5 ms·

Comparing to other countries is irrelevant. Their economies are smaller and maybe their ratio is stable? Also, the US budget was balanced in 2000. It is possib

Comparing to other countries is irrelevant. Their economies are smaller and maybe their ratio is stable? Also, the US budget was balanced in 2000. It is possible. I have no idea why so many people refuse to accept that there is a growing problem.

amphibian87 2y ago
because it's not? revenue was reduced a ton by the 2017 tax scam. The number one sign of a weak nation state is the inability to collect taxes from their elites.
- Bostonian 2y ago
  Your opposing a tax cut does not make it a "scam".
  - CryptoBanker 2y ago
    >Your opposing a tax cut does not make it a "scam". The scam part comes from how the tax cut was marketed to Americans
- tdb7893 2y ago
  I love how when people talk about making America Great Again they are generally talking about a time where the highest marginal tax rate was like 70% (of course no one paid that but people don't pay the top rate now either). I would love to bring that piece of history back. I love America and have benefitted a lot from it, I'm happy to pay more for my fellow Americans (which I do now via some donations but I need to do more)
  - rayiner 2y ago
    People pay much more of the theoretical top rate today than they did of the higher top rate back then. Federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP has been basically flat since 1950: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S.
    - tdb7893 2y ago
      Interesting, thanks for the info. Though I wish it could be broken down based on income brackets but I can't find that.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/us-income-growth-progressive-tax-code/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/us-income-growth-... “Contrary to common perceptions, the CBO data indicate that: (1) income earned after taxes and transfers has increased over the past several decades for all income groups, (2) the federal tax system is progressive and has become more progressive over the past three decades, and (3) the federal system relies heavily on higher earners to raise revenue for government services and means-tested transfers.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/08/the-us-tax-system-just-keeps-on-getting-more-and-more-progressive/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/08/the-us-t... I can’t find data before 1980.
        woooooo 2y ago
        "Three decades" is doing a lot of work there. Reagan?
        rayiner 2y ago
        The data starts at 1979, before Reagan’s major tax reform in 1986: “In contrast, the effective federal tax rate for the top 1 percent has remained relatively high over this period, ranging between 25 and 35 percent since 1979.” Reagan’s tax reform wasn’t a gimmick: it broadened the tax base (to encompass more kinds of income) and lowered rate to keep the effective tax rate basically the same. The biggest problem is we simply doesn’t tax enough. We want to grow the scope of our government to be more like Europe, but we aren’t willing to tax the middle and upper middle class the way they do in Europe. We had an au pair from Germany. Our effective tax rate in a blue state as a dual income professional couple was the same as she paid at her entry level office job.
- sieabahlpark 2y ago
  [dead]
- anonym29 2y ago
  Since WW2, US tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has never left the range of of 13-20%, and spent a lot of time in a much tighter cluster of 16-17%. [1] This time span covers top marginal tax rates from as high as 90% to as low as 35%. The truth here is that we cannot significantly increase tax revenues by raising tax rates, as when taxes get too high, people are simply incentivized to earn less, or to spend more on finding, developing, or exploiting loopholes in the tax code to reduce their taxes. Accordingly, actual economists have understood for the last 50 years that simply raising taxes blindly can counterintuitively decrease overall tax revenue. This effect is part of what's referred to as the Laffer Curve. [2] But to your first point, that there is no problem, I'd like to point out that interest spending has exceeded defense spending. [3] But hey, don't take my word for that constituting a problem, take it from Jerome Powell, chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve: "The U.S. federal government’s on an unsustainable fiscal path. And that just means that the debt is growing faster than the economy. So, it is unsustainable. I don’t think that’s at all controversial." [4] In summary: • No, everything is not perfectly fine. The United States is on a fiscally unsustainable path. • No, the TCJA is not the big proximal contributor to the problem, routine deficit spending resulting in unsustainable debt is. • No, we can't easily fix the problem by raising taxes on everyone, let alone by only raising them on the rich. Citations: [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp [3a] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA [3b] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDEFX https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDEFX [4] https://thehill.com/homenews/4447860-powell-the-us-is-on-an-unsustainable-fiscal-path/ https://thehill.com/homenews/4447860-powell-the-us-is-on-an-...
  - nrr 2y ago
    I find the appeals to authority unconvincing, especially in light of there being other models concerning taxation like modern monetary theory. It leaves yet more confounding variables uncontrolled for and makes policy decisions based on only one perspective feel myopic at best. None of this stuff is a priori true.
    - 2y ago
- adam_arthur 2y ago
  That's incorrect. Gross federal tax revenue never declined, even in the year after the 2017 tax cuts took effect. https://www.statista.com/statistics/200405/receipts-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/200405/receipts-of-the-u...
SideQuark 2y ago
> Also, the US budget was balanced in 2000 It was balanced due to the Internet bubble providing unsustainable revenues coupled with age demographics. The large cohort of the population had hit peak earnings years. The govt revenue as a % of GDP hit all time highs, not because of careful planning and choices, but because of luck and unsustainable timing. When that bubble popped, and as the cohort in peak earning years shrunk as people aged out of it, so did the revenue, and then the budget became un-balanced again. Certainly the unpaid for Bush Tax cuts have made it worse, but the fall began before Bush even took office, and certainly was well gone by the time Bush passed the tax cuts. It was not balanced by some stroke of government genius.
consteval 2y ago
> people refuse to accept there is a growing problem I think because this implies change. And over the past couple decades it's become more and more acceptable to simply be against all change. It's political viable to be the guy who doesn't change things, and you can slam other people just by saying "look, he changes things!" I mean, lately it feels like there's a lot of political will to take a "do nothing and hope it works" approach to everything. It's frustrating.

amphibian87 2y ago

because it's not? revenue was reduced a ton by the 2017 tax scam. The number one sign of a weak nation state is the inability to collect taxes from their elites.

