The Big Lie for suckers is all crap to widen the Gap.

Stated simply, the Big Lie in economics is: “Federal taxes fund federal spending.” Suckers believe it.

The Big Truth in economics is: Federal taxes don’t fund a damn thing. In fact, they are destroyed upon receipt at the Treasury.

No federal tax dollars are spent. The federal government creates new dollars, ad hoc, to pay all its bills.

The federal government never can run short of dollars. It has infinite dollars. Even if the federal government didn’t collect a penny in taxes, it could continue to spend, forever.

Tax Preparation Services for Individual | Green Tree Tax | Tax Help
From the TV show 60 Minutes: Scott Pelley: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending? Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.

To the federal government, which created the first US dollars from thin air, dollars are not physical things.  They simply are numbers on balance sheets, and the government controls the balance sheets.

The government can put any numbers it wishes on those balance sheets. In short:

  1. The government never can run short of numbers
  2. The government never can run short of laws.
  3. The government never can run short of dollars.

If you sent $100 trillion dollars to the federal government, it wouldn’t help to pay for anything, not even one little bit.

Twenty-two Republican governors have signed a letter sent to President Joe Biden calling on him to withdraw his student loan forgiveness plan. 

In the letter, dated Monday, the governors wrote that they “fundamentally oppose (Biden’s) plan to force American taxpayers to pay off the student loan debt of an elite few.”

Calm down, fellow taxpayers; we won’t pay any of that student loan debt. 

So why does the GOP claim it? Because they want you to help them widen the Gap between the rich and the rest of us

Note the words “elite few” in their letter? That’s part of the GOP con job. The party that gave a giant tax break to the rich wants you to believe they are all for the poor.

No, they don’t want the poor and middle classes to be able to afford college at all. They want the only people to afford college to be the “elite few.”

They create a phony culture war to make you believe the federal government can’t afford to pay for your benefits.

The rich falsely claim Social Security is going broke; Medicare is growing broke; the government can’t afford food stamps and other anti-poverty measures — and it’s all crap to widen the Gap.

Why widen the Gap? Because it’s the Gap that makes the rich rich. Without the Gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are. Widening the Gap is a way for the rich to become richer.

The Republicans, including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, also claimed that Biden’s plan would harm low-income families – writing, “hourly workers will pay off the master’s and doctorate degrees of high salaried lawyers, doctors, and professors. … Simply put, your plan rewards the rich and punishes the poor.”

What an ironic sham. Essentially, they say, “Federal aid to the middle and poor harms the middle and poor.”  And people believe it!!

White House spokesperson Abdullah Hasan said, “These same Republican governors didn’t seem to object when their Republican colleagues in Congress passed a $2 trillion tax giveaway for the rich or had hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own small business loans forgiven.”

“While Republican elected officials try to keep working middle-class Americans in mountains of debt, President Biden is committed to delivering relief to the borrowers who need it most,” Hasan wrote in an email sent to USA TODAY Wednesday afternoon.

Hasan is absolutely correct. But so long as people believe the Big Lie that federal finances are like state and local government finances, and specifically, that federal taxes fund federal spending, the BIG LIE will continue to be told.

Federal taxes have three purposes:

  1. To help control the economy by discouraging what the government wishes to limit and by encouraging what the government wishes to increase.
  2. To provide demand value to the US dollar by required taxes to be paid with dollars.
  3. And the most important one: To help the rich become richer by providing tax breaks available only to the rich. (which is how billionaire  Donald Trump paid less taxes than you did.)

Hey, it works. The rich keep getting richer, and the suckers keep voting against federal spending that would help them.

Rodger Mitchell

You think the minimum wage should be raised, but you oppose Social Security and Medicare for All. Hello sucker.

The poker bromide goes something like this: If you’re sitting in a poker game for a half-hour, and you still can’t tell who the sucker is, you’re the sucker.

