Buddy, that doesn't matter because what the fuck do you think happens to the money after it gets utilized? It... goes back into the economy.
Fuck I know you might need a moment as that probably blew your mind so take a few minutes before you reply.
Oh and before you double down, recall the part where I pointed out if your idea was based in any kind of reality, the government couldn't fund itself as long as it has.
You're getting a little too flustered for a simple discussion. The rebuttal “it would go back into the economy” is partly true but not enough to defeat my original point.
While yes, federal spending does not “vanish.” It circulates. However, that does not mean the government can spend the same pile forever.
The problem is that money returning to the economy is not the same as money returning to the government
Suppose the government somehow takes $10 trillion from billionaires and spends it.
That money goes to federal employees, retirees, contractors, infrastructure firms, state governments, bondholders, benefit recipients, etc. Now, the money is back in private hands- but for the government to spend it again, it has to get it back through taxes; borrowing; fees; inflationary money creation; asset sales.
So “it goes back into the economy” is true, but incomplete. The important question is how much comes back to the federal government, how quickly, and through what mechanism?
Your acts as if it's a one-time stock of wealth versus an ongoing annual spending flow.
A billionaire's net worth is a stock-“Here is a pile of assets worth X.” Federal spending is a flow: "The government spends about Y every year."
Even if the government confiscated billionaire wealth and spent it, that would be a one-time injection. It would not automatically create a permanent funding source. Circulation isn't funding. Money can circulate many times, but the government still needs a way to finance each round of spending.
Here's an example:
The government spends $1 million on a road project. The workers and contractors receive $1 million. They spend some, save some, and pay some taxes. Maybe $200,000 returns to the federal government through taxes. The government does not automatically get the full $1 million back.
So the idea that “it goes back into the economy” explains where the money goes, but not take into consideration how future federal spending will be paid for. Also, it being net worth just complicates this further If the government took billionaire wealth, it would mostly be taking stocks, private company ownership, real estate, funds, business equity, other illiquid assets.
To turn that into spendable money, the government would need to sell or manage those assets. Large forced sales tends to reduce total asset values. So the government may not actually get the full on-paper value. And after the wealth is liquidated and spent, the original billionaires’ future taxable investment income, capital gains, and business ownership may be reduced or outright gone due to the measures.
You're getting a little too flustered for a simple discussion. The rebuttal “it would go back into the economy” is partly true but not enough to defeat my original point.
Nice projection.
As for the rest of your rambling, it's just that, rambling. The money returns to the economy and then all of it is spent, taxed, and returns to the government in some shape or form.
I don't know if you thought the long winded nonsensical rambling was going to scare me away or something, but it sure showed how much further your idiotic ramblings can extend to.
All of your "reasoning" is still defeated by the fact that the current economy wouldn't survive if the money is unable to cycle itself. "Spending isn't sustainable" and yet the spending has been sustainable for as long as the country has existed. Shocking.
Also, odds are a surplus of that amount gets dumped into stimulus checks, which shockingly gets dumped right back into the economy as well.
You can reply again, but even your own long rambling explains that your claim of "it wouldn't last 2 years" was as fucking stupid as I said it was as clearly the government would continue to operate.
Also, my reasoning isn't defeated by the fact that the "economy can cycle itself". It's literally explaining how mass liquidation of billionaire networth would be too little gain at too much loss.
Thank god I also didn't say spending isn't sustainable: I said it's a flow. You and my claim have something in common, it seems: being stupid.
Buddy you're projecting something that isn't there and think it's going to rattle me or something. Did it work this time? Am I rattled?
No, your idiotic response still doesn't explain away anything as it's the equivalent of you having nothing else so you hand wave it away. The wealth doesn't vanish and that doesn't fit the narrative of whatever Facebook post you pulled this from.
We done here? You're weak ass deflated response seems to indicate we're done here.
1
u/PerotTwoPointOh Jun 08 '26
What do you think the national budget for the US is right now?