Hacker News Reader

Comment by chewbacha | Hacker News Reader

Theoretically, spending that is funded by new taxes shouldn't cause inflation as the money is not "new". The deficit spending of the stimulus checks under both administrations was "new" money chasing substantially fewer products (supply line shortages).

If anything, taxes could have a cooling effect and lower demand.

View on HN

The programs for spending the money are slated to last as little as a single year, while the taxes to balance the spending are expected to do so over 10 years. It absolutely is inflationary, particularly if any of these shorter than 10 year programs get extended without new taxes to pay for them.

> The programs for spending the money are slated to last as little as a single year

What does this mean? Are you saying that there exists a program in this package that will take less than a year, or are you saying that all of the programs in this package could be wrapped up within a single year? If the latter, fine. If the former, you're using careful phrasing to be intentionally deceptive, which is not a way to argue with people you're trying to convince.

If there are 10 programs that will all be paid for by 10 years of tax increases and one program’s spending happens all in a year and the others across a range of times, none longer than 10 years, that line of argument is convincing to me that there is short-term spending in excess of taxation married to pay for it, even if no programs overrun their budget or get extended without new taxes to cover the extension.

Yes, the former. For instance, the Expanded Child Tax Credit, is extended for 1 year at a estimated cost of $190M if this were expanded to the 10 years the bill is supposed to be payed for, it would be larger than the entire bill is supposed to be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com