(which you refer to as a society) is the amount that would be fairly generated by a tax on the creation of money. This is the only thing I don't consider a bad tax.
If society is in need of some increase in money supply, it should not come at the cost of inflation to those living in that society and it should not benefit those who benefited from making that money. So, if we tax the big banks for creating fiat money for us and tax the little banks for fractional reserve lending and tax the speculative and leveraged investors who also create money, then it becomes a simple issue. All we have to do is balance the generation of money with the benefits we need from our government.
Currently a .5% tax on this activity would be needed to more than fund our government and pay off past debts.
If we kept all of our money, as you suggest, many more things would occur. People would avoid interest first. Homes would be paid off more often. Self sustainability would soar. Banking would wane. Investing would return to local. Prosperity would thrive. Quantity and disposability would be replaced with longevity and quality. As people got things paid off earlier, retirement ages would plummet. As that happened, unemployment would go negative and workers would again call the shots on wage terms. Price inflation would eventually be combatted by this being 'hard earned' money, not free gifts. The result of that would be a push for automation to make up the shortfall replacing today's fluff and mundane jobs. Getting a good job would be very simply and not require a 4 year degree just to mop a floor. Savings rates would skyrocket while debt would crash. The social ladder would no longer be tied to personal wealth and money would lose its status. The welfare state would crumble. Big government would become a footnote in history as would central banks having any power.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: