$4T a year, required to pay for monthly basic income of $1k to all Americans is much wilder than $1T of tax not collected over 10 years, yes. The former number is 40 times larger than the latter.
> Then we've done #3 via re-introducing QE via the fed.
No, we've done only small part of 3) via QE. QE over its history had bought around $4T of assets, which is a far cry from what's required to pay every American $12k/year. QE also doesn't directly "print money", and so Fed buying $4T of assets has much smaller inflationary impact than actually printing $4T and giving it to the government or people.
What I want is for people to be honest about how much basic income actually costs, and where will that money actually come from. Quite simply, you cannot double federal government spending overnight by some clever accounting trick or increasing taxes on "the wealthy": there aren't nearly enough wealthy people to cover that.
"one-time payment of $1,000 to every adult who is a U.S. citizen or a taxpaying U.S. resident, and $500 to every child who meets the same criteria."
You're arguing against something nobody proposed. Please compare the numbers with whats actually being proposed.
> This is how we should manage the money supply, and it should be monthly.
Tax revenue has not decreased. The deficit is a spending problem not a revenue problem.
I'm not certain what you're getting at. The deficit is defined as the delta between spending and revenue. It's as much one problem as it is the other. Could you clarify what you mean?
Then we've done #3 via re-introducing QE via the fed. Both back in September, and again last week, and why yet again just 30 mins ago. While we call them short term loans, they still haven't been paid back since the start of the GFC. And not only have we continued printing more via the Fed, when the fed finally tried to get some companies to pay them back a year ago the repo market siezed up last fall. The fact that there was a flood of Treasury Securities on the market to pay for item #1 (it increased supply by 50%) likely had a lot to do with it.
If you want the economy to function, then get money in the people who will spend it. What's the factor? For lower incomes every extra dollar they have, introduces 1.5x or 2x or something into the economy. And for every dollar given to middle-high and high incomes only 0.4x or less actually goes into the economy.
Propping up assets isn't a functioning economy.