Not millennials. The boomers inherited a rich, dynamic country and have gradually bankrupted it.
This post is in response to a silly meme that old folks are sending around FB. In summary, it says that old folks need money too, so double our SS when you double the minimum wage. I know it is supposed to be funny, but it rubs me the wrong because:
- SS is inflation indexed, Min wage is not.
- These old folks setup and under funded SS & Medicare, so it is heading towards insolvency in ~12 years.
- These old folks controlled the country as it quadrupled the national debt vs GDP
- They set up entitlements for themselves that will make their children's lives very difficult
- These old folks voted to reduce taxes while increasing spending
- The old folks reduced infrastructure investments as a percent of GDP, so they could have lower taxes and higher benefits.
- In essence they made a mockery of Kennedy's words. "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" And instead said... "how can I pay less for and get more from my country"... :-(
- And then they joke about how they want even more.
Unfortunately I do not see it getting any better anytime soon. Maybe our kids will figure it out.
Wealth Educated Spoiled Boomers: Good?
Millennials are struggling. Is it the fault of the baby boomers?
Good riddance: The last gasp of baby boomer politics
91 comments:
This form of argument, linking two unrelated issues, is not one of my favorites. Social Security and the minimum wage are two entirely different things with different histories, and different policy goals. One could make a variety of arguments in favor or in opposition to them. But the merits of each should stand and fall on their own.
==Hiran
I will point out, that the key to success for people for people with a negative agenda in our consensus based system of government is to set one group of people against another. It's why Trump searched for ways to divide us. It's why Democrats seek bipartisanship and are criticized for failing to achieve it in ways Republicans are not. For many, one fissure that can be exploited, strangely enough, is a fancied division between the old and the young. What is strange about this particular effort is that there is little or no barrier between. Members of one group tend to morph into the other group. If they are lucky a young person becomes an old person, in a way that doesn't happen in other areas where politicians seek to exploit division. White people don't become black people for example. The other problem with seeking division between the young and the old is that their interests are inextricably mixed. For one thing, old people raised us, and they did it without compensation. Or have you paid mom and dad back rent for those first 18 years of life? Have you reimbursed your elementary school for all those years of free tuition which weren't really free? The assumption that a lot of things are based on is, as the movie puts it, that we pay things forward.
--Hiram
In this case, the older generations received the free schooling, free rent and a country with minimal debt and few long term financial obligations from their parents.
And instead of keeping up with the payments like responsible parents do, they borrowed money and left their children with a huge debt and many long term financial obligations.
They definitely did not pay it forward like their parents had.
We borrowed money to pay for our schools. It makes sense to take on long term debt for long term investments. Old people loaned money to the government which was used to pay for the running expenses of government.
But I do understand the political objective. To set the interest of the old and the young against the middle. It's a common and effective tactic, used by those who are insulated from the interests involved.
---Hiram
I have no desire to set anyone against anyone.
I simply expect mature elders to accept responsibility for their selfish choices.
This debt has nothing to do with bonds for schools. It has to do with entitlements, pensions, bailout checks, taxes, etc.
The folks of these generations kept their taxes low while ever increasing their spending on themselves.
I have no desire to set anyone against anyone.
I don't either, which is why I don't talk a lot about how awful baby boomers are, about how they run up the debt for everyone.
Demographics have always been a challenge for us. People had a lot of kids after WW II, and that population bulge has always been a factor as it moves through time and the economy. It helps to explain the '60s and it's continuing impact on our culture. It's why the Beatles are still listened to. It's why the Vietnam War continues to shape our politics. And it affects the actuarial computation of how we deal with aging and retirement. It's nobody's fault, and there is nothing really that can change it, except the odd pandemic, I suppose. I do know, I am not interested in how a lot of middle aged people who know longer need their diapers changed or the keys on Saturday night telling me directly or indirectly that they would be better off if I finded a way to die earlier. And if I wanted to hear that from politicians, I would move to Texas.
--Hiram
Maybe we can finally put to rest this ridiculous 40+ year experiment in Reaganomics, as well as the incorrect idea that tax cuts stimulate anything other than rich people's wealth, that has decimated our Middle Class.
Moose
Hiram,
It is not about good or bad, it is about sanctioning facts, data and reality. And hopefully learning from this and changing future behavior.
