It seems that everywhere I look within the finance realm at the moment there’s another piece on “Modern Monetary Theory”. Being one of my favourite subjects for a long time, I can’t resist adding to the pile.
To be clear from the outset, I’m not a proponent of “MMT” per se. The key reason why I was originally drawn to MMT was that the original proponents of MMT were (and still are) promoting the value of having a proper understanding of how the monetary system actually works. This is what drew me to MMT many years ago – in order to truly understand MMT you need to have a clear understanding of how the modern monetary system actually works.
In this sense, I prefer to break MMT into two components – there’s the component that’s focused on how the monetary system works and then there’s the component in which some individuals take their knowledge of how the monetary system works and use it as a basis for economic policy prescriptions.
MMT is being reinvigorated to a large extent by the rising popularity of Democratic Socialists in the US – the pin-up girl of the moment being 29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – member of the US House of Representatives. 2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is also a proud member of the Democratic Socialist movement. Alexandria has openly suggested MMT could be used to fund massive government spending programmes (her “Green New Deal”).
What I have found a little surprising when reading some pieces on MMT is that as far as I’m concerned the authors – some being economic commentators I have a lot of respect for – have demonstrated a rather poor understanding of the monetary system, which is the foundation of MMT.
Therefore, today, I want to have a go at explaining things a little better…
What Is “MMT”:
Lets start with a definition from somewhere we all trust as a highly reliable source…Wikipedia: “MMT is a heterodox macroeconomic theory that describes currency as a public monopoly for a government and unemployment as the evidence that a currency monopolist is restricting the supply of the financial assets needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires.” Well that’s not much of a definition. Here’s some more from Wikipedia:
“In MMT, “vertical money” enters circulation through government spending. Taxation and its legal tender enable power to discharge debt and establish the fiat money as currency, giving it value by creating demand for it in the form of a private tax obligation that must be met. In addition, fines, fees and licenses create demand for the currency. An ongoing tax obligation, in concert with private confidence and acceptance of the currency, maintains its value. Because the government can issue its own currency at will, MMT maintains that the level of taxation relative to government spending (the government’s deficit spending or budget surplus) is in reality a policy tool that regulates inflation and unemployment, and not a means of funding the government’s activities by itself. The approach of MMT typically reverses theories of governmental austerity. The policy implications of the two are likewise typically opposed.”
Okay that’s a little better. So MMT is based around a non-traditional view of how the monetary system works – in essence a view that the government spends money into existence, removes money via taxation, is not under any debt/deficit restraints and the balance struck between spending and taxing is what controls inflation.
This concept gets simplified much further by some commentators into “MMT = deficits don’t matter!”
Is this really true?
It’s at this point where I want to begin separating this discussion from “MMT”. My intent is not to prove – or dis-prove – the above assertions. What I want to do is explain how the modern monetary system works.
Before moving on I should mention that it’s understood there are some minor variances in payment systems among different floating fiat countries. What’s described below is what’s known to apply at least to the USA and Australia.
I’ve written about this topic a lot over the years. It might seem silly to a lot of people but there’s a tremendous lack of understanding about how the monetary system works. We all use it every day. It’s a cornerstone of modern human society. And yet most of us really have little clue as to how it really works.
Do you? You do right? Money gets dumped into your bank account from various sources and then you get on your computer or phone and transfer some of it to other places. Simple… Well it is on the surface anyway.
Part of the challenge in grasping how the monetary system works is that we can’t separate our thinking from what we know to be true in our own lives. As individuals, we can run out of money. We have a solvency constraint – we can find ourselves in a position where we can’t pay our bills. It’s therefore hard to comprehend that our government doesn’t have such a solvency constraint – our federal government can’t “run out of money”.
The operations of the monetary system are very complex. To have any hope of explaining things in the simplest way possible I will need to leave out some details. Here we go…
To start, remember that in today’s fiat currency systems used in most nations, money isn’t “backed” by anything. The monetary system changed dramatically in 1971 when President Nixon closed the gold window. The “money supply” therefore isn’t influenced by any other factor such as gold reserves.
Secondly, remember that most transactions are now electronic. “Money” in today’s modern world has been reduced to numbers on screens. I see estimated for the volume of transactions completed in “cash” in developed nations at around 10-15%.
In trying to grasp how the monetary system works, it’s often handy to think of the monetary system as a payments system. The payments system is largely electronic (except for those very few remaining non-electronic transactions), is regulated by the government and maintained principally by the private banking system.
