Four reasons why federal deficits are absolutely necessary for economic growth

Every day, U.S. dollars are created by federal government spending and by private sector lending.

And every day, dollars are destroyed by federal taxing and by private sector loan repayment.

Because private sector loans eventually are repaid, they do not permanently add dollars to the economy. By contrast, federal spending seldom is balanced by federal taxes — the government runs deficits almost every year — and those deficit dollars not offset by taxes, are permanently added to the economy.

Thus, federal deficits are the primary way dollars are permanently added to the economy.

The trajectory of Gross Domestic Product (GDP – red) parallels the M2 money supply trajectory.

America’s population is growing, and we have inflation every year. Further, our imports generally exceed our exports, so dollars leave the economy.

Just to remain level on a real (inflation-adjusted) per capita basis, our economy requires a growing supply of dollars:

GDP = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports

Mathematically, the economy (GDP) can’t grow unless the money supply increases. Without federal deficit spending, both “Federal Spending” and “Nonfederal Spending” would decrease, and “Net Exports” already is below zero.

In summary, the federal government must grow GDP to account for:

    1. Inflation: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index, the average inflation rate of the US dollar between 1970 and today was 3.98% per year. This means that today’s prices are 7.93 times as high as average prices since 1970. So far, in 2023, the inflation rate has been about 8%. The Federal Reserve aims for 2% inflation.
    2. Population growth: According to the United Nations, the population of the United States in 1970 was 205,052,174. As of 2023, the population of the United States is estimated to be 339,996,563. Therefore, the population of the United States today is approximately 65.8% higher than in 1970. The current population of U.S. in 2023 is 339,996,563, a 0.5% increase from 2022 or about 2 million more people.
    3. Net imports: According to the World Bank, the U.S. trade balance for 2021 was $ 861.71B, a 37.32% increase from 2020.
    4. Economic growth. Just to achieve zero economic growth, the U.S. government must run deficits that overcome Inflation, Population growth, and Net imports of $861B. For economic growth, the federal government must run additional deficits.
Federal deficits add growth dollars to the economy. Federal taxes take growth dollars away from the economy.

There are various ways to calculate how much the federal deficit needs to be to achieve economic growth.

Here is a genuinely rough estimate, only as an example. The most recent GDP increase was $414 Billion.

That increase was achieved with a $1.7 Trillion deficit and $861 Billion Net Imports. This left about $839 Billion in the economy.

At 8% inflation, achieving the same level of GDP growth, Population Growth, and Net Imports would require a federal deficit of (108% x 1.7 Trillion) $1.8 Trillion.

Again, this is just “back of the envelope” stuff, leaving out many variables. It’s only to demonstrate one fact: Deficits are necessary for economic growth. Period.

$10 trillion in added debt shows ‘Bush and Trump tax cuts broke our modern tax structure’ Jon Queally, Common Dreams, October 22, 2023, 7:05AM ET $10 trillion in added debt shows ‘Bush and Trump tax cuts broke our modern tax structure.’

The “modern tax structure” is broken, but not because of “added debt.” It’s broken because the purpose of federal taxes differs from the purpose of state/local taxes.

Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Our Monetarily Sovereign government funds its spending by creating new dollars ad hoc.

No tax dollars are used. Taxes are paid with dollars from the M2 money supply measure. But when they reach the Treasury, they disappear from any money supply measure. The Treasury has infinite dollars; no measure exists.

Federal tax dollars effectively are destroyed upon receipt.

Today, federal taxes have two explicit purposes and one hidden purpose.

        • Federal taxes help the government control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage and giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward.
        • Federal taxes also assure demand for the U.S. dollar by requiring dollars to be paid for all tax obligations.
        • The hidden purpose is to enrich the wealthy by widening the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest of us. The tax structure contains tax loopholes not available to the rest of us. These were put there via political bribes from the rich.

The U.S. Treasury Department on Friday released new figures related to the 2023 budget that showed a troubling drop in the nation’s tax revenue compared to GDP — a measure that fell to 16.5% despite a growing economy — and an annual deficit increase that essentially doubled from the previous year.

This above is an oblique reference to the meaningless Federal debt/GDP ratio. It is a ratio that compares two unrelated measures. Federal “debt” is nothing like actual debt. It is deposits into Treasury Security accounts (T-bills, T-notes, T-bonds). 