And the population variation has been well documented for ~50 years. These problems were pushed down the road because people did not want to pay an adequate amount of taxes to cover the approved planned expenses.
Even now the old duffers demand that NO ONE touch their welfare entitlements, instead of acknowledging that they underfunded the system and may need to do with less. I am hoping the kids just agree to cut the old duffers checks, I am a fan of natural consequences.
On top of that, our populations acceptance of Trillion dollar annual deficits...
The reason why entitlements are untoubhable is plain enough. Unlike tax cuts, people are entitled to them.
--Hiram
Only entitled by law...
That can be changed as easily as any other tax law or welfare law... :-)
PMFBI, but I just have to laugh:
"It's why Democrats seek bipartisanship"-- Hiram
You mean, like getting rid of the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, and giving out Trillions to Blue states and only blue states?
And John, notice that the young typically vote Democrat, where all these goodies get paid for by the magical money tree in DC, while elders tend to vote Republican?
You mean, like getting rid of the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, and giving out Trillions to Blue states and only blue states?
It's because Democrats are tired of having to seek bipartisanship that they favor these things. I don't like giving Republicans a veto over policy when Democrats are in the majority, but that's what the present consensus system of government requires. If it weren't for that, I couldn't care less about bipartisanship.
--Hiram
Jerry,
It wasn't the DEMs giving away the unpaid for tax cuts. The GOPers clearly own the debt problem. They like low taxes and government spending.
That was one of the reasons they loved Trump, he gave them both.
The Republicans are a party without a platform. They are a party that stands for nothing. How is bipartisanship even possible when one of the potential partners made the choice not to have a policy at all?
--Hiram
Another lie, or what I graciously call a blind spot. I serve on the Platform committee, and study the Democrat platform. Both platforms tend to be followed by members of their party, but only the Democrat platform is truly wack-a-doodle. Just because the platforms disagree doesn't mean they don't exist.
To answer your other question, bipartisanship is not possible when one side-- the Left, to be clear-- routinely denies the morality, intellect and even humanity of the other? Which side now wants to abolish the Senate filibuster? Is that an act of "bipartisanship"?
Guys,
Both parties have platforms.
GOP Platform
Democratic Platform
Jerry,
Unfortunately the GOP has not been willing to collaborate and negotiate in good will since about 2010... Though of course the DEMs are not much better.
But who can blame them, there far right and far left supporters want it this way.
Another Leftist myth-- "unpaid for tax cuts." The only way that phrase makes any sense is if one assumes that ALL income belongs to the government, and that any little piece they allow you to keep is an expenditure from that. If you start by acknowledging that every dime government actually spends must first be taken from somebody, either a current taxpayer or a future one, it becomes a lot easier to see the problem.
Just to be clear... without adding in the several trillion added to our debt in the last year, we could pay for all our current and future promissory notes by raising taxes. All it would take is a 100% federal tax rate for 8 years. No other federal, state, or personal expenditures, just paying off the credit cards. Some might question the practicality of that solution, but that is the math.
Something missing in the logic here, or I am not understanding something. It seems like "consensus" and "bipartisanship" are things to be desired, and that without them our policy would swing badly from one extreme to the other, rather than a reasonable, tempered approach. So which Party wants to ram an extreme agenda through Congress on strictly party-line votes, including 51-50 votes in the Senate through abolition of the rights of the "minority" to use the filibuster to force bipartisanship?
"So which Party wants to ram an extreme agenda through Congress on strictly party-line votes, including 51-50 votes in the Senate"
You might want to check the history of tiebreaking votes in the Senate before you make such an allegation...
History does not concern me. It is the intent and the possibility. Why seek to make it possible to rule by simple majority, if there is not intent to use it to shut out the by-one-vote minority?
Republicans quibble over the term "tax cut" because it enables their deficit spending.
I don't think either consensu or bipartisanship makes policy better, or worse for that matter. It's just in our system of government, to get anything done, you have to put a coalition of support to get it enacted. This refers not just to a legislative majority, but to a consensus of interests and interest groups. That's because legislators represent not just parties or voters, they also represent interests. Democrats, in order to get Obamacare passed, had to makce concessions to the health care industry which historically leans Republican. Republicans unanimously opposed it in the Congress not because they thought it was bad policy, but because party discipline required it. If party leaders in Congress had not made Obamacare a party issue, it would have gotten significant Republican support in the Conress.