Bostonian 2y ago
Your opposing a tax cut does not make it a "scam".
- CryptoBanker 2y ago
  >Your opposing a tax cut does not make it a "scam". The scam part comes from how the tax cut was marketed to Americans
tdb7893 2y ago
I love how when people talk about making America Great Again they are generally talking about a time where the highest marginal tax rate was like 70% (of course no one paid that but people don't pay the top rate now either). I would love to bring that piece of history back. I love America and have benefitted a lot from it, I'm happy to pay more for my fellow Americans (which I do now via some donations but I need to do more)
- rayiner 2y ago
  People pay much more of the theoretical top rate today than they did of the higher top rate back then. Federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP has been basically flat since 1950: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S.
  - tdb7893 2y ago
    Interesting, thanks for the info. Though I wish it could be broken down based on income brackets but I can't find that.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/us-income-growth-progressive-tax-code/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/us-income-growth-... “Contrary to common perceptions, the CBO data indicate that: (1) income earned after taxes and transfers has increased over the past several decades for all income groups, (2) the federal tax system is progressive and has become more progressive over the past three decades, and (3) the federal system relies heavily on higher earners to raise revenue for government services and means-tested transfers.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/08/the-us-tax-system-just-keeps-on-getting-more-and-more-progressive/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/08/the-us-t... I can’t find data before 1980.
      - woooooo 2y ago
        "Three decades" is doing a lot of work there. Reagan?
        rayiner 2y ago
        The data starts at 1979, before Reagan’s major tax reform in 1986: “In contrast, the effective federal tax rate for the top 1 percent has remained relatively high over this period, ranging between 25 and 35 percent since 1979.” Reagan’s tax reform wasn’t a gimmick: it broadened the tax base (to encompass more kinds of income) and lowered rate to keep the effective tax rate basically the same. The biggest problem is we simply doesn’t tax enough. We want to grow the scope of our government to be more like Europe, but we aren’t willing to tax the middle and upper middle class the way they do in Europe. We had an au pair from Germany. Our effective tax rate in a blue state as a dual income professional couple was the same as she paid at her entry level office job.
sieabahlpark 2y ago
[dead]
anonym29 2y ago
Since WW2, US tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has never left the range of of 13-20%, and spent a lot of time in a much tighter cluster of 16-17%. [1] This time span covers top marginal tax rates from as high as 90% to as low as 35%. The truth here is that we cannot significantly increase tax revenues by raising tax rates, as when taxes get too high, people are simply incentivized to earn less, or to spend more on finding, developing, or exploiting loopholes in the tax code to reduce their taxes. Accordingly, actual economists have understood for the last 50 years that simply raising taxes blindly can counterintuitively decrease overall tax revenue. This effect is part of what's referred to as the Laffer Curve. [2] But to your first point, that there is no problem, I'd like to point out that interest spending has exceeded defense spending. [3] But hey, don't take my word for that constituting a problem, take it from Jerome Powell, chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve: "The U.S. federal government’s on an unsustainable fiscal path. And that just means that the debt is growing faster than the economy. So, it is unsustainable. I don’t think that’s at all controversial." [4] In summary: • No, everything is not perfectly fine. The United States is on a fiscally unsustainable path. • No, the TCJA is not the big proximal contributor to the problem, routine deficit spending resulting in unsustainable debt is. • No, we can't easily fix the problem by raising taxes on everyone, let alone by only raising them on the rich. Citations: [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp [3a] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA [3b] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDEFX https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDEFX [4] https://thehill.com/homenews/4447860-powell-the-us-is-on-an-unsustainable-fiscal-path/ https://thehill.com/homenews/4447860-powell-the-us-is-on-an-...
- nrr 2y ago
  I find the appeals to authority unconvincing, especially in light of there being other models concerning taxation like modern monetary theory. It leaves yet more confounding variables uncontrolled for and makes policy decisions based on only one perspective feel myopic at best. None of this stuff is a priori true.
  - 2y ago
adam_arthur 2y ago
That's incorrect. Gross federal tax revenue never declined, even in the year after the 2017 tax cuts took effect. https://www.statista.com/statistics/200405/receipts-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/200405/receipts-of-the-u...

SideQuark 2y ago

> Also, the US budget was balanced in 2000 It was balanced due to the Internet bubble providing unsustainable revenues coupled with age demographics. The large cohort of the population had hit peak earnings years. The govt revenue as a % of GDP hit all time highs, not because of careful planning and choices, but because of luck and unsustainable timing. When that bubble popped, and as the cohort in peak earning years shrunk as people aged out of it, so did the revenue, and then the budget became un-balanced again. Certainly the unpaid for Bush Tax cuts have made it worse, but the fall began before Bush even took office, and certainly was well gone by the time Bush passed the tax cuts. It was not balanced by some stroke of government genius.

consteval 2y ago

> people refuse to accept there is a growing problem I think because this implies change. And over the past couple decades it's become more and more acceptable to simply be against all change. It's political viable to be the guy who doesn't change things, and you can slam other people just by saying "look, he changes things!" I mean, lately it feels like there's a lot of political will to take a "do nothing and hope it works" approach to everything. It's frustrating.