The economics bromide could be: If you think the minimum wage should be raised, but you oppose Social Security for All and Medicare for All, hello, sucker.

You’re a sucker for wondering, “Who’s going to pay for it?” when considering federal spending. You’re a sucker for thinking the federal government can’t afford it. You’re a sucker for thinking spending will cause inflation.

You’re a sucker who offers no alternative to the following:

The federal minimum wage hasn’t risen in almost 13 years and US workers are paying the price
Opinion by Gina Cummings for CNN Business Perspectives
Updated 11:10 AM ET, Tue March 22, 2022

With inflation hitting a 40-year high in the United States, working families are swimming ever faster in the effort to stay afloat. But the water keeps rising, as mostly stagnant wages are rapidly losing value.

The federal minimum wage has lost at least 21% of its value since Congress last raised it in 2009.

This has become an emergency for the millions of workers who earn less than $15 an hour and are finding it impossible to trim other costs enough to still be able to put food on the table and fill the tank.

According to new research released by Oxfam, roughly 32% of workers in the US earn less than $15 an hour. Nearly 52 million people are trying to make it on less than $31,200 a year, or $2,600 a month before taxes.

This is not right, nor is it viable — not for working families, the economy, or communities. We can’t keep an economy going if people can’t pay the rent and drive to work.

The federal minimum wage and federal poverty levels either are a disgrace or a joke, depending on your sense of humor. For one thing, they don’t take into consideration local differences in cost of living.

Apparently, earning more than $13K while living in a Mississippi shack puts you above the poverty level. Imagine that while trying to survive in Manhattan.

But perhaps the saddest statistics of all can be seen in the charts, below. Poverty is most often seen in Republican states. The people who live there vote for the political party more dedicated to keeping them in poverty.

Guess who America’s suckers are.

factsmaps,com

It’s not true that we “can’t keep an economy going if millions of Americans live in poverty.”

Yes, allowing millions of impoverished children means we forego so many of their educated talents. It means many industries will grow more slowly or not grow at all. It means that scientific advancement will be slower, and life-spans will be lower than they should be.

It means that millions of our fellow Americans will live in misery.

But the economy will keep going — for the upper-middle and the rich — just as the economy is going in impoverished  Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, New Mexico, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, et al.

Even in 3rd-world countries, the economy is “going.”

But is that the America you want? Do you really want an America where the rich keep getting richer and the rest keep getting poorer? Do you really want an America where one of the major political parties wishes to deny Americans decent healthcare?

factsmaps,com

The fact is that many people in America are poor, not because they are lazy but because fate has dealt them bad hands. The most common reason for poverty is impoverished or missing parents — the unlucky gene problem.

Another reason for poverty is a government bought and paid for by the rich — a government dedicated to widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

What should be done about those people? Here is a common suggestion:

That’s why Congress must pass the Raise the Wage Act of 2021, which would gradually increase the wage from $7.25 an hour to $15 by 2025 and would tie increases to median wage growth over time.

The “Raise the Wage Act” tells businesses to pay to solve the problem. But is this a problem businesses should pay to solve?

If businesses pay, business profits pay, no money is added to the economy, and the economy shrinks. If the government pays to solve the problem, business profits rise, new dollars come into the economy, and the economy grows.

In truth, this is a civil rights crisis, as the people most impacted by low wages are historically marginalized populations: women and people of color.

It’s a civil rights crisis, and businesses are expected to solve it???

Not only did these workers get hit harder, longer and deeper by the pandemic, they’ve been watching their wages buy less each day, as they account for a vastly disproportionate share of the low-wage workforce — 40% of women versus 25% of men.

Half of all women of color earn under $15 per hour versus a quarter of all men.

And while 26% of White workers earn less than $15 an hour, 46% of Hispanic/Latinx workers and 47% of Black workers earn less than $15 per hour. These are the people suffering the worst sticker shock at the grocery store and the gas pump, choosing between rent and utilities.