These accounts are held by the government but are owned by the depositors (the buyers of those T-securities). The government never uses those dollars other than to add interest.

Upon maturity, the government merely transfers the dollars from the depositors’ T-security accounts to the depositors’ checking accounts. It is a simple asset transfer like moving dollars from your savings account to your checking account. 

This so-called “debt” is not a financial burden on anyone — not on the government or on taxpayers. 

The purpose of those accounts is not to provide spending money to the government. Rather, they are a safe place to store unused dollars, which stabilizes the dollar and helps provide demand for the dollar.

The other side of the Debt/GDP ratio, GDP, is total spending in America. It is not related in any way to deposits into T-security accounts.

The Debt/GDP ratio predicts nothing. It measures nothing. The ratio does not indicate the federal government’s ability to pay its bills, an infinite ability. The federal government cannot run short of dollars. Not now. Not ever.

The ratio does not indicate the economy’s health, which is characterized by such measures as inflation, employment, unemployment, GDP growth, healthcare, etc.

Look at any list comparing the ratio among the world’s various nations, and you will not be able to discern anything about those nations. For example:

Countries with the Highest Debt-to-GDP Ratios (%) Venezuela — 350% Japan — 266% Sudan — 259% Greece — 206% Lebanon — 172% Cabo Verde — 157% Italy — 156% Libya — 155% Portugal — 134% Singapore — 131% Bahrain — 128% United States — 128%

Countries with the Lowest Debt-to-GDP Ratios (%) are Brunei — 3.2%, Afghanistan — 7.8%, Kuwait — 11.5%, Congo (Dem. Rep.) — 15.2%, Eswatini — 15.5%, Burundi — 15.9% Palestine — 16.4% Russia — 17.8% Botswana — 18.2% Estonia — 18.2%

As you can see, the debt/GDP ratios tell you nothing about the economies of any country. Low ratios mean nothing. High ratios mean nothing.

Similarly, tax revenue/GDP means nothing. Yet the author, Jon Queally, finds it “troubling.”

That ratio tells you nothing about the government’s ability to pay its bills (which, again, is infinite). It tells you nothing about the current or future health of the economy. 

The only thing this ratio tells you is how many dollars the government is taking from the private sector compared to spending in the private sector. While Queally is concerned about the ratio being too low, he really should be concerned about it being too high.

Taking money from the economy is recessionary. The higher the tax revenue/GDP ratio, the fewer growth dollars remain in the economy. In finding the reduced ratio “troubling,” Queally has it all backwards, which is typical for people who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty.

It is far more troubling that economists find a meaningless ratio “troubling,” 

“The deficit unexpectedly jumped this year to roughly $2 trillion.”

Bobby Kogan, senior director for federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, has argued repeatedly that growing deficits in recent years have a clear and singular chief cause: Republican tax cuts that benefit mainly the wealthy and profitable corporations.

Federal deficits add growth dollars to the economy. The bigger the deficit, the more GDP growth.

The problem arises not because the deficits are too large but rather because they benefit the very rich by narrowing the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

The solution is not to levy more taxes on the general public or to reduce federal spending, both recessionary. The solution is to narrow the Gap by taxing the rich more and the rest of us less.

The first step should be to eliminate the FICA tax. It is America’s most regressive tax, punishing low-level salaried people the most.

Despite claims that FICA funds Medicare and Social Security, it does nothing of the sort. Medicare and Social Security benefits are funded by federal government money creation. If FICA were eliminated, this would have no effect on the government’s infinite ability to pay benefits.

Like all tax dollars, those FICA dollars are destroyed upon receipt by the U.S. Treasury.

In response to the Treasury figures released Friday, Kogan said that “roughly 75%” of the surge in the deficit and the debt ratio, the amount of federal debt relative to the overall size of the economy, was due to revenue decreases resulting from GOP-approved tax cuts over recent decades. “

Of the remaining 25%,” he said, “more than half” was higher interest payments on the debt related to Federal Reserve policy.

Federal tax cuts and federal interest payments both add growth dollars to GDP. It is hard to explain why anyone would wish to take more dollars from the private sector and give them to the Monetarily Sovereign federal government.

“We have a revenue problem due to tax cuts,” said Kogan, pointing to the major tax laws enacted under the administrations of George W. Bush and Donald Trump. “

The Bush and Trump tax cuts broke our modern tax structure. Revenue is significantly lower and no longer grows much with the economy.”

