needs to refill her icecream freezer.

None that is used arbitrarily. For corruption free expansion of the money supply - exactly that amount that is required to cancel deflation; although a convincing argument exists that we should use a fixed supply and just adjust for deflation by redistributing any coin unspent for a certain amount of time.