6 ms·

Talking about India could be The Economist's attempt to warn about the dangers of a continued merciless pummeling of the western middle class without having to

Talking about India could be The Economist's attempt to warn about the dangers of a continued merciless pummeling of the western middle class without having to come out and say, "gee, maybe Trump has a point..."

Retric 9y ago
While he has s point it's pure talking point. His policies are dumping on the middle class even harder. Hint increase the debt and you increase taxes. So, you need to look at how the tax burden shits not nessisarily the specific rates. Aka if you get 50$ off your taxes this year but your share of the national debt increases by 5,000$ then you are far worse off.
- topmonk 9y ago
  > Aka if you get 50$ off your taxes this year but your share of the national debt increases by 5,000$ then you are far worse off. Why? Do you suppose in the future, we'll all pay off the debt equally?
  - Retric 9y ago
    Not equally, but if you pay X% of taxes then ~X% of the national debt is effectively yours. Either through interest payments or failure to lower taxes in the future. Yes, there is some wiggle room if the tax burden shifts again, but if your taxes are dropping significantly less than average as a % of overall revenue you are going to be significantly worse off in the future. (Assuming you're not going to die soon.) Cutting spending works, cutting taxes is meaningless without that.
    - mcny 9y ago
      Thank you. I've been saying this for years but nobody influential wants to acknowledge it. Starve the beast is an incredibly stupid plan if you actually care about reducing national debt. Reducing income can't help us reduce spending. To reduce spending, we have to actually sit down and do the difficult task of reducing spending. Nothing else will do. At best, we are kicking the can down the road.
      - Spooky23 9y ago
        Remember that the big power people behind these movements control resources. So their wealth stands to increase relatively speaking as more and more money is printed and the value declines.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        Is it possible to reduce national debt? Sure, some nations occasionally miscalculate and have a year or two in which the budget is balanced and the debt doesn't grow, but afterward their debt continues its inexorable rise. Some resourceful and wise nations like Norway have never gotten on the debt elevator, but has anyone ever gotten off? (Poor nations who have had debts forgiven are excluded from this question.)
        Retric 9y ago
        US Debt vs GDP peaked higher than it is today then dropped to ~20% GDP in 1980 before shooting up again.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        "Debt" and "debt/GDP" are not the same thing?
        Retric 9y ago
        When they hit zero they are. Further, paying down debt when it's 100% GDP seems impossible, 20% GDP takes effort, 1% GDP can happen by accident.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        This doesn't seem to relate to my original question. We're not talking about the deficit in any particular year. As I stipulated, that yearly deficit can be zero or even negative by accident, without touching the debt that has accumulated over time. If you've got an example of a nation that went from 100% cumulative debt/GDP to 20%, let's see it!
  - acdha 9y ago
    The increase in debt is already being used to justify cutting services which non-rich people depend on. Things like Medicare are important to the middle class accumulating assets and passing it on rather than spending most of it on end-of-life care.
  - keithnoizu 9y ago
    No imagine when things get rough those who could most well contribute to it will also be in the best position to leave the table with out covering their part of the check.
    - topmonk 9y ago
      I would imagine the guilty party (who would leave) in this case would be the USA as a whole, itself... If you owe somebody $20, that's your problem. If you owe them $1 million, that's theirs.

Retric 9y ago

While he has s point it's pure talking point. His policies are dumping on the middle class even harder. Hint increase the debt and you increase taxes. So, you need to look at how the tax burden shits not nessisarily the specific rates. Aka if you get 50$ off your taxes this year but your share of the national debt increases by 5,000$ then you are far worse off.

topmonk 9y ago
> Aka if you get 50$ off your taxes this year but your share of the national debt increases by 5,000$ then you are far worse off. Why? Do you suppose in the future, we'll all pay off the debt equally?
- Retric 9y ago
  Not equally, but if you pay X% of taxes then ~X% of the national debt is effectively yours. Either through interest payments or failure to lower taxes in the future. Yes, there is some wiggle room if the tax burden shifts again, but if your taxes are dropping significantly less than average as a % of overall revenue you are going to be significantly worse off in the future. (Assuming you're not going to die soon.) Cutting spending works, cutting taxes is meaningless without that.
  - mcny 9y ago
    Thank you. I've been saying this for years but nobody influential wants to acknowledge it. Starve the beast is an incredibly stupid plan if you actually care about reducing national debt. Reducing income can't help us reduce spending. To reduce spending, we have to actually sit down and do the difficult task of reducing spending. Nothing else will do. At best, we are kicking the can down the road.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      Remember that the big power people behind these movements control resources. So their wealth stands to increase relatively speaking as more and more money is printed and the value declines.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Is it possible to reduce national debt? Sure, some nations occasionally miscalculate and have a year or two in which the budget is balanced and the debt doesn't grow, but afterward their debt continues its inexorable rise. Some resourceful and wise nations like Norway have never gotten on the debt elevator, but has anyone ever gotten off? (Poor nations who have had debts forgiven are excluded from this question.)
      - Retric 9y ago
        US Debt vs GDP peaked higher than it is today then dropped to ~20% GDP in 1980 before shooting up again.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        "Debt" and "debt/GDP" are not the same thing?
        Retric 9y ago
        When they hit zero they are. Further, paying down debt when it's 100% GDP seems impossible, 20% GDP takes effort, 1% GDP can happen by accident.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        This doesn't seem to relate to my original question. We're not talking about the deficit in any particular year. As I stipulated, that yearly deficit can be zero or even negative by accident, without touching the debt that has accumulated over time. If you've got an example of a nation that went from 100% cumulative debt/GDP to 20%, let's see it!
- acdha 9y ago
  The increase in debt is already being used to justify cutting services which non-rich people depend on. Things like Medicare are important to the middle class accumulating assets and passing it on rather than spending most of it on end-of-life care.
- keithnoizu 9y ago
  No imagine when things get rough those who could most well contribute to it will also be in the best position to leave the table with out covering their part of the check.
  - topmonk 9y ago
    I would imagine the guilty party (who would leave) in this case would be the USA as a whole, itself... If you owe somebody $20, that's your problem. If you owe them $1 million, that's theirs.