--Hiram
Jerry,
Since I am actually a fiscal conservative unlike yourself, a successful government would run with:
- a $0 deficit in many years
- a slight deficit in recession years
- a slight surplus in boom years
In other words they would maintain a roughly balanced budget. Expenditures are aligned with revenues.
Now in 2017, Trump and the GOP used that 51/50 budget reconciliation to continue the bad habit of GOP Presidents. They lowered taxes while raising spending, therefore the debt increased a faster rate.
Unfortunately greedy self serving old folks like yourself support that poor behavior and the politicians that make it happen.
Which is the point of this post. :-)
You seem to confuse support for Republican governance in general, predominant among those whose life experience is a bit longer and wiser, with a desire for runaway federal spending. If it is a choice between $600 billion of overspending to "target" COVID relief, as opposed to $1.9 Trillion of overspending of which 9% went to COVID relief as the Democrats just passed on a party-line vote, I'll begrudgingly take the former, thank you. Look elsewhere for your straw man to blame, please.
If you are old enough, you remember the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to be "paid for" by spending cuts, too, but instead Democrats in Congress went on a spending spree. A simple look at Minnesota's budget will tell you that tax cuts or tax increases, nothing stops the growth in spending. We do not have a taxing problem-- witness the "simple tax increase proposal" above-- we have a spending problem. Imagine if the federal government had a balanced budget requirement right now?
Jerry,
Yours were the generations that made the mess, whether you choose to own the consequences is up to you.
The disaster started in the 70's and picked up speed as the selfish spoiled boomers etal kept making irresponsible decisions for the good of their own wallet.
Please remember that the Trump deficit increasing actions started before COVID.
And again...
- Spending increase should be tied to tax increases...
- Tax decreases should be tied to spending decreases...
Responsible fiscal conservatives know that. Unfortunately many GOPers want the tax cuts and their checks. :-(
Just look at all those decades of deficits that you folks just ignored and sent to future generations...
Receipts vs Spending
And all those lovely social programs that you are benefitting from even now.
A big difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans want to set policy through taxes, and Democrats want policy to determine tax policy. The two parties aren't equally sincere in this. While Republicans favor low taxes, they also are in favor of high spending. Democrats are pretty much in favor of both high taxes and high spending.
Low spending doesn't ever happen because there is no constituency for it. No lobbyist in Washington is ever hired by an employer who wants less money. No one contributes to a political party in order not to get as much as what he currently gets. Not too many folks return their Social Security checks or refuse to present their Medicare card at the doctor's. Nor do they volunteer to die early. So, inevitbaly, spending continues to rise.
--Hiram
Agreed.
At one point there was a group of Americans that lobbied for low deficits and a controlled national debt... Unfortunately we seem to be a dying breed... :-)
That's because they were acting on the behalf of business interests durig the cold war. Defesnse spending was sacred and didn't need to be defended. When the Soviet Union and alliances fell apart so did automatic support for the defense budgets. Suddenly, a case had to be made because for spending money on defense because the case for it no longer seemed self evident. So the balanced budget groups disappeared.
--Hiram
Entitlements are the problem
Not Defense spending
That's the conflict. America is basically an insurance company with an army. Should we spend the money on insurance, the army, or can we afford both. Our answer has always been both.
--Hiram
Trump talked about reducing drug prices by 70%. But he had no plan for doing it or any signs at all of the political will to do it. That's very characteristic of Republicans and their politics. They want the same things everyone else does, they just don't want to do things that would make those things happen.
==Hiram
Here's a question: How do you know so much about Republicans if you aren't one?
Hiram,
Please remember that the "insurance" portion is the result of the generations I am calling out.
The USA and it's citizens did just fine until our elders started "voting themselves money" while reducing their tax burden. Both parties and all elder citizens own this mess.
We really should separate the notion of tax cuts from spending increases. They are not related except in the most tangential way. Taxes are cut, and spending goes up. Taxes are increased, and spending goes up. And it is NOT possible, in the case of the federal government, to tax enough to pay for all the spending already committed. That would require federal taxes at 100% of GDP for 8 years (not counting the Democrats' recent spending binge).
Jerry, Maybe someday the kids will forgive your selfish generations.
Hey, I didn't leave the mess. Democrats were in charge of the budget and the policy for 40 years running, and they are in control again. I never voted for any of 'em. Want somebody to blame? There they are. And may I suggest that instead of assigning blame to a whole generation of people, you look for people who actually spent tax dollars in a way that put drunken sailors to shame. As Hiram correctly points out, there is no constituency in DC for spending restraint. Liberals hate it as a matter of "principle" (if they can be said to have any) and Republicans get pilloried for even considering it by the liberal press.
My hope for the kids is that they will wise up, SOON, throw out the wastrels, and do some serious entitlement reform. It can be done, the sooner the better, but I'm afraid the kids just aren't paying attention and will NOT pay attention until the whole economy comes apart like a dime watch. At that point, the wastrels will place the blame on people of the past, just as you are doing, and ignore the problem in the present, as they always do. It's always "fix the blame; don't fix the problem."
You were a citizen...
You supported and support politicians who do not balance the budget..
You are a big part of the problem, as are your peers. :-)
Too broad, as usual. I am not my group. I supported politicians who at least give lip service to the idea, and some who even proposed a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution-- a good idea IMHO. I also supported Minnesota politicians that constantly fight to hold down spending, and at one time in the past actually reduced it. Can you say the same?
You seem to insist that Republicans do what they are largely powerless to do, which is stop the growth in federal spending. Remember we have these things called "entitlements" that grow without bound and cannot be touched by the normal budget process. Any attempt to reform them is met by massive propagandistic opposition-- pushing Granny over the cliff in her wheelchair, for example. Tell you what: you get your side to stop the massive lies, acknowledge the problem, and work with Republicans to actually solve it, and we'll make the kids happy.
You supported Trump...
He promised to reduce deficits...
He reduced taxes while increasing spending...
Thus increasing the deficits in the middle of an economic boom...
You still are a supporter of Trump and his policies...
You unfortunately are a major league hypocrite,
kind like many others of your generation.
The "Balanced Budget Folks who only believe it is important when a DEM President is in Office"... :-O
As I often say, at least the DEMs are willing to
pay the bills that they want to incur. Not pass them on to our kids.
The Dems are NOT willing to pay the bills and DO pass them on to our kids. That's what the national debt is, and every Dem Congress that votes for a deficit adds to it. Not only that, but over all those years of Democrat Congresses they have promised things to be paid for by future taxpayers, to where we now have some $105 Trillion in "unfunded liabilities." Please explain how "we" are supposed to pay that off?
Your simplistic scapegoating is not solving the problem. It isn't even realistically true. Which is contributing more to the problem-- voting Republican and at least talking about fiscal responsibility, or voting Democrat and demanding more spending? Who voted to increase the national debt from $10 Trillion to $28 Trillion (in 12 years)? Who was President, who controlled Congress? There may be some clue in where the money went...
The Dems are NOT willing to pay the bills and DO pass them on to our kids.
Democrats don't like paying bills, but they are more comfortable paying the bills than Republicans. We have less of a problem raising taxes. We do no take the pledge. No Republican in Congress has voted for a tax increase in recent decades. It's dogma for them.
Republicans are desperate to return to the status quo ante, when people took them seriously as a political party. But I don't see that happening any time soon, certainly not while Trump is the leader of their party.
--Hiram
Hiram, the Democrat willingness to raise taxes is not a virtue, but merely a cover for wanting to vastly overspend whatever revenue they project, and that is usually far beyond the revenue actually realized. They never answer the simple question of "how high is enough?" let alone the more important question of "how high do taxes need to go to pay for all this spending?" Did you notice that nowhere in this last $1.9 trillion bill are there ANY taxes to offset the spending of all that imaginary money?
In the last 12 years, the wastrels in Congress have put a $54,000 mortgage on every man, woman and child in the country. How much can you tax a 5-year-old to pay that off?
The red lines say it all.
Deficits increase under GOP Presidents.
Democrats do think in terms of what we spend on. It's the first impulse when Republicans want to cut taxes. We say "Where services do you want to cut?" The Republican answer to that is to shift the burden onto someone else, some other level of government, or to various forms of chariity.
how high is enough?
A famous right wing talk show. Soucheray used to ask it twice an hour. What is "enoughness", this incredibly crucial issue on which Republicans want some of the most important policy issues we face today to turn. At the outset, on this issue Republicans have no views or analysis themselves. They don't do analysis, merely criticize analysis done by others. And I have no easy answer myself. In terms of enoughness, It's easy enough to look around and see that much more needs to be done than we are currently doing.
--Hiram
I just read an article in "The Atlantic" about why Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare faileed. Ignominiously as we like to say. And the reason offered was that Republicans simply don't do policy, so they don't have the resources and skills to do policy. Remember the Republifcan plan for dealing with Obamacare? "Repeal and replace"? Turns out the the problems and issues related to health care in America can't be solved by a three word policy, to the amazement of the last president among many others. Savvy Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell, so skilled and inventive at preventing things from done, have no skill for doing things. They are utterly clueless as to how to formulate a response to a complicated issue and get it through Congress. The repeal part was fine, but they had no idea at all how to replace, but nevertheless insisted that they were the people we should trust the power to govern. The absurdity, when you think about it, is overwhelming.
And don't get me started about Trump.
--Hiram
Yes. It is odd how they are obsessed with destroying...
Not improving or creating...
Wow. Complete and deliberate misunderstanding of generally-believed (among Republicans) Republican policy. The correct answer to fiscal responsibility is to simply REFORM those fantasy programs Democrats want to throw money at. Somehow it gets simply assumed that the federal government can run the lives of 330 million people better than the states, or counties, or the individuals themselves. One-size-fits-all generally ends up fitting no one, and costing a boodle besides. Obamacare INCREASED the cost of health care for everybody, covered only about a fourth of the people it was supposed to cover, and probably more people lost the insurance they had and liked than those who gained it. The proper solution for "repeal and replace" was "repeal." I'll also point out that any federal attempt to actually improve health care, if made by Republicans, was shut down by Democrat opposition.
Tell you what, I'll let you continue to blame "Baby Boomers" for our problems, if you will limit it to "Baby Boomers that vote Democrat." That won't solve any of the problems, of course, but then we can both claim to be correct.
As I keep noting...
Red Line says it ALL... :-)
I assume you voted for those deficit increasing Presidents.
Unfortunately the GOP only offers wishful think regarding healthcare cost reductions. Cancel ACA and magic will happen... Thankfully most Americans know better.
Republicans pine for the old days when their reality wasn't proven to be reality of the TV game show. When their notion of a businessman was revealed the businessman version of the con artist. When their philosophy of government turned out to be a nonexistent platform and the leader principle.
Trump is gone now but not quite gone enough, and that must be frustrating. And now they are stuck with the "My pillow guy" as the embodiment of Minnesota Republicanism.
--Hiram
hahahahahaha
I didn't vote for Obama, who increased deficits beyond imagination. I didn't vote for any Democrat in Congress, who frequently go on spending binges, like $8 Trillion in the last year. You're still looking for a scapegoat, rather than a solution.
And to suggest that Obamacare is not only the best but only solution to the many-faceted "problem" called "health care" is ridiculously simple-minded. Obamacare increased cost and probably broke even on total coverage. IMHO the status quo ante was better, and several simple, but piecemeal, improvements could easily be made if Democrats would allow it.
Instead you voted for the guy who over spent by almost as much in only 4 years. And left deficits growing.
FY 2021 (est) - $2.3 trillion
FY 2020 - $4.226 trillion
FY 2019 - $1.563 trillion
FY 2018 - $1.272 trillion
Where as the deficits for the most part decreased under Obama.
FY 2017 - $671 billion
FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion
FY 2015 - $326 billion
FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion
FY 2013 - $672 billion
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion
FY 2009 - $253 billion
And most of our debt problems started and continue due to Bush's choices.
Debt History
Glad to see you have decided to blame Presidents rather than Baby Boomers. It's a start. Now see how many in Congress, who controls the purse strings, can be blamed. For a passing grade, explain how to fix the problem rather than fixing the blame.
Citizens should stop voting for people who:
- pass unpaid for tax cuts
- pass unpaid for spending increases
- avoid dealing with the long term structural deficits
So yes the people who voted for Reagan, Bush, Bush II and Trump own the majority of the responsibility. The red line clearly shows this.
I concede voting for "unpaid for tax cuts" because it's nonsense. If government never gets the money, it shouldn't spend the money. Unfortunately the wastrels care nothing for the common sense of living within their means.
