4 ms·

It is a point of view (a bias) to say that the deficit was largely caused by large spending bills such as ARPA, but not mention the equal or large contribution

It is a point of view (a bias) to say that the deficit was largely caused by large spending bills such as ARPA, but not mention the equal or large contribution to the deficit of tax cuts, such as the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primar...

bradleyjg 3y ago
President Donald Trump’s signature tax bill,26 enacted when Republicans gained control of the White House and both houses of Congress in 2017, will have cost roughly $1.7 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2023. It seems pretty reasonable on magnitude grounds to mention something that cost $1.9 trillion in a single year while and omitting something that cost $1.7 trillion over five.
- cmdli 3y ago
  > Taken together, the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts, have cost $10 trillion since their creation and are responsible for 57 percent of the increase in the debt ratio since then. They are responsible for more than 90 percent of the increase in the debt ratio if you exclude the one-time costs for responding to COVID-19 and the Great Recession. I don't 100% agree with this article, but I think you are somewhat misrepresenting it. If taxes were at the level they used to be then we would be in a better position debt-wise than we are now. Whether you disagree with raising taxes or not, it does seem reasonable to examine cost-increasing measures like tax cuts.
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    If you are going to aggregate all the tax cuts going back to 2000, you could also aggregate all the spending increases. I don’t think either is a reasonable thing to do. The OP article includes this paragraph: “Getting the debt under control will require taking a serious look at health care, Social Security and the tax code,” CRFB president Maya MacGuineas said in a news release. which mentions taxes. I don’t see what the big problem is with specifically mentioning the ARPA given how absolutely enormous it was. My objection wouldn’t have been not mentioning specific tax cuts, but instead not mentioning CARES which was even larger at $2.2 trillion.
spamizbad 3y ago
If the feds wanted to cool off the economy they’d be much better off raising taxes than raising interest rates They of course don’t have the authority to do that, but they can tell congress to do so
- pylua 3y ago
  That’s more than cooking the economy , that is literally killing the American dream. The only way to have wealth is to make it before taxes were set. A more fair approach would be a special assessment on net worth.
  - ec109685 3y ago
    Returning back to the pre 2017 tax cuts wouldn’t kill the American dream.
  - verall 3y ago
    > A more fair approach would be a special assessment on net worth. Which the current supreme court would strike down even if congress could put its pants on and try
    - pylua 3y ago
      Right, my comment was addressing fairness outside of the greater context of current laws, which while slow t change can change .
    - kccqzy 3y ago
      Congress needs to try harder and make it a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court did in fact strike down income taxes until Congress managed to pass the sixteenth amendment and have it ratified by states.
  - cycrutchfield 3y ago
    >A more fair approach would be a special assessment on net worth. Note that that is probably unconstitutional, aside from just being a bad idea in general (see similar implementations in other countries).

bradleyjg 3y ago

President Donald Trump’s signature tax bill,26 enacted when Republicans gained control of the White House and both houses of Congress in 2017, will have cost roughly $1.7 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2023. It seems pretty reasonable on magnitude grounds to mention something that cost $1.9 trillion in a single year while and omitting something that cost $1.7 trillion over five.

cmdli 3y ago
> Taken together, the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts, have cost $10 trillion since their creation and are responsible for 57 percent of the increase in the debt ratio since then. They are responsible for more than 90 percent of the increase in the debt ratio if you exclude the one-time costs for responding to COVID-19 and the Great Recession. I don't 100% agree with this article, but I think you are somewhat misrepresenting it. If taxes were at the level they used to be then we would be in a better position debt-wise than we are now. Whether you disagree with raising taxes or not, it does seem reasonable to examine cost-increasing measures like tax cuts.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  If you are going to aggregate all the tax cuts going back to 2000, you could also aggregate all the spending increases. I don’t think either is a reasonable thing to do. The OP article includes this paragraph: “Getting the debt under control will require taking a serious look at health care, Social Security and the tax code,” CRFB president Maya MacGuineas said in a news release. which mentions taxes. I don’t see what the big problem is with specifically mentioning the ARPA given how absolutely enormous it was. My objection wouldn’t have been not mentioning specific tax cuts, but instead not mentioning CARES which was even larger at $2.2 trillion.

spamizbad 3y ago

If the feds wanted to cool off the economy they’d be much better off raising taxes than raising interest rates They of course don’t have the authority to do that, but they can tell congress to do so

pylua 3y ago
That’s more than cooking the economy , that is literally killing the American dream. The only way to have wealth is to make it before taxes were set. A more fair approach would be a special assessment on net worth.
- ec109685 3y ago
  Returning back to the pre 2017 tax cuts wouldn’t kill the American dream.
- verall 3y ago
  > A more fair approach would be a special assessment on net worth. Which the current supreme court would strike down even if congress could put its pants on and try
  - pylua 3y ago
    Right, my comment was addressing fairness outside of the greater context of current laws, which while slow t change can change .
  - kccqzy 3y ago
    Congress needs to try harder and make it a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court did in fact strike down income taxes until Congress managed to pass the sixteenth amendment and have it ratified by states.
- cycrutchfield 3y ago
  >A more fair approach would be a special assessment on net worth. Note that that is probably unconstitutional, aside from just being a bad idea in general (see similar implementations in other countries).