For example – I wave my Mastercard at the paywave terminal at my local bar. The result is that money is moved from my account to the bar’s. If the bar banks with a different bank to me, the result is my bank transferring money to the bar’s bank.
The banking system basically has its very own bank – the central bank. The central bank works closely with private banks in the settlement of payments, acting as banker to the banks and “lender of last resort”. This relationship results in a lot of people – particularly in the USA – to have a negative view of the central bank – a general view that they are a corrupt entity that exists only for the benefit of the bankers. This is certainly not true, but we won’t go into that today.
Let’s pause there for a moment… How are we going so far? The monetary system is basically a payments system operated by private banks under regulation by the government.
Okay moving on…
The Treasury is responsible for handling tax receipts and government spending. It is therefore this arm of the government that links the government into the monetary system. Within this role of collecting and receiving, the treasury also issues government debt (bonds).
So the treasury obtains money from the private sector via tax receipts and bond sales. This money is then available to the government to redistribute via its spending. Redistribute is a key word here – the government doesn’t spend money into existence per se (this is where many people including some MMT proponents get slightly confused). The government takes and gives – it doesn’t create.
The treasury is aided in this process by the central bank. The central bank basically links the treasury to the private banking system – for example, when someone pays taxes to the government, money will find its way to the treasury’s bank account at the central bank. When the government pays someone a Medicare refund, that same treasury account at the central bank will transfer funds back into the private banking system.
Lets pause again and let that all sink in… The monetary system is operated by private banks. The treasury is the government’s link to the monetary system, using the central bank to access the system. Okay?
One of the central bank’s key roles on a day-to-day basis is controlling the level of reserves (liquidity) in the banking system. It does this principally via transacting in government bonds. Banks are legally restricted as to the types of assets they are allowed to park their reserves in – government bonds are one of their few options. Banks are always looking to make the most out of their cash on hand (reserves) and therefore are always attracted to bonds as a means of generating a return.
The central bank can buy all the bonds it likes. When it buys bonds in the open market it “pays” for these by issuing reserves. It’s an asset swap – it takes bonds out of the market (the banking system) and replaces it with bank reserves. Having sufficient reserves is important to the proper functioning of the banking system – i.e. the payments system. But once again, banks seek to rid themselves of excess reserves as they earn them no return.
(To digress for a moment, this is what quantitative easing was all about – the US Federal Reserve buying loads more bonds than was necessary to maintain sufficient reserves in the system. Many observers claimed that this “money printing” will surely result in inflation as all this newly-printed money gets loaned out by banks – multiplied using their quaint “moneymultiplier” understanding of the banking system. For those of us that properly understood the monetary system and therefore what the transactions represented, we were sceptical of this. And I’m still waiting for the runaway inflation…just sayin’…)
The central bank can buy all the bonds it likes and pays for them by issuing bank reserves. It effectively robs banks of a means of earning a return on reserves. Its buying and selling operations (often called “open market operations”) are therefore carefully orchestrated in conjunction with the banks to get the reserves level right.
This is where we can introduce government bond sales into the mix. Once again, the treasury is responsible for bond sales. But it works in conjunction with the central bank. Like the open market operations, bond sales are highly orchestrated events. The central bank liaises with the private banks as to reserve levels and requirements and reports back on what demand for new bonds will be. Bond auctions never “fail”. And even if they aren’t fully subscribed sometimes, this doesn’t represent some loss of confidence in the government’s credit standing.
If you put a couple of pieces of this together you realise that the central bank can always create demand for new bonds. If it buys excess bonds in the market it will create excess reserves and banks will gladly take the opportunity to rid themselves of reserves via buying newly-issued bonds. And then the central bank can buy them – rinse and repeat.
Therefore, via these mechanisms the central bank and private banks can always be relied upon to provide financing to the treasury via purchasing bonds. Even in a worst case scenario, there’s no “running out of money”.
Hopefully all that makes sense? The key focus of the above is describing how the government under a floating fiat currency system obtains money via taxes and bond sales. And why it will never run out of money.
The government spending part is easy. It just credits bank accounts! In practice, the funds come from the treasury’s account at the central bank – that same account where tax receipts and bond sales go.
Are you still with me? We’re nearly there…
So the government doesn’t quite just spend money into existence as some of the MMT crowd assert. It “funds itself” in two ways – tax revenues or bond sales. Based on our understanding of how the monetary system works, we realise that both of these result in money being removed from the private sector via the banks.
