So, the publics total contributions amount to 0.24% of the increase from Thursday to Friday last week. One part in 400 of the one day change, or about ~3 minutes worth.
Also reminds me of an old anecdote:
"How much time it takes for Bill Gates to make a million dollars? Not doing anything for a minute."
BG could be replaced with anyone from TOP500[0] nowadays, I suppose.
1. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/gift-contributions-...
It seems like voting for "fiscal conservatives" results in bigger spending.
Paper from 2004 on the topic: https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files...
Paper from 2022 on the topic:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01603477.2022.20...
Wikipage with just economic indicators by party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...
The public infratructure shrinks, while the rich get richer, partially from paid bond interesets. And you would just sit there and think, "yea, thats the way"?
Do you really think spending and not taxation is the problem? Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullable people, voting for harmful demagogues, so you finally get the "financial conervatives" you want?
There are some very wealthy people that make a great show of demanding to pay higher taxes. Here’s a mechanism for them to demonstrate sincerity.
We want systemic changes, not patrons.
Taxes are for equity and fairness. Taxes are compulsory, donations are voluntary.
Taxes are payment for being for being rich.
Donations are taxes for being a good person.
Great rant: David Mitchell on Tax Avoidance from The Last Leg https://youtu.be/xc8epam4NyY?t=150
Then Mitchell being more serious: You can't blame the rich for paying as little tax as possible. I do the same https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/31/david-...
If I am playing a game, and others do not want to ally with me, I am not going to make myself lose. But I can still signal that I am open to an alliance.
Best way to reduce debt/GDP ratio is just support politics and policies where debt grows slower than economy grows.
Basically the intergovernmental holdings are getting converted to more public debt.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/social-security-trust-f...
edit: the minimum the form accepts is $5
IIRC, there was movie about that in the 70s.
there are records of it going back to 1990s: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/government/public-debt-report...
Would suggest not paying down the debt while Congress is still spending like a drunken sailor in a red light district.
This is not even addressing the >200 Trillion entitlements issue
If they're serious, they should return to tradition and sell honors. Like "Patrician" status if you donate $5M or more, which comes with certain minor benefits. (Like you don't need to go through airport security, or you gain access to certain private clubs, etc.) Hereditary "Equestrian" if you donate $100M in cash. And so on.
There wasn't a feudal monarchy around that wouldn't sell honors and titles if they were in dire enough straits, and a $37T debt is as dire as it gets.
Of course, this is an extremely bad idea for obvious reasons (e.g. endemic corruption in our low-trust society, government donations as political signaling, etc.) and would also be something of a joke...
It feels poetic in a way, like the NFT version of an honors system.
Anything else would be more plutocracy.
While these people might still support the ideals of coercive taxation as a distinct issue, they might also pursue the voluntary route. If they truly value the government's services to the extent that they describe, it would seem like a win-win for them to volunteer their own wealth.
The fact that they do not suggests that there is a low degree of confidence in government spending. The value received per dollar spent may be perceived as a poor return on investment. This often stands in direct contrast to the stated case for increased taxation. It speaks to the merits of the well known Economic Calculation Problem, which axiomatically explains why the state is unable to optimally allocate resources.
The bottom line is that government income must increase and government spending must decrease. Income can come from taxation, competing with private enterprise, donations, or other channels. Decreased spending ultimately means doing less.
The only part of this that has become abundantly clear is that massively firing a bunch of people from government without a transition plan is incredibly expensive. If you want smaller government then expect government to do substantially less and the work force will decrease over time naturally. The small government political bullshit can seem to swallow that bitter pill.
In practice, no one donates like this with their own money. They just vote for the government to take incremental money from others via ever more taxation.
The bottom line is government income must increase and government spending must decrease. That income can be from taxes, competing with commercial enterprise, donations, or whatever. It really doesn't matter.
The only part of this that has been evidently clear is that massively firing people from the government without a plan has proven extremely expensive. If you really want smaller government you need a plan to reduce the work force over time in a way that does not diminish the quality and quantity of output.
In practice they throw piles of money at Trump - knowingly that it will lead to them saving an even larger money pile and thusly a net win.
Trump, who then happily drives up debt. Taxing people more is so uncool, so let's go easy on the whole taxes thing, just have the money printer go brrrrr and let inflationary tax serve its purpose
It’s not about getting the societal changes. If it were, they wouldn’t mind paying for it themselves. It’s about making others pay.
Common items used in woodworking and agriculture can be very useful: carving knives, axes, pitchforks and branding irons. Generally a big group of people holding their tools of trade in front of the palace/parliament/penthouse has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia.
But now, the other side has surveilance, tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, drones, and very profitable incarceration facilities.
The other side has nothing. We operate the farms, the weapons, the hospitals, the IT infrastructure, the surveillance, the army, the transportation, the bullets, the drones and the incarceration facilities. The other side contributes nothing, does nothing, and if they continue on their current path, history has shown again and again that they will be reduced to nothing.
A government spending less money does not equate to spending less money on public institutions. It can even mean spending more money on public institutions, assuming less money is spent on other things, such as unproductive wealth transfers.
Do you mean progressive taxation here, or something else?
Assuming the implication is that a well funded state managed education results in a population more resistant to (state?) propaganda; How would this be measured empirically?
Now off to life in the real world.
But if we're going to make it masculine company name, then hell yeah I'm using Nvidii!
It's all about timing.