Is it possible for an economist to be too ignorant to understand that taxes take dollars out of the economy, which is recessionary?

And he offered this visualization about a growing debt ratio:

“The point I want to make again and again and again is that, relative to the last time CBO was projecting stable debt/GDP, spending is down, not up,” Kogan said in a tweet Friday night. “

It’s lower revenue that’s 100% responsible for the change in debt projections. If you take away nothing else, leave with this point.”

This truly is beyond ignorant. Kogan claims taking money from the economy is good for the economy, while adding dollars to the economy is bad for the economy.

In a detailed analysis produced in March, Kogan explained that, “If not for the Bush tax cuts and their extensions — as well as the Trump tax cuts — revenues would be on track to keep pace with spending indefinitely, and the debt ratio (debt as a percentage of the economy) would be declining.

It’s difficult to understand how a thinking human could claim that taking dollars from the monetarily non-sovereign private sector and giving them to the Monetarily Sovereign federal government somehow is good for America.

Shall we now apply leeches to cure anemia? Same ignorance.

Instead, these tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt since their enactment and are responsible for 57 percent of the increase in the debt ratio since 2001, and more than 90 percent of the increase in the debt ratio if the one-time costs of bills responding to COVID-19 and the Great Recession are excluded.

As we have shown, the debt/GDP ratio is meaningless.  And as for the federal “debt,” it isn’t even debt. It is deposits into Treasury Security accounts, which more than anything, resemble safe deposit boxes.

The federal government does not spend the dollars in T-bill, T-note, and T-bond accounts. The government never touches those dollars, all of which are the property of the depositors.

Those so-called deposits are not a debt burden on the federal government. As each account reaches maturity, the dollars in the accounts are returned to their depositors.

It’s a simple asset exchange from the depositor’s T-security account to the depositor’s checking account.

Just as with deposits into safe deposit boxes, the contents of T-security accounts are not owed or owned by the federal government.

“Tax giveaways for the wealthy are continuing to starve the federal government of needed revenue: those passed by former Presidents Trump and Bush have added $10 trillion to the debt and account for 57 percent of the increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio since 2001,” read the statement.

“If not for those tax cuts, U.S. debt would be declining as a share of the economy.”

It is not possible to “starve the federal government” of dollars. It creates all the dollars it needs, at the touch of a computer key.

Kogan has no idea what Monetary Sovereignty means. He seems to think federal finances are like personal finances.

Whitehouse, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, said the dip in federal revenue and growth in the overall deficit both have the same primary cause: GOP fealty to the wealthy individuals and powerful corporations that bankroll their campaigns.

GOP “fealty to the wealthy individuals” is well known. The only people more ignorant that those who worry about the meaningless Debt/GDP ratio are the middle- and lower-income people who vote for the party that tries to cheat them every day.

“In their blind loyalty to their mega-donors, Republicans’ fixation on giant tax cuts for billionaires has created a revenue problem that is driving up our national debt,” Whitehouse said Friday night.

“Even as federal spending fell over the last year relative to the size of the economy, the deficit increased because Republicans have rigged the tax code so that big corporations and the wealthy can avoid paying their fair share.”

The “giant tax cuts for billionaires” is not a federal debt problem. The debt is no problem at all.

The tax cut for billionaires is a Gap problem. The wider the Gap between the rich and the rest, the wealthier and more powerful the rich become and the poorer and more powerless the rest of us become.

Offering a solution, Whitehouse said, “Fixing our corrupted tax code and cracking down on wealthy tax cheats would help bring down the deficit.

It would also ensure teachers and firefighters don’t pay higher tax rates than billionaires, level the playing field for small businesses, and promote a stronger economy for all.”

The goal is not to “bring down the federal deficit.” The deficit enriches the economy. The goal is to narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest.

None of the latest figures — those showing that tax cuts have injured revenues and therefore spiked deficits and increased debt — should be a surprise.

Tax cuts reduce federal revenues. Federal revenues come out of the economy. Tax cuts enrich the economy. Is this so hard to understand? Growing GDP requires growing the money supply.

In 2018, shortly after the Trump tax cuts were signed into law, a Congressional Budget Office report predicted precisely this result: that revenues would plummet; annual deficits would grow; and not even the promise of economic growth made by Republicans to justify the giveaway would be enough to make up the difference in the budget.