As for the rest, I never voted for any of it. The red line be d***d. Blame Tip O'Neil.
by party control
"Blame Tip O'Neil."
I don't see many appropriation bill vetoes from 1/81 to 1/89.
I added a spending vs revenues vs tax cuts graphic to the post.
The GOP tax cuts definitely were self inflicted wounds.
They had a budget and they knowingly cut taxes in hopes of raising revenues.
So I can give Reagan a pass... But the idea that neither BUSH II, Trump or Jerry learned from Reagan's experience is sad. :-)
Hey, we learned. We learned that Democrats promise spending cuts in return for tax increases, or spending cuts to "pay for" tax cuts, but they lie. And we have seen that cutting taxes DOES raise revenues, while raising taxes lowers them.
Jerry, The graphic I just posted clearly proves that you are incorrect...
There is a drop in revenues / GDP following every cut. :-(
And you seem to keep forgetting that Trump signed spending increases at the same time as signing tax cuts... That is how he jumped the deficit from 0.6 Trillion to 1.0 Trillion per year in almost no time.
And Obama went from -~ $220B to well over $1 T even quicker.
You are still doing it. Blame somebody, anybody, for some sort of fiscal irresponsibility. What I want to know is what you think "we" should do about it?
--Stop voting for Republicans?
--Stop voting for Democrats?
--Always vote for divided government?
--How about supporting a balanced budget amendment?
--How about demanding entitlement reform?
--How about just repudiating the debt?
Pick one, justify it, and tell us how it could become reality.
"And Obama went from -~ $220B to well over $1 T even quicker."
Almost all of that jump was under Bush, not Obama.
Jerry,
Kennedy said it well...
“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”
I have not only "blamed" older conservatives. Older liberals are just as guilty of voting themselves money at our children's expense.
They gave themselves long term pensions, benefits, etc and did not fund them adequately. They supported giving poor people trillions of dollars while expecting nothing in return.
The question is what have we learned from this? And will we change our behaviors or bankrupt the country?
Are you going to celebrate Presidents who raise spending while cutting taxes and driving up deficits or are you going to toss them out on their ear?
Are you going to keep saying that lower tax rates yield greater revenue or are you going to support reasonable tax increases?
"Are you going to keep saying that lower tax rates yield greater revenue or are you going to support reasonable tax increases?" -- John
I do love your outrageous sense of humor. I will support a "reasonable" increase from 35% at the top rate back to 39%, so long as the lower brackets are put back up to where they were before the Trump tax cuts. Reasonable, yes? My only condition and requirement is that YOU support a tax increase up to where it would need to be to cover our profligate history. That is a 100% federal tax rate for the next 8 years, after which it drops back to pre-Trump levels.
Obviously you've never heard of the Laffer curve. Or the Yacht tax.
The rate of taxation in our present system doesn't matter a lot. People get rich not because they pay a 35% instead of a 39% rate, they become rich because they have structured their financial lives in ways that allow them to pay minimal taxes to the extent they pay taxes at all.
Trump, for example, doesn't pay taxes because decades ago he was able to generate huge losses in his real estate business. Real estate on his level is almost entirely a business created to avoid taxation. The actual transfer of real property is often just a necessary side effect.
--Hiram
Jerry,
I am happy to go back to the Clinton tax rates if it means we start paying down our national debt.
And the Laffer curve is far from perfect or proven.
Hiram,
We will probably need to implement some kind of a wealth tax to improve the situation.
The wealthy are not idiots, they simply buy, hold and avoid making "income".
I sure hope Trump pays for his past tax / loan fraud. :-)
Fine. So how about a REAL solution to the debt/deficit? Your suggestions amount to peanuts at best. Now if you would push for a FAIR tax, it would at least raise real revenue, be largely immune to the business cycle, be perfectly progressive, help our trade imbalance, bolster the economy substantially, and start the essentially process of entitlement reform.
I've given you six other choices, but of course you still want to quibble about trivia like which political party to blame.
I haven't done the math recently, but if you simply confiscated all income above $1 million, you wouldn't cover the deficit for one year. And you certainly would do a lot less the following year.
"In order to change the world, you must first change yourself. In order to have the right to see what is wrong with the world, you must first earn that right through seeing what is wrong with yourself."
Your claims are always so fantastical. :-) These numbers are a little dated, but usable.