What’s more, federal law still allows US employers to pay subminimum wages to nearly a million workers. The Raise the Wage Act would fix that, prohibiting anyone from being paid less than the federal minimum wage.

It’s a money problem. Rather than relying on monetarily non-sovereign businesses (i.e. entities that do not have infinite money) or on state/local governments (also monetarily non-sovereign), the Monetarily Sovereign federal government, which has infinite money, should solve the problem.

And what exactly is the problem? Lack of financial resources. The poor, very simply, don’t have enough money, not only to live decent lives, but to live productive lives that would benefit all America.

Their poverty hurts all of America.

Rather than forcing monetarily non-sovereign entities (businesses and local governments) to pay specified minimum salaries, the Monetarily Sovereign federal government should provide what is lacking: Medicare for All, Social Security for All, College for All, Food for All.

Federal support for healthcare, college, food, and income, would be the “tide that raises all of America’s boats.”

The federal government has infinite money. While some may complain about multi-billionaires not paying their fair share, our multi-trillionaire government pleads poverty, and unnecessarily takes FICA money from lower-end salaries.

Sadly, the federal government rations aid to make sure that the poor stay poor.

A measure of income issued every year by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Federal poverty levels are used to determine your eligibility for certain programs and benefits, including savings on Marketplace health insurance, and Medicaid and CHIP coverage.

Why? Why must Americans jump through hoops to prove they can’t afford healthcare? Why doesn’t the federal government simply pay for everyone’s health care? Isn’t that why we have a government? Look at the convoluted, complex, and totally unnecessary formula:

How federal poverty levels are used to determine eligibility for reduced-cost health coverage

  • Income above 400% FPL: If your income is above 400% FPL, you may now qualify for premium tax credits that lower your monthly premium for a 2022 Marketplace health insurance plan.
  • Income between 100% and 400% FPL: If your income is in this range, in all states you qualify for premium tax credits that lower your monthly premium for a Marketplace health insurance plan.
  • Income at or below 150% FPL: If your income falls at or below 150% FPL in your state and you’re not eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, you may qualify to enroll in or change Marketplace coverage through a Special Enrollment Period.
  • Income below 138% FPL: If your income is below 138% FPL and your state has expanded Medicaid coverage, you qualify for Medicaid based only on your income.
  • Income below 100% FPL: If your income falls below 100% FPL, you probably won’t qualify for savings on a Marketplace health insurance plan or for income-based Medicaid.

What is the purpose of this complexity? What is Congress’s concern that creates this difficult path to eligibility? Why doesn’t everyone simply receive free, comprehensive, no-deductible health insurance, paid for by the federal government?

The answer: The Big Lie. The lie is that the federal government can run short of dollars, and taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

Congress Found An Easy Way To Fix Child Poverty. Then It Walked Away.

By Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux
MAR. 30, 2022, AT 6:00 AM

Imagine the federal government could lift millions of American children out of poverty with a single program. That program would help parents put nutritious meals on the table, pay for school expenses and even save for kids’ college — all with no negative impact on the economy.

You don’t have to imagine. We had it just last year … and now we don’t.

By nearly every empirical measure, the expanded child tax credit (CTC) — the policy passed in 2021 that gave parents a few hundred dollars per month for each child in their family — was a wild success, dramatically reducing child poverty and making it easier for families to buy food and pay for housing and utilities.

In combination with other COVID-19 relief measures, particularly the stimulus payments that went out to Americans in April 2020, January 2021 and March 2021, the CTC helped buffer families against the economic upheaval of the pandemic.

It’s rare that researchers can say with certainty that a program like the CTC actually worked. Politicians usually consider policies in an abstract, hypothetical way, knowing that a piece of legislation might not accomplish their aims.

But by the time Congress was thinking about extending the CTC, there was a mountain of cold, hard data showing that this program did a lot to help children and families.

