I don’t make any returns on that at all. I think a short sharp one off redistribution is better than endless austerity for the poor and socialism for the rich.

I’d love to hear some other proposals about how to pay our debts, I think interest payments for governments are set to surpass GDP or something. Seems like we need to find a way to tax back some of the money the super wealthy are lending to the government.

> I don’t make any returns on that at all.

That doesn't make you any less of a creditor; the money in a bank account is a liability for the bank from an accounting standpoint. The bank is indebted to you for the exact amount in your bank account. How much of your money do you think should be taxed to repay debts of the poor?

Not even necessarily the poor: how much of your money should be taxed to repay debts of the people who lived splendidly, way beyond their means?

How much responsibility do the rich have for a functioning society? Ever more of the money is with them after 2008 and COVID, I’m happier just saying let’s go back to say 2008 levels of inequality which would mean transferring trillions to the poor. Did the poor agree to the transfer of around $13tn in the US in printed money which largely filtered through to the rich?

> I don’t make any returns on that at all.

You might want to consider switching to to a High Yield Savings Account so that you do.

One approach, which tends to be unpopular around these parts, is to print money and hand it to people in the form of universal programs, UBI, etc. This increases inflation which makes past capital depreciate (effectively what brought down SVB) and so level the playing field for those who are currently not holding much capital, which is most people.

One of the reason it isn't very popular is that the traditional way of injecting money in the economy is by adjusting interest rates which makes it relatively neutral for capital (because they can get more interest) at the cost of the working class. As Piketty points out in his book though [1], the times where inflation was very high because of large scale government programs (like in the post WWII reconstruction era) were booming times for the middle class. The current covid recovery had unemployment rates at all times lows, well up to the point where governments decided tackling inflation was worth killing jobs.

Of course, reducing unemployment to improve returns was never popular so it's being sold to everyone by pushing a scary inflation narrative. Personally, I'd rather pay more for my boxes of cereals than being laid off.

[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_...

I hope you realize that the majority of federal and state funding works as you describe with the exception that the benefits are not Universal and targeted at the poor. Wealth transfers from the rich to the poor are at an all-time high.

Inequality is also high (when compared to the post war era anyway) so clearly there is plenty of room for more transferring.

The interesting aspect to me is that the lower inequality wasn't because there were more transfers then.

>socialism for the rich

There's no such thing. You're describing an aspect of capitalism (the part where capitalists benefit).

"Socialism" does not mean "benefitting from wealth redistribution". By that logic, someone like Genghis Khan could be considered the ultimate 'socialist' because he pillaged more than anyone and redistributed all that wealth to himself.

Median savings level in America is about 4k

Taxing even as much as 5% of that per year would be $200, peanuts compared with tax on earned income from doing useful work