| |
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This isn't correct when you look at the numbers. You can try it yourself at https://us.abalancingact.com/federal-budget-simulator. The thing is, in isolation, balancing the budget looks pretty easy. It's only because you have to deal with particular interest groups and a populace who has come to believe that any tax increase means they're getting shafted. I was able to balance that budget with the following changes: 1. Top one percent effective tax rate goes from 24 to 30 percent. 2. Higher income goes from 12.26 to 14.26. 3. Upper middle income goes from 7.7 to 8.7. 4. Middle income goes from 4.8 to 5.8. 5. Lower middle income goes from .1 to 1.1 6. Lower income goes from -4.1 to -3.1 7. Social payroll taxable maximum goes to 90% of taxable income. Those changes alone, with absolutely no spending changes, balance the budget. Now, I'm not proposing that those changes are politically viable, and you can certainly fiddle with my distribution if you think something else would be fairer (I think it's fair because the rich have done much better than everyone else over the past 40 years so I think they can afford to pay more, but I also think that everyone should have to contribute something more or else you get the current problematic belief that the issue can be solved just by taxing somebody else), but I would strongly disagree if you wanted to argue that those changes would result in any substantial change in standard of living for anyone. I think, numerically, the problem can pretty easily be solved just by taxation alone (though I think it would make sense to add some spending cuts), just not politically. | | |
| ▲ | xracy 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Site looked interesting, so I was just like "what would it look like to have a top tax rate like we did in the 1950s-1980s (Before Reagan dropped it)?" [1] And the hilarious thing is the propaganda it spews without any backing of data: >At a certain point, increases in tax rates will not raise more revenue. Once someone's tax rate becomes sufficiently high, they might work less or try harder to evade taxes. Based on existing evidence, this simulation assumes that increasing this group’s tax rate beyond your current level is unlikely to raise more revenue. And then it pretends like the maximum amount of income you can get out of the richest 1% is $203B. This is rich people's propaganda that we've bought into by pretending that Rich people don't need this country. But that's a lie. If it were true, they would just move, instead of fighting tooth and nail for tax cuts in every single election. Also the breakdown of spending categories and the way they're represented are pretty clearly politically motivated, and the Numbers look a little suspicious to me. They don't even align with the CBO numbers. Another really obvious thing missing is a "Capital Gains Tax" Which is currently pegged to like 20%, and how CEOs get all of their income. So If Capital Gains was taxed as income, I think that would at least start to make the Income tax realistic. [1] https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder... | |
| ▲ | umvi 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Those changes alone, with absolutely no spending changes, balance the budget. I tried out the calculator and put in all your changes, and the budget wasn't balanced, there was still a 1.4T deficit (as opposed to the current 1.9T deficit). The app only claims the budget is "sustainable" now because it assumes GDP keeps growing at the same rate (which might not be true), and if so we'll hit a 3%-of-GDP "deficit target" in 25 years. Also adjusting a negative tax rate kind of seems like it is, in fact, reducing spending (i.e. the federal government reduces the amount of tax credits it gives out). This also assumes the federal government will not introduce new programs, new spending, etc. So really all you did was reduce the deficit by .5T along with a hope and a prayer that the economy will continue to grow at the same rate for the next 25 years (while at the same time the federal government does not increase spending). I personally think it's bad to have a deficit at all and that we should work towards zero deficit and eventually surplus (yes, I know there are all sort of growth hacks and such you can do with debt, but historically politicians have succumbed to slippery slope deficit increases and so for that reason alone I think holding politicians to a zero deficit standard is best -- do it for a few generations and now there's a precedent that protects us from getting into the situation we are currently in). To me a "balanced budget" is that your spending is <= your income. Anyway, interesting calculator app. I do see the value in raising taxes for sure, but it's not easy politically to raise taxes and it's also not easy politically to cut spending (whichever group likes the thing you cut will scream), so ultimately it might have to be a hybrid solution where democrats increase taxes without increasing spending when they are in power and republicans cut spending without decreasing taxes when they are in power. When I say that out loud though it seems like a pipe dream, sigh... |