In practice, there’s really no difference between each option – as we’ve explored above, the treasury will always be able to sell new bonds. In this sense… from a theoretical perspective we can confirm what MMT asserts in that “deficits don’t matter”. However, I’m not brave enough to say that deficits truly don’t matter – are their unexpected consequences from ringing up a massive government deficit?
As the MMT crowd rightly highlight, the probable consequence of deficits is inflation. But it’s important not to simply say “high deficits will cause inflation”.
Remember the key aspect of the government’s financial transactions – redistribution. In one way or another they are taking money from one part of the economy and giving it to another.
Let’s also remember what inflation is in the simplest sense – too much money chasing too few goods/services.
Productive spending is a key to controlling inflation.
Example – say the government decides to credit every person’s bank account with $10,000. Does that stand to be inflationary? You bet. What if the government spends a similar amount of money but on infrastructure projects that improve private-sector productivity and make businesses more efficient? Inflationary? Maybe, but not necessarily if the spending has a tangible benefit to the productivity of the private economy. And the price paid for the project (labour costs etc) are sensible and thus don’t rob the private sector of talented workers that chase silly-high salaries paid by the government.
One aspect where I believe the MMT crowd have it wrong is how money gets its “value”. MMT often asserts that the value comes mostly from the fact that taxes need to be paid in that currency – demand for money to remit taxes = value.
My assertion is that money’s “value” comes from the private sector – the productive capacity of the private sector is largely responsible for giving money its value. It’s the government’s role to foster a productive private sector in ways such as creating and enforcing a good legal framework, providing infrastructure that improves efficiency and quality of life and… I’ll throw this one in… not stifling the private sector of investment capital via over-taxing.
I think I’m nearly there in describing the key aspects of the monetary system as relevant to the MMT debate. This is not nearly a complete picture (we’ve ignored the bigger side of the monetary system whereby banks create most money in circulation). If this all hurts your head a bit – it should. These concepts are very foreign to most people – even those with some finance background.
As a quick summary:
The monetary system is effectively an electronic payments system regulated by the government and operated by the private banks.
The treasury acts as the government’s link into the banking system and is responsible for raising money via taxes or bond sales.
The treasury can always harness the central bank and private banks to provide it with “funding” and thus can never find itself “out of money”.
Within this system, government budget deficits theoretically don’t matter. However, as the government really only redistributes money around the economy, it can do great damage if its spending is directed too much towards unproductive purposes.
MMT as a “solution”:
Before I finish, a few comments on what’s being raised by some people in terms of governments potentially embracing MMT.
It’s rather scary. Governments are notoriously inefficient. And as covered above, the real damage that could come from adopting MMT-based economic policies is inflation resulting from unproductive spending.
Some proponents are raising it as a means of addressing growing inequality. Let’s think harder about that…
It seems some in the US are proposing pretty much flat-out giving poorer people money so that they are less poor. What will they do with it? They will spend it! On Stuff. Sold by big corporations – the rich ones… run by rich people… making those people even richer…
That’s not a solution to inequality.
Addressing inequality is really tricky. What it requires is a transfer of resources (wealth and knowledge) from the richer people to the poorer people. But importantly, this can’t be done in a way that discourages innovation.
Capitalism delivers prosperity partly because of the incentive of personal reward. People are driven to take risks…to innovate…try new things partly because of the reward of profit. There are proposals in the US for 70% tax rates on high incomes. There’s a point where taxation moves from paying “your fair share” to “confiscation”. But more importantly, it can discourage innovation if people feel they will just end up basically working for the government.
I didn’t plan this to become too political, yet in reality the whole MMT focus is political. I’m sure we will hear a lot more on this topic in the future. When you do, I hope you are now in a better position to broadly understand what it’s all about.
This document contains information which is the copyright of Aviator Capital Pty Ltd (AFSL 432803) or relevant third party. Any views expressed in this transmission are those of the individual, except where the individual specifically states them to be the views of Aviator Capital Pty Ltd. Except as required by law, Aviator Capital Pty Ltd does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this document has been maintained nor is free of errors, interception or interference. You should not copy, disclose or distribute this document without the authority of Aviator Capital Pty Ltd. Aviator Capital Pty Ltd does not accept any liability for any investment decisions made on the basis of this information. This information is intended to provide general information only, without taking into account any particular person’s objectives, financial situation, taxation or needs. It does not constitute financial advice and should not be taken as such. Aviator Capital Pty Ltd urges you to obtain professional advice before proceeding with any financial investment.