"The budget deficit is estimated at $966 billion. That's the difference between $3.863 trillion in revenue and $4.829 trillion in spending. This shortfall is added to the existing national debt."
The current tax rate average tax rate (25%?) brings in ~$4 Trillion. If we increase it by 25% it would bring in an additional $1 Trillion and close the deficit.
Of course, raising the average tax to 31.25% would hurt many low and lower middle class folks. That is why aiming at the upper middle, upper class and extremely wealth makes more sense.
We will probably need to implement some kind of a wealth tax to improve the situation.
This comes up against Hiram's rule of tax policy. We tax the easy, and we tax the weak. Wealthy people fall in neither category. It's hard to tax wealth. Take a look at the different ways wealth has been defined on this blog, all of which are valid. Which one do we choose for taxation? How would we go about assessing such a tax? We tax different kinds of wealth differently, which affects the kind of wealth, wealthy people own. How would that system change? Bear in mind that wealthy people are politically powerful and capable of mounting strong resistance to even the most minor changes.
--Hiram
The challenge is not that the rich are politically powerful.
It is that people like Jerry fear taxing them for some reason?
"fear"?? "like Jerry"?? "for some reason"?? What insulting fantasies have you concocted to avoid dealing with real facts? From the Tax Foundation:
"In 2017, 143.3 million taxpayers reported earning $10.9 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.6 trillion in individual income taxes.
The share of reported income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 21 percent, from 19.7 percent in 2016. Their share of federal individual income taxes rose to 38.5 percent, from to 37.3 percent in 2016.
In 2017, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent."
Therefore, if you taxed "the rich" at 100%, you would get 21% of $10.9T, or 2.13 T, except they are already paying 38.5% of the $1.6T, meaning you gain only $1.4T more than you get now, just barely enough to cover the deficit, with an absolute guarantee you would only get that one time. The rich are already over-taxed, quite unfairly, and can afford to hire tax attorneys to exploit "loopholes" (every single one of which was added by Congress to make taxes "fair"), but that the "little guy" cannot. Raising taxes to fix the deficit is a fool's errand. It won't work, can't work, shouldn't be even attempted until spending is under control. Besides that, the purpose of tax policy should be raise the funds needed to support NECESSARY and efficacious government spending. With the current tax code and budget process, that is beyond human abilities or even comprehension.
Unfortunately, zero-based budgeting and the FAIR tax are too simple and effective, and cannot be politically enacted. Heck, just look at the outrage over some teensy-weensy tax cuts.
I think you have better read Table 1 again
Top 1% AGI:$2.3T Tax:$0.6T %:26.8%
Top 5% AGI:$4.0T Tax:$1.0T %:23.7%
Top 10% AGI:$5.2T Tax:$1.1T %:21.5%
I am thinking we could get another Trillion out of these folks without them needing to adjust their standard of living much.
Or I am fine with cutting spending by $0.6T and increasing taxes by $0.6T.
But this 100% tax silliness you have been promoting forever is just so incorrect.
Why again do you want to protect the billionaires of the country?
It is odd.
YOu are "thinking"? What happens when you increase the taxes on a millionaire? Answer: the millionaire immediately finds a way to avoid it. I'm only talking about the top 1%.
Why do you want to punish the billionaires? And consider this: Bill Gates supposedly had $76 Billion, last tally. He (and Warren Buffet) thinks billionaires should pay more taxes, and nothing stops them from doing it. So what did they do? Gave the bulk of it to the Gates Foundation, where they pay no tax at all.
Oh, and if you DID manage to suck another $.6T out of the economy, what makes you think Congress would pass $0.6T of spending cuts? Where would they get it?
As for "100% tax silliness" I'm sorry, but it is simple math. Absolutely impossible, of course, but it demonstrates the total silliness of using tax increases to solve the national debt problem. If you don't like that 100% idea, pick one of the other six alternatives I've offered. There are the couple that are not so impractical.
Here is the link again
Now I know you can do basic math...
"Top 10% AGI:$5.2T Tax:$1.1T %:21.5%"
5.2 - 1.1 = 4.1 T
If we had them pay $3.1 T to invest, spend enjoy.
And if it is so easy to hide income... Then this a non-issue, raise the rates.