| |
| ▲ | ChicagoDave 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is the lie. Our economy generates 27 trillion gdp. We can afford everything. We choose not to. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's more likely both are true. We can afford to do more for the people, but at the same time we are over-spending. Streamlining some of these functions would be nice. One area we are vastly over-spending is highway and roadway construction, for example. Even if we can afford it, we shouldn't pay for it. There are other more politically hot topics here and both general sides of the debate have merit, but we should try to not be dogmatic about it and instead think in systems terms and long-term outcomes. When I see a city or state spending $400,000/each on units for housing homeless people, well, that's obviously a misuse of funds. That's not sustainable. We shouldn't do it even if we can afford it. When we spend $50 billion in a week of the Iran war (which I support but just as an example), well, that $50 billion could have paid off a lot of mortgages - so maybe we should or could do that instead. | | |
| ▲ | ChicagoDave 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Maybe start with universal healthcare and rezoning laws so Airbnb can’t sit on housing. Make public college free. Reduce military spending drastically. Force billionaires to pay a 25% tax on net worth (they’d still increase their wealth). Then create universal basic income. Our economy would skyrocket. | | |
| ▲ | ChicagoDave 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Just to note. McKenzie Scott has given half of her divorce settlement away and still has more than when she started. No one needs to be a billionaire. It’s inhumane. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't like or valorize billionaires, I guess (I mostly don't care about them), but I don't understand what's "inhumane" here. There aren't very many billionaires. Billion dollar companies are far more salient to ordinary people than billionaires are. And, obviously, you can't fund universal health care by liquidating the billionaires! I've never really understood why people are so het up about billionaires. The distinction between them and decimillionaires seems mostly like comic book lifestyle stuff; like, OK, they fly their pets private for visitation with their ex-spouses or whatever, I guess that's offensive aesthetically? Far, far more damaging to ordinary people is the Faustian bargain struck between the upper middle class and the (much smaller) upper class, which redistributes vast sums of many away from working class people into the bank accounts of suburban homeowners. (Because fundamental attribution error guarantees threads like this will devolve into abstract left vs. right valence arguments, a policy stake in the ground: I broadly favor significantly higher and more progressive taxes, starting with a reconsideration of the degree to which we favor cap gains.) | |
| ▲ | ericmay 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I really applaud the work McKenzie Scott is doing. A lot of billionaires play the "aw shucks if only someone would tax me" - nothing is stopping them from just donating to the government if they really thought that. We have a housing problem, why not play Sim City in real life and build houses for people or something? Personally I think it would be a blast. Similarly though, there's nothing stopping you personally from taking $50, $100, whatever and walking over to a shelter or food bank and donating. You don't need to wait for the government to stand up a program. Lead by example like McKenzie Scott is. We donate money to local organizations - again, no barriers here. I don't care if someone is a billionaire, though of course we should tax them "appropriately". But if you're really mad about billionaires and you want these programs, you should be giving away your own money too and there's nothing stopping you. Waiting until you get just the right program or tax the right person is a bad strategy if you really care about some of these issues. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | shimman 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, it's always funny to see how MMT is a perfectly acceptable way to create tax cuts and enable corporate welfare but if you suddenly want universal medicare or childcare suddenly we care about budgets or MMT is suddenly impractical. | |
| ▲ | BirAdam 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This should actually allow for a balanced budget and still affording everything. The problem is, the USA has the best government money can buy and it wasn’t bought by the people. | |
| ▲ | lokar 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not if you believe the (obviously wrong) laffer curve zealots | |
| ▲ | MattGaiser 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Eh, the way the US does a lot of things have significant cost problems. Public spending on healthcare is around 8-9% of GDP once you add things up. So you have already paid for a public healthcare system in many ways. |
|
|