Register your interest in this Fund
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Modern Monetary Theory
It seems that everywhere I look within the finance realm at the moment there’s another piece on “Modern Monetary Theory”. Being one of my favourite subjects for a long time, I can’t resist adding to the pile.
To be clear from the outset, I’m not a proponent of “MMT” per se. The key reason why I was originally drawn to MMT was that the original proponents of MMT were (and still are) promoting the value of having a proper understanding of how the monetary system actually works. This is what drew me to MMT many years ago – in order to truly understand MMT you need to have a clear understanding of how the modern monetary system actually works.
In this sense, I prefer to break MMT into two components – there’s the component that’s focused on how the monetary system works and then there’s the component in which some individuals take their knowledge of how the monetary system works and use it as a basis for economic policy prescriptions.
MMT is being reinvigorated to a large extent by the rising popularity of Democratic Socialists in the US – the pin-up girl of the moment being 29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – member of the US House of Representatives. 2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is also a proud member of the Democratic Socialist movement. Alexandria has openly suggested MMT could be used to fund massive government spending programmes (her “Green New Deal”).
What I have found a little surprising when reading some pieces on MMT is that as far as I’m concerned the authors – some being economic commentators I have a lot of respect for – have demonstrated a rather poor understanding of the monetary system, which is the foundation of MMT.
Therefore, today, I want to have a go at explaining things a little better…
What Is “MMT”:
Lets start with a definition from somewhere we all trust as a highly reliable source…Wikipedia: “MMT is a heterodox macroeconomic theory that describes currency as a public monopoly for a government and unemployment as the evidence that a currency monopolist is restricting the supply of the financial assets needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires.” Well that’s not much of a definition. Here’s some more from Wikipedia:
“In MMT, “vertical money” enters circulation through government spending. Taxation and its legal tender enable power to discharge debt and establish the fiat money as currency, giving it value by creating demand for it in the form of a private tax obligation that must be met. In addition, fines, fees and licenses create demand for the currency. An ongoing tax obligation, in concert with private confidence and acceptance of the currency, maintains its value. Because the government can issue its own currency at will, MMT maintains that the level of taxation relative to government spending (the government’s deficit spending or budget surplus) is in reality a policy tool that regulates inflation and unemployment, and not a means of funding the government’s activities by itself. The approach of MMT typically reverses theories of governmental austerity. The policy implications of the two are likewise typically opposed.”
Okay that’s a little better. So MMT is based around a non-traditional view of how the monetary system works – in essence a view that the government spends money into existence, removes money via taxation, is not under any debt/deficit restraints and the balance struck between spending and taxing is what controls inflation.
This concept gets simplified much further by some commentators into “MMT = deficits don’t matter!”
Is this really true?
It’s at this point where I want to begin separating this discussion from “MMT”. My intent is not to prove – or dis-prove – the above assertions. What I want to do is explain how the modern monetary system works.
Before moving on I should mention that it’s understood there are some minor variances in payment systems among different floating fiat countries. What’s described below is what’s known to apply at least to the USA and Australia.
I’ve written about this topic a lot over the years. It might seem silly to a lot of people but there’s a tremendous lack of understanding about how the monetary system works. We all use it every day. It’s a cornerstone of modern human society. And yet most of us really have little clue as to how it really works.
Do you? You do right? Money gets dumped into your bank account from various sources and then you get on your computer or phone and transfer some of it to other places. Simple… Well it is on the surface anyway.
Part of the challenge in grasping how the monetary system works is that we can’t separate our thinking from what we know to be true in our own lives. As individuals, we can run out of money. We have a solvency constraint – we can find ourselves in a position where we can’t pay our bills. It’s therefore hard to comprehend that our government doesn’t have such a solvency constraint – our federal government can’t “run out of money”.
The operations of the monetary system are very complex. To have any hope of explaining things in the simplest way possible I will need to leave out some details. Here we go…
To start, remember that in today’s fiat currency systems used in most nations, money isn’t “backed” by anything. The monetary system changed dramatically in 1971 when President Nixon closed the gold window. The “money supply” therefore isn’t influenced by any other factor such as gold reserves.
Secondly, remember that most transactions are now electronic. “Money” in today’s modern world has been reduced to numbers on screens. I see estimated for the volume of transactions completed in “cash” in developed nations at around 10-15%.
In trying to grasp how the monetary system works, it’s often handy to think of the monetary system as a payments system. The payments system is largely electronic (except for those very few remaining non-electronic transactions), is regulated by the government and maintained principally by the private banking system.
For example – I wave my Mastercard at the paywave terminal at my local bar. The result is that money is moved from my account to the bar’s. If the bar banks with a different bank to me, the result is my bank transferring money to the bar’s bank.
The banking system basically has its very own bank – the central bank. The central bank works closely with private banks in the settlement of payments, acting as banker to the banks and “lender of last resort”. This relationship results in a lot of people – particularly in the USA – to have a negative view of the central bank – a general view that they are a corrupt entity that exists only for the benefit of the bankers. This is certainly not true, but we won’t go into that today.
Let’s pause there for a moment… How are we going so far? The monetary system is basically a payments system operated by private banks under regulation by the government.
Okay moving on…
The Treasury is responsible for handling tax receipts and government spending. It is therefore this arm of the government that links the government into the monetary system. Within this role of collecting and receiving, the treasury also issues government debt (bonds).
So the treasury obtains money from the private sector via tax receipts and bond sales. This money is then available to the government to redistribute via its spending. Redistribute is a key word here – the government doesn’t spend money into existence per se (this is where many people including some MMT proponents get slightly confused). The government takes and gives – it doesn’t create.
The treasury is aided in this process by the central bank. The central bank basically links the treasury to the private banking system – for example, when someone pays taxes to the government, money will find its way to the treasury’s bank account at the central bank. When the government pays someone a Medicare refund, that same treasury account at the central bank will transfer funds back into the private banking system.
Lets pause again and let that all sink in… The monetary system is operated by private banks. The treasury is the government’s link to the monetary system, using the central bank to access the system. Okay?
One of the central bank’s key roles on a day-to-day basis is controlling the level of reserves (liquidity) in the banking system. It does this principally via transacting in government bonds. Banks are legally restricted as to the types of assets they are allowed to park their reserves in – government bonds are one of their few options. Banks are always looking to make the most out of their cash on hand (reserves) and therefore are always attracted to bonds as a means of generating a return.
The central bank can buy all the bonds it likes. When it buys bonds in the open market it “pays” for these by issuing reserves. It’s an asset swap – it takes bonds out of the market (the banking system) and replaces it with bank reserves. Having sufficient reserves is important to the proper functioning of the banking system – i.e. the payments system. But once again, banks seek to rid themselves of excess reserves as they earn them no return.
(To digress for a moment, this is what quantitative easing was all about – the US Federal Reserve buying loads more bonds than was necessary to maintain sufficient reserves in the system. Many observers claimed that this “money printing” will surely result in inflation as all this newly-printed money gets loaned out by banks – multiplied using their quaint “moneymultiplier” understanding of the banking system. For those of us that properly understood the monetary system and therefore what the transactions represented, we were sceptical of this. And I’m still waiting for the runaway inflation…just sayin’…)
The central bank can buy all the bonds it likes and pays for them by issuing bank reserves. It effectively robs banks of a means of earning a return on reserves. Its buying and selling operations (often called “open market operations”) are therefore carefully orchestrated in conjunction with the banks to get the reserves level right.
This is where we can introduce government bond sales into the mix. Once again, the treasury is responsible for bond sales. But it works in conjunction with the central bank. Like the open market operations, bond sales are highly orchestrated events. The central bank liaises with the private banks as to reserve levels and requirements and reports back on what demand for new bonds will be. Bond auctions never “fail”. And even if they aren’t fully subscribed sometimes, this doesn’t represent some loss of confidence in the government’s credit standing.
If you put a couple of pieces of this together you realise that the central bank can always create demand for new bonds. If it buys excess bonds in the market it will create excess reserves and banks will gladly take the opportunity to rid themselves of reserves via buying newly-issued bonds. And then the central bank can buy them – rinse and repeat.
Therefore, via these mechanisms the central bank and private banks can always be relied upon to provide financing to the treasury via purchasing bonds. Even in a worst case scenario, there’s no “running out of money”.
Hopefully all that makes sense? The key focus of the above is describing how the government under a floating fiat currency system obtains money via taxes and bond sales. And why it will never run out of money.
The government spending part is easy. It just credits bank accounts! In practice, the funds come from the treasury’s account at the central bank – that same account where tax receipts and bond sales go.
