We're not on the Gold Standard. We don't have to track Pretty Yellow Rocks.
The rules are different for Currency Issuers (nations with a fiat currency) versus currency users (citizens, provinces, and nations on the Gold Standard).
For the United States, which is a currency issuer, Congressional appropriations create money. Taxes do indeed return money to the government from the private sector, but there is no need to claim that money is "recycled" for spending purposes.
Revenue is an obsolete concept for currency issuers.
> For the United States, which is a currency issuer, Congressional appropriations create money.
What is your basis for claiming that this is true?
> Taxes do indeed return money to the government from the private sector, but there is no need to claim that money is "recycled" for spending purposes.
Are you saying that it isn't recycled? If not, what do you think happens to it, and what is your basis for claiming that it is true?
> Revenue is an obsolete concept for currency issuers.
Only if you want staggering amounts of inflation. It is true that a currency issuer can just issue more money, and therefore could survive (short term) with no tax revenue. But that debases the currency, and in the end destroys it.
And, I'm going to need to see better answers to these points than "But MMT says it's true!"
The rules are different for Currency Issuers (nations with a fiat currency) versus currency users (citizens, provinces, and nations on the Gold Standard).
For the United States, which is a currency issuer, Congressional appropriations create money. Taxes do indeed return money to the government from the private sector, but there is no need to claim that money is "recycled" for spending purposes.
Revenue is an obsolete concept for currency issuers.