5 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoThat’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 agoReturning 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 agoRight, my comment was addressing fairness outside of the greater context of current laws, which while slow t change can change .
- kccqzy 3y agoCongress 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).
- pylua 3y agoIt probably is currently. But it’s also a bad idea to entertain the alternative which is generational wealth is the only substantial wealth that is attainable.
- cycrutchfield 3y agoMost “generational” wealth is frittered away in a few generations. The problem tends to solve itself over time.
- Guvante 3y agoOur highest tax bracket is 37% and kicks in at almost $700k for married filing jointly. We have a lot of headroom for more taxes.
- mschuster91 3y ago> That’s more than cooking the economy , that is literally killing the American dream. People past the 10 million $ mark have already succeeded at the American Dream - even at measly 1% return rates, they and their offspring don't have to work a single day in their lives again. They can be taxed without the economy even breaking into a sweat. Personally, I think there should be a hard wealth cap at some point between 100M to 1 billion dollars. "Trickle down" has been proven to be outright bullshit, and the uber rich have political power similar to landed gentry, in some cases nearly as much as kings back in the days. It's enough.
- pylua 3y agoIt’s not about current millionaires it’s about people who, due to higher taxes, may never be able to accumulate that level of wealth due to starting with little before the taxes are changed.
- foldingmoney 3y ago>A more fair approach would be a special assessment on net worth. how would a wealth tax incentivise people to save more and spend less?
- pylua 3y agoI’m not sure if it encourages saving but I can’t think of another way to tackle the debt that is more fair to people starting out and that incentivizes people to participate in the economy.
- cycrutchfield 3y agoHow is it fair to the people who worked hard to earn that wealth over the course of their lifetime?
- pylua 3y agoIt’s not a fair situation to anyone — honestly it is a sad scenario. To be clear a special assessment does not imply that a higher wealth person pays a higher percentage of their wealth. I am not advocating for that. It should be pointed out that people who currently work hard aren’t rewarded the same way people were when a lower tax environment existed. Do you think that is fair , if the taxes were raised significantly to cover the debt ? Specifically debt that the government accumulated before you even entered the workforce.
- jeffbee 3y agoThe TCJA 2017 did not measurably increase GDP so it would be odd if reversing it were to measurably decrease GDP growth.
- ec109685 3y agoHow is it possible tease apart what does and does not increase the gdp.
- Guvante 3y agoThe TJCA increased our deficit by 1.2% of GDP and the economy grew by 0.7 to 3.5% in the two years from when it passed to COVID making measurements meaningless. Assuming the upper end of that and half the usual 2% YoY growth we paid 1.2% of our GDP for a 1% increase in growth... So literally nothing as reducing taxes causing an increase of the same amount in GDP isn't meaningful. And that is assuming some generous conditions.
- ec109685 3y agoHow do you know what the GDP would have been without the tax cut? While these cuts never “pay for themselves”, raising the gdp at all is a lower bar.
- Guvante 3y agoI don't think it raised the GDP as evidenced by the GDP normally increasing by 2%. Saying "but it would have been lower" is pointless.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoHard disagree. I can’t believe anyone by MBAs and VCs seriously think we should go back to ZIRP.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> If the feds wanted to cool off the economy they’d be much better off raising taxes than raising interest rates Or cutting spending. Either way, fiscal policy creates and destroys money much more powerfully and equitably.
- throw0101c 3y ago> Or cutting spending. In the 2022 US federal budget, out of the $6.3T worth of total spending, $4.1T was mandatory: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. $1.7T was discretionary (top item being DoD), and $0.5T interest payments. Revenues were $4.9T. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget What do you want to cut in discretionary spending?
- HDThoreaun 3y agoMandatory spending is still at congress's will. They can absolutely cut that money in the next years budget.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Mandatory spending is still at congress's will Unclear. If structured as a promise, it could be considered backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. That’s Constitutionally protected.
- sershe 3y agoDoes that cover full implementation of the program? Medicare and medicaid (that, to be clear, I'd abolish in a heartbeat with only a transition period for readjustment) could simply be legislated into an unusable state. E.g. slash provider payouts by an order of magnitude and see how many doctors still accept it - nearly as good abolishing it.