Are you still with me? We’re nearly there…
So the government doesn’t quite just spend money into existence as some of the MMT crowd assert. It “funds itself” in two ways – tax revenues or bond sales. Based on our understanding of how the monetary system works, we realise that both of these result in money being removed from the private sector via the banks.
In practice, there’s really no difference between each option – as we’ve explored above, the treasury will always be able to sell new bonds. In this sense… from a theoretical perspective we can confirm what MMT asserts in that “deficits don’t matter”. However, I’m not brave enough to say that deficits truly don’t matter – are their unexpected consequences from ringing up a massive government deficit?
As the MMT crowd rightly highlight, the probable consequence of deficits is inflation. But it’s important not to simply say “high deficits will cause inflation”.
Remember the key aspect of the government’s financial transactions – redistribution. In one way or another they are taking money from one part of the economy and giving it to another.
Let’s also remember what inflation is in the simplest sense – too much money chasing too few goods/services.
Productive spending is a key to controlling inflation.
Example – say the government decides to credit every person’s bank account with $10,000. Does that stand to be inflationary? You bet. What if the government spends a similar amount of money but on infrastructure projects that improve private-sector productivity and make businesses more efficient? Inflationary? Maybe, but not necessarily if the spending has a tangible benefit to the productivity of the private economy. And the price paid for the project (labour costs etc) are sensible and thus don’t rob the private sector of talented workers that chase silly-high salaries paid by the government.
One aspect where I believe the MMT crowd have it wrong is how money gets its “value”. MMT often asserts that the value comes mostly from the fact that taxes need to be paid in that currency – demand for money to remit taxes = value.
My assertion is that money’s “value” comes from the private sector – the productive capacity of the private sector is largely responsible for giving money its value. It’s the government’s role to foster a productive private sector in ways such as creating and enforcing a good legal framework, providing infrastructure that improves efficiency and quality of life and… I’ll throw this one in… not stifling the private sector of investment capital via over-taxing.
I think I’m nearly there in describing the key aspects of the monetary system as relevant to the MMT debate. This is not nearly a complete picture (we’ve ignored the bigger side of the monetary system whereby banks create most money in circulation). If this all hurts your head a bit – it should. These concepts are very foreign to most people – even those with some finance background.
As a quick summary:
MMT as a “solution”:
Before I finish, a few comments on what’s being raised by some people in terms of governments potentially embracing MMT.
It’s rather scary. Governments are notoriously inefficient. And as covered above, the real damage that could come from adopting MMT-based economic policies is inflation resulting from unproductive spending.
Some proponents are raising it as a means of addressing growing inequality. Let’s think harder about that…
It seems some in the US are proposing pretty much flat-out giving poorer people money so that they are less poor. What will they do with it? They will spend it! On Stuff. Sold by big corporations – the rich ones… run by rich people… making those people even richer…
That’s not a solution to inequality.
Addressing inequality is really tricky. What it requires is a transfer of resources (wealth and knowledge) from the richer people to the poorer people. But importantly, this can’t be done in a way that discourages innovation.
Capitalism delivers prosperity partly because of the incentive of personal reward. People are driven to take risks…to innovate…try new things partly because of the reward of profit. There are proposals in the US for 70% tax rates on high incomes. There’s a point where taxation moves from paying “your fair share” to “confiscation”. But more importantly, it can discourage innovation if people feel they will just end up basically working for the government.
I didn’t plan this to become too political, yet in reality the whole MMT focus is political. I’m sure we will hear a lot more on this topic in the future. When you do, I hope you are now in a better position to broadly understand what it’s all about.
This document contains information which is the copyright of Aviator Capital Pty Ltd (AFSL 432803) or relevant third party. Any views expressed in this transmission are those of the individual, except where the individual specifically states them to be the views of Aviator Capital Pty Ltd. Except as required by law, Aviator Capital Pty Ltd does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this document has been maintained nor is free of errors, interception or interference. You should not copy, disclose or distribute this document without the authority of Aviator Capital Pty Ltd. Aviator Capital Pty Ltd does not accept any liability for any investment decisions made on the basis of this information. This information is intended to provide general information only, without taking into account any particular person’s objectives, financial situation, taxation or needs. It does not constitute financial advice and should not be taken as such. Aviator Capital Pty Ltd urges you to obtain professional advice before proceeding with any financial investment.
Register your interest in this Fund
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.