“The CBO’s latest report exposes the scam behind the rosy rhetoric from Republicans that their tax bill would pay for itself,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and now Senate Majority Leader, said at the time.

“Republicans racked up the national debt by giving tax breaks to their billionaire buddies, and now they want everyone else to pay for them.”

The Republicans lie; the Democrats lie. The media lie. The politicians lie. The economists lie. They all tell the Big Lie that federal spending is funded by federal taxes.

The purpose of the Big Lie is to make you believe the federal government cannot afford to give you benefits unless taxes are increased.

The plan is to make you ignorant so you will not demand increases in Medicare and Social Security benefits, poverty aids, infrastructure aids, and all the other benefits that supposedly are “unaffordable.”

For all the empty promises and howling from the GOP and their allied deficit hawks, the economic prescription they forced through Congress has resulted in an annual deficit of more than double, all while demanding the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable pay the price by demanding key social programs—including food aid, education budgets, unemployment benefits, and housing assistance — be slashed.

And being ignorant about federal finances, many of the “poor and most vulnerable” keep voting for Republicans.

Meanwhile, the GOP majority in the U.S. House — with or without a Speaker currently holding the gavel — still has plans to extend the Trump tax cuts if given half a chance.

In May, a CBO analysis of that pending legislation found that such an extension would add an additional $3.5 trillion to the national debt.

In other words, it would add 3,5 trillion growth dollars to the economy.

“Republicans racked up the national debt by giving tax breaks to their billionaire buddies, and now they want everyone else to pay for them,” Whitehouse said at the time.

“It is one of life’s great enigmas that Republicans can keep a straight face while they simultaneously cite the deficit to extort massive spending cuts to critical programs and support a bill that would blow up deficits to extend trillions in tax cuts for the people who need them the least.”

It’s one of life’s great mysteries why people who author articles about economics fail to understand that federal taxes remove growth dollars from the economy, federal deficit spending adds growth dollars to the economy, and the federal government never can run short of dollars but the economy can..

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Would you rather have a job or equally-paying unemployment?

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

If ever you have wondered about the differences between Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Monetary Sovereignty (MS), the title question provides a good clue.

While MMT and MS are built on the same factual foundation —  i.e. federal taxes do not fund federal spending — the two economic philosophies diverge by what they suggest be done with that information.

MMT believes there is an unemployment problem while MS believes the corresponding problem actually is a lack of money.

Thus, MMT proposes to solve the unemployment problem via a Jobs Guarantee program in which the federal government guarantees a job to anyone who wants one.

Image result for bad job
Don’t give me money. I prefer “the dignity of work.”

 

MS, by contrast, proposes the Ten Steps to Prosperity, with most of the Steps directly or indirectly addressing the lack-of-money problem without the need for the federal government to provide jobs.

Interestingly, “MMTers” generally subscribe to a minimum wage, which clearly is a money problem, while the objections to a minimum wage are the potential for it to cause unemployment.

Thus, MMT seems to acknowledge that unemployment really is a money problem, but insists the money problem must be solved with jobs.

This all came to mind when I read a few excerpts from the following article referencing the Center for American Progress:

Toward a Jobs Guarantee at the Center for American Progress (!)
Posted on May 17, 2017 by Lambert Strether

How would the JG work from the perspective of a working person (not an owner?) Or from the perspective of the millions of permanently disemployed? The MMT Primer:

If you are involuntarily unemployed today (or are stuck with a part-time job when you really want to work full time) you only have three choices:

1. Employ yourself (create your own business—something that usually goes up in recessions although most of these businesses fail)
2. Convince an employer to hire you, adding to the firm’s workforce
3. Convince an employer to replace an existing worker, hiring you

It is the “dogs and bones” problem: if you bury 9 bones and send 10 dogs out to go bone-hunting you know at least one dog will come back “empty mouthed”. You can take that dog and teach her lots of new tricks in bone-finding, but if you bury only 9 bones, again, some unlucky dog comes back without a bone.

The only solution is to provide a 10th bone. That is what the JG does: it ensures a bone for every dog that wants to hunt.

It expands the options to include:

There is a “residual” employer who will always provide a job to anyone who shows up ready and willing to work.

It expands choice. If you want to work and exhaust the first 3 alternatives listed above, there is a 4th: the JG.

MMT sees the problem as not just “unemployment,” but “involuntary unemployment,” so naturally its solution becomes “employment.” They’ve indicated the solution by their statement of the problem.