Please remember that this is just a small fraction of their wealth gains. Most of the is in long term capital gains that they do not sell. (ie no taxation)
Bear in mind that wealthy people are not wealthy because they have high incomes. They are wealth because their property appreciates in value in ways that are not taxed. That being the case, they may not care all that much about income tax rates. That explains why they uber wealthy like Buffett and Gates are often perfectly fine with raising income taxes.
Here is another argument I am not a fan of. If you are critical of a rule, choose not to follow it. For example, I think in baseball, the hitter should get two strikes instead of three before striking out. Given I feel that way, why shouldn't the hitters on my team, retire themselves after the second strike. Does this argument make sense? If not, why not?
--Hiram
OK, but except for a few far-left wackos, everybody that wants to raise taxes wants to "tax the rich" through income taxes. That whole argument rests on the belief that government, in its infinite wisdom, can spend that money better--i.e. with greater benefit to the economy as a whole-- than the people who earned it. You can believe that sheer and utter nonsense if you wish, but consider this: If we raise taxes to pay off debt, isn't there ZERO benefit to the economy? The money has already been spent and done whatever good it did.
And for those with degrees in economics, puzzle this one: Since most of the (at least new) debt exists only as accounting entries at the federal reserve, why can't "we" simply repudiate that part of the debt? The change gets made on the books, and everybody goes on with life? In other words, suppose we simply quit believing in all that imaginary money?
Here's another. What is the first step recommended to individuals who find themselves in debt? Answer: It is "cut up the credit cards." And the second is "figure out how to live within your means." Our politicians consider themselves immune from solid, sane advice.
The people chose to spend the money.
They and I assume you like your entitlement checks and services... I am pretty sure you have not been ripping up your old age welfare checks.
It does not matter who can spend it more wisely... It is simply how current tax payers should pay their bills, not pass it on to their kids like a crack head parent. :-)
I am fine for chopping off all SS, Medicaid, etc to anyone who is not broke. That should save the government some money. Are you?
Now what is this silliness about accounting?
Very enlightening. Too bad it actually requires you to read and think. For example, it says that most of the debt was incurred making promises to senior citizens to "pay back" what they put into the Trust Funds. But the Trust Funds are broke, containing nothing but the promise to pay. To actually pay benefits, SSA must cash out the bonds, meaning raising taxes, indebting our kids some more, or cutting benefits. Are you sure you want to break those promises (or even be accused of it, as Democrats ALWAYS do), when there is a simple reform that would not only KEEP those promises, but start to pay down the national debt?
It says $10T of our debt is held by the Federal Reserve. So again, why not simply abrogate that debt? The only thing that happens is the banks wipe out the imaginary portion of their assets, and future inflation is avoided.
"It does not matter who can spend it more wisely..."
That is an astounding statement. It seems you are perfectly OK with wasteful spending, if government does it "in their infinite wisdom." And if that weren't bad enough, you seem unwilling to suggest /how/ they might be stopped from wasting our kids' money they do not have and can not get! We've been talking about SS, the deficit, and the debt. We haven't even started talking about the $100 trillion or so of "unfunded liabilities" Congress has promised but cannot pay for at any conceivable tax rate, up to and including the economically disastrous. I won't be ripping up my "entitlements" (that I paid for), but I am all for entitlement reform that is the only possible solution, and doing it in the way that harms the public the least.
That FED money / debt thing does seem complicated. If I remember correctly the FED is separate from our government... But maybe some law can do that?
SS administration had to put the money somewhere, US bonds seemed a safe investment. And yes they need to be paid for when sold to write checks to you.
I know... Let's cut future payouts as long as you get yours... That seems very much like your generation.
So I am fine with cutting budgets, where do you want to take $1 Trillion from?
Jeff Bezos could have given every single Amazon employee an extra $75,000 last year and would still be as wealthy as he was before the pandemic.
That's obscene.
It's no wonder there are people who can't feed, clothe, and shelter themselves, when one person hoards that much wealth.
Moose
Amazon is paying more than that $15 / hr and still you whine...
It never ends...
It's a simple observation of the horrific hoarding of wealth in this country.
You don't agree that people shouldn't hoard wealth while others starve. That's fine. That's on your conscience, not mine.
Moose
I am fine with raising taxes some on the wealthy. I am fine using social pressure to encourage them to give more to charity.
But I will never be a fan of over paying people. Nothing good can come from that.
Continued here for all to enjoy
Post a Comment