Yet that wasn’t enough to save it. The expanded tax credit ended in December 2021, and chances are low it will be renewed. That tells you all you need to know about which is more powerful in Washington — politicians’ biases or actual evidence.

By the time the pandemic hit, reformers had been pushing for years for the U.S. to establish a universal allowance for families with children. 

In the spring of 2021, Democrats in Congress transformed the CTC, an anti-poverty measure that’s been part of the tax code since 1997, into a kind of emergency child allowance.

Government programs are often glitchy when they start, but the fact that most families were eligible for the payments meant that they were fairly easy to administer.

The IRS already had all the information it needed for anyone who had claimed children on their previous year’s taxes — no additional applications or forms to fill out. The payments went straight into recipients’ bank accounts or they got a check in the mail, with minimal fuss.

And the money helped — a lot. Beginning July 15, the vast majority (88 percent) of families with children received a payment of either $300 or $250 per child. Researchers at the Columbia University Center on Poverty and Social Policy found that the July payment kept around 3 million children out of poverty. At the end of 2021, the researchers estimated that the program was keeping 3.7 million children out of poverty.

“Families were living in very precarious economic circumstances,” said Megan Curran, one of the researchers on the Columbia team. “That $300 or $600 per month — it might not sound like much, but when you’re making very little, it can be enough to give you a financial cushion.”

So there it is. A program worked, but it didn’t help the very rich, so our bribed politicians, especially the GOP white men, weren’t interested in poor children of color, so the policy that worked was abandoned.

The excuse: “Who will pay for it.” The lie: Taxpayers pay for it.” The fact: Not only don’t taxpayers pay for federal spending, but federal spending adds dollars to the economy, and those added dollars wind up in taxpayers’ pockets.

And finally, lest you doubt that taxes don’t fund federal spending and the government has the infinite ability to spend, here are excerpts from an article in the 4/4/2022 Chicago Tribune:

Biden’s defense budget is big. Democrats might
make it bigger
Doyle McManus, LOS ANGELES TIMES
WASHINGTON — Last week, President Joe Biden sent Congress his proposed defense
budget for the next fiscal year: an $813 billion wish list, almost $60 billion more than
he requested a year ago — more military spending than any president, including
Donald Trump, has requested since World War II.

Once Congress approves the request — and, in all likelihood, makes it bigger — U.S.
defense spending will be larger in inflation-adjusted dollars than it was at the height
of the Vietnam War or President Ronald Reagan’s Cold War buildup.

Moderate Democrats, including House members from districts with defense
industry jobs, say they’ll join with Republicans to support more military spending —
just as they did last year, when a big bipartisan majority passed record-breaking
defense bills.

Even with its big increase, the Biden budget won’t keep pace with inflation if prices
keep rising at the current 7% or more. Republicans have seized on that as their most
powerful argument; they’re demanding a real increase of 5% on top of inflation, and
they’ll probably get part of it.

“Most Democrats have already given up on cuts,” noted Todd Harrison, a defense
budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “They’ve adopted a
strategy of parity instead: ‘OK, you get more for defense, but give us more for domestic spending in exchange.’”

Notice what’s missing from the article: There’s no mention of a “federal trust account,” similar to what we see for Medicare and Social Security.

There’s no mention of affordability or “who’s going to pay for it,” or concerns about federal spending causing inflation or the need for tax increases.

Why? Because the money is available. The federal government has an infinite supply. No tax increases are necessary.

But helping poor and middle-income Americans is not what the rich want. Cutting FICA and saving Social Security is not what the rich want. Raising the minimum wage is not what the rich want.

The rich want spending on defense. That’s where the business profits are.

And the American public, being ignorant of federal finance facts, goes along with the Big Lie.

SUMMARY

    1. The Big Lie in economics is: “Federal spending is funded by federal tax collections.” (Federal spending actually is funded by ad hoc dollar creation.)
    2. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, unintentionally cannot run short of dollars. Even if the government collected $0 taxes, it could continue spending forever.
    3. No agency of the federal government can run short of dollars unless Congress wills it.
    4. Inflations never are caused by the federal government’s “excessive spending.” All inflations are caused by scarcities. Federal spending can cure inflations by curing scarcities.
    5. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. All M1 tax dollars sent to the Treasury are destroyed upon receipt.
    6. The government is run by the very rich, who want to be richer, which they accomplish by widening the Gap between the rich and the rich. This is known as “Gap Psychology.”
    7. The Big Lie is disseminated via bribery of information sources:
      The media are bribed via advertising dollars and ownership of media
      Economists are bribed via university donations and promises of jobs in think tanks
      Politicians are bribed via political donations and promises of jobs

    [No rational person would take dollars from the economy and give them to a federal government that destroys those dollars and has the infinite ability to create new dollars.]

    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.

    The most important problems in economics involve:

    1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
    2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

    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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

    Ten Steps To Prosperity:

    1. Eliminate FICA
    2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
    3. Social Security for all
    4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
    5. Salary for attending school
    6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
    7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
    8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
    9. Federal ownership of all banks
    10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

    MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The 6 words that could make replacing Obamacare easy.

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

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Now that the Republicans have a Republican President and a Republican Congress, one might think they are all set to accomplish their signature promise: “Repeal and replace Obamacare.”

Sadly, after all these years, they still don’t have a clue, though six little words could solve the problem for them.

First, a little background, from the Vanity Fair HIVE:

REPUBLICANS ADMIT REPLACING OBAMACARE COULD TAKE YEARS
As it turns out, “repeal and replace” is easier said than done—especially when the G.O.P. has no plan of its own.
BY ABIGAIL TRACY, DECEMBER 1, 2016 10:52 AM

Donald Trump and the Republican Party rode their promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act all the way to the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress.

After six years of deriding President__Barack Obama’s__ signature health-care law, the G.O.P. must now take responsibility for remaking a complicated, multi-trillion dollar industry with millions of lives at stake. Or as Obama forewarned one week after the election, “Now comes the hard part. Now is governance.”

Yes, it is oh, so simple, to stand on the sidelines and throw touchdown passes or hit home runs, but when you’re put in the game, the reality sets in that you never have done this before, and are completely clueless about what to do.  

But debate is already brewing within the G.O.P. about what comes next. Republican leaders are reportedly working on a plan to vote on symbolically repealing the law early next year, but delaying the actual repeal process for years to give Congress time to rally around a replacement.

Republicans have great experience voting symbolically to replace the Affordable Care Act, having done it more than 50 times. Symbolism is easy. Reality takes work.

The repeal process will be easy. Through a maneuver known as “budget reconciliation”—for which Paul Ryan already conducted a dry run last year—House Republicans can repeal the federal subsidies used to help people lacking employer-provided insurance pay for coverage, the taxes used to fund the Affordable Care Act, and the Medicaid expansion with a single party vote, effectively ransacking the health-care law.

Why do I have the feeling that all those Americans who rushed to vote for Trump, suddenly will wake up and say, “Hey, wait, I don’t want to destroy ACA. I just want to . . . uh . . . do  . . . uh . . . something.”

The “replace” process, however, will be much more difficult. This is why the party is arguing for a years-long delay and laying the groundwork for what could be characterized as an “Obamacare cliff,” by imposing a replacement deadline to force cooperation across the aisle.

No, it won’t be an “Obamacare cliff.” It will be a “Trumpcare cliff.” He’s the President. The buck stops there.

Despite the party’s open disdain for the Affordable Care Act, the G.O.P. has never managed to coalesce around a solid alternative over the past six years, and the policy-averse Trump certainly didn’t pitch any detailed proposals of his own on the campaign trail.

The closest outline Republicans have is the proposal Ryan unveiled over the summer, titled “A Better Way,” which notably would replace the subsidies under the Affordable Care Act with flat tax credits and push the Medicaid burden to the states.

Ah, the ever-dependable Ryan, wanting to cost consumers and states money they don’t have, while instituting austerity for the American people and the states.

Ask the euro nations how horribly austerity works, how it destroys lives.

But even Republicans have concerns about Ryan’s plan. “I’m from a state that has an expanded Medicaid population that I am very concerned about,”Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican senator from West Virginia, told Talking Points Memo.

“I don’t want to throw them off into the cold, and I don’t think that’s a strategy that I want to see. It’s too many people. That’s over 200,000 people in my state. So we need a transition.”

Hmmm . . . let’s see now. He doesn’t want to take healthcare coverage from the people in his state. O.K., Senator Capito, who will pay for it if ACA is defunded?

Clearly, after all these years of moaning and groaning, the Republicans still have no answer.

Even with the two to three year delay, Republicans face a tough timeline. Between 22 million and 23 million Americans are expected to lose coverage if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, and while it is too early to estimate how many of those will be eligible for coverage under the Republicans’ alternative (since it doesn’t exist), the G.O.P. risks upending the health-insurance market during an election year.

It’s like the deadbeat who proposes to a woman, with promises he’ll buy her diamonds, a mansion, a Rolls Royce and a trip around the world. So she marries him, only to discover he has no money and no plan.

Hello, Trump voters.

“I think, inevitably, the uncertainty that is created by the election of Donald Trump and a Republican House and Senate is going to cause a lot of turmoil in health-insurance markets, and that, in itself, is going to be harmful,” Timothy Jost, an emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University, (said).

“I think it is going to be a while before it plays out and I think that there will be a lot of people who are hurt by this, but how many and how badly is really hard to tell at this point.”

The fundamental problem is rather simple. Healthcare costs money. So the only question is: Who will pay to provide healthcare to those who can’t afford it?

The politicians can twist and turn and squeal and shout, but unless America believes the 99% should not have healthcare, there are only two answers to the question: Either the federal government pays or the people pay — and the people don’t want to, or can’t afford to, pay.

But the federal government can.

Now for those six little words that would completely solve the problem:

“FEDERAL TAXES DON’T FUND FEDERAL SPENDING”

There they are, those six little words. The first political party that utters them, teaches them to the populace, and acts upon them will be heroes to all but the very rich among us.

Rather than trying to eliminate Obamcare, they first will eliminate the grossly regressive FICA tax that punishes the low wage earner.

“FEDERAL TAXES DON’T FUND FEDERAL SPENDING”

They will provide a fully-funded Medicare, parts A, B and D, for every man, woman and child in America.

“FEDERAL TAXES DON’T FUND FEDERAL SPENDING”

They will provide Social Security to everyone.

“FEDERAL TAXES DON’T FUND FEDERAL SPENDING”

They will institute the balance of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below)

“FEDERAL TAXES DON’T FUND FEDERAL SPENDING”

And yes, they will control inflation by using interest rates to increase the demand for, and the value of, the dollar.

Meanwhile, the denial of the truths of Monetary Sovereignty, and the insistence on austerity, will continue to plague America, as it has plagued all other nations.

The struggle over healthcare in America will go on and on and on,  because it will be based on the false assumptions that federal spending is “unsustainable” (the favorite word of the debt hawks) or is “socialistic” or “communistic,” or will “cause inflation” or makes the government “too big” — not one of which is true.

The Republicans are hopeless, because fundamentally they are the party of the rich, and the rich benefit from austerity.

The Democrats were the party of the working class (up through Lyndon Johnson), but became much less so with right-wingers like Clinton and Obama.

And no one in either party has shown the courage to tell the truth that really would set us free. We are waiting, waiting, waiting for a hero to say:

“FEDERAL TAXES DON’T FUND FEDERAL SPENDING”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

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 AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) 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 EVERYONEFive 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 CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from 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 corporate 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.