But why is the problem “involuntary unemployment” rather than simply lack of money? Here is the answer given in the article:

Research by Pavlina Tcherneva and Rania Antonopoulos indicates that when asked, most people want to work.

Studying how job guarantees affect women in poor countries, they find the programs are popular largely because they recognize—and more fairly distribute and compensate—all the child- and elder care that is now often performed by women for free (out of love or duty), off the books, or not at all.

Enough of this crap jobs at crap wages malarky!

See if you can follow the “logic:” People want to work. The proof is that women in poor countries now work for free, but would prefer to work for money. Huh?

That’s proof?

And as for the last sentence regarding “crap jobs at crap wages,” that is exactly what JG promises. How could it be otherwise?

Before you try to answer that question, here are a few questions I have asked JG proponents, and never seem to get consistent answers.

(As you investigate JG, you’ll find it means different things to different people, and no sooner do you object to one feature, they change the features. It’s almost like objecting to auto pollution and being told the subject was bicycles, but when you object to bicycling dangers, you are told the subject is autos.)

Here are the questions:

  1. Who exactly would be the employer: The federal government or the private sector?
  2. If it’s the federal government, exactly which jobs would it provide, and where in the country would it provide them?
  3. Who would create and supervise those jobs? How would JG be different from current federal employment?
  4. If the private sector is to supply the jobs, how would the government find those jobs in every town, all over the country?
  5. Would JG employees take jobs from non-JG employees? What would be the qualifications for a JG employer?
  6. Why do local newspapers and online job services advertise hundreds of thousands of jobs, if the problem JG supposedly solves is a shortage of jobs? Why aren’t those jobs filled?
  7. What are the criteria to remain a JG employee and who would supervise those criteria? Who would do the hiring all over the country?
  8. What would JG employees be paid, and how would that compare with non-JG employees?
  9. Who would determine raises, promotions, and firings?
  10. Who would handle employee complaints? Would there be unions?

If you feel you know the answers to those questions, please add them to the Comments section so we all can learn.

Now, we return to the elephant in the room: The notion that people want to work, or more accurately, people prefer to work vs. not work.

That “10th bone” to which the author referred (above) needn’t be a job. It just as well could be an alternative source of income.

I don’t work for a living. Most of my friends don’t either. And none of us wants to. We prefer not working. I believe this desire not to work is common.

So why is the problem stated as “involuntary unemployment,” rather than “involuntary lack of money”?

Unknowingly(?), MMT has based its JG on a kind of  righteousness, even a spiritualness that says labor is noble and virtuous, while idleness is a deadly sin (sloth). By that idea, anyone who prefers to receive money while not working is a sinner, a “taker.”

It is a belief promulgated, ironically, by the people who most indulge in idleness: The very rich.

The lifestyles of the rich and famous are anything but “work,” unless you consider clipping coupons, receiving dividends, sailing yachts to sunny islands and being waited upon hand and foot by faux-adoring sycophants, to be “work.”

Yes, many people enjoy their jobs, just as they enjoy playing a backyard game of volleyball, but those jobs probably would not be the jobs offered by JG.

The reality is that the sole purpose of JG is to provide a “legitimate” source of money, not to provide inner joy and satisfaction.  But that purpose can better be satisfied via gift vs. job slavery.

Why then, have the rich implanted the Auschwitzian idea that “arbeit macht frei” (work sets you free)? Because that is how they maintain a ready supply of workers — especially lower-wage workers — to the factories and businesses owned by the rich.

Get people to believe that they cannot be “good” unless they work, and they will work. Faith is the most powerful of motivators.

Implant the belief that the poor are lazy sinners, who do not deserve the fabulous lives enjoyed by the rich, and they will claim to want work.  But few people awaken looking forward to an emotionally empty day, forced endlessly to repeat “Want fries with that?” rather than kicking sand on a beach.

The idea that people cannot be satisfied with their lives unless they labor, is utter nonsense, a notion my friends and contemporaries, and indeed, many millions of people disprove every day.

Not only do the rich want a ready source of laborers, they want to distance themselves from the poor (aka Gap Psychology), and what better way than to contrast the life of the working poor with that of the leisure rich?

Institute the MS Ten Steps to Prosperity, and there will be neither demand for nor need for the emotionally cruel, impossible-to-execute, MMT Jobs Guarantee — crap jobs at crap wages for those who have no good choices.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY