[Jeff_Brown]

Inflation comes from an increase in the money supply. If we printed the money for it, it would cause inflation, but he plans to tax it.

But even if we printed it, it would by no stretch of the imagination cause hyperinflation, just inflation. The M2 money supply -- still an incomplete measure, as there are lots of kinds of money -- in the US is 14 trillion and change, per Investopedia[1]. 12K per year * 350M people in the US = 4.2 trillion more dollars a year. Hyperinflation happens when a regime does something like double the money supply every week.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp

[simonh]

The economy isn't an undifferentiated lump of money, stuff and people. It is a complex structure. If most people have a lot more money, they will be able to afford a lot more of the stuff most people buy most of the time. So the inflation will be concentrated in staples and consumer goods simply due to greater demand versus supply.

If prices stayed as is, it's hard to see why anyone would do a lot of the low paid to medium income jobs many people currently do. But those jobs would still need to be done, which would drive up wages, but where is the money for the increased wages going to come from? Well, businesses would have to charge more. That's inflation again.

These effects would still happen, but might be mitigated by easing in a policy like this over time.

I'm not convinced about taxing it to make it fiscally neutral. A wealth of evidence shows that increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't significantly increase tax revenue. They just progressively take more and more of their wealth out of the economy off shore, or move off shore themselves, along with their businesses. Many governments across the world have tried this and it just doesn't work.

[Jeff_Brown]

I somewhat agree.

> inflation will be concentrated in staples and consumer goods

It would indeed raise prices unequally. That it would be in staples is not so clear; the US is not a place where many outside of childhood starve due to poverty. But whatever the next-most-urgent class of goods or services are -- home or car repairs, investments in health or education -- there would certainly be more demand for them. With greater demand comes initially an increase in prices. In the long term, in a competitive industry, an increase in supply that eliminates those excess profits. In oligopolistic sectors like education and healthcare, those rises in prices can somewhat persist.

In the long term, money are neutral while inequality is real. If you doubled the amount of money everyone had, prices would (eventually) double and nobody would be any better off. But if you give a fixed amount to everybody, you're muliplying the wealth of the poor by a much bigger factor than that of the rich. Prices will not adjust by enough to make the benefits to the poor outweigh the costs.

> If prices stayed as is, it's hard to see why anyone > would do a lot of the low paid to medium income jobs

Median income in the US is just shy of $60K today. US households routinely have both parents working multiple jobs. Almost nobody aspires to live on so little as $12K a year

Labor market outcomes would surely improve. A giant fraction of Americans currently don't have time to search as long as they would like between jobs; they've got to take an offer fast. The freedom to take, say, two months off to find a good match would not only help workers, it would make industry more productive.

> increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't > significantly increase tax revenue

If that were true why would they be lobbying so hard against it?

There are, yes, a lot of loopholes in most tax codes. A rise in the tax rate that merely complicates it further will probably disappoint. But there are simple solutions. Equalizing tax rates across different kinds of income, for example, or imposing a wealth tax.

[ryacko]

After numerous natural disasters, wars, etc, the one long-term constant for prosperity seems to be human capital.

If you have society that attracts the smartest individuals for the most productive professions (which is right now anything involving information technology), your society wins.

Your society will develop new concepts first, will be the first to sell it, and the first to reap revenues from it.

Besides, it is very easy to tax the megacorps.

Tariffs on intellectual property. Or reduce tax deductions on licensing fees. Bermuda is the center of intellectual property ownership.

[simonh]

The smartest people in the most productive professions are above average earners. How is taxing them into the ground going to attract them?

[Jeff_Brown]

Taxing them into the ground would indeed be a bad idea. It's a question of levels. Tax rates in the 20th century for 55 years were above 50%, and for 45 of those were above 70%[1]. You get a lot more for being in the US than a certain tax rate.

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_...