3 ms·

Have you done the maths to check if that would have fixed things?

ChicagoDave 2y ago
No but it's not rocket science. In 1960 the top tax rate was 91%. In 1980 it was 70%. Reagan dropped it to 35% and it's stayed below 40% since. Then add in that corporations and the wealthy have moved away from having normal income that isn't taxed (loans backed by assets) and you've lost half the tax revenue that paid for cheap housing, nearly free healthcare and public college and you have a healthy society and middle class. But then to screw the pooch even more, Bush printed 5 trillion for his wars and two tax cuts. Trump printed money for his tax cuts too. (these expenses were never in the annual budget - they just printed the money) Tesla, one of the richest corporations in our country just reported 0% tax in three years. Our national debt has nothing to do with the annual budget and expenses, including USAID and helping Ukraine. It is 100% because of tax policy.
- Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
  While tax cuts do contribute to the national debt, it is not accurate to say the national debt is "100% of tax policy". Tax revenue as a % of GDP has been pretty stable for a long time. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S So what actually is driving the national debt higher? The never popular answer is entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) + interest, which is exasperated by an aging population. In fact, almost all future debt growth is driven by these programs. The rest of the budget is expected to balance out. Tax revenue is expected to increase, and discretionary spending is expected to fall as a % of GDP.
  - ChicagoDave 2y ago
    GDP is 27 trillion. The government "borrowed" from the SS fund. That's why it's endangered. The money was there and it should still be there. The government also screwed the postal service by taking their profits (one of the few things in government that actually makes one) and then yells at them for not making enough income. We need a flat corporate and billionaire tax that has no loopholes.
    - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
      The government borrows money from Social Security, and the government pays that money back with interest. So what you are complaining about is actually a transfer of money from the general fund into Social Security. And when we talk about the impending insolvency of Social Security, we're talking about the point at which this subsidy stops (because they won't have any surplus funds to lend), and the program is forced to cut benefits to match what payroll taxes bring in.
  - consp 2y ago
    Also very predictable exenditures over time, which increase with an aging population with decreased firtility rates. Which have little to do with actual firtility but are just a measure of kids vs parent ratio, it might play a role though. Everyone always forgets that it is entirely predictable but nobody does something about it because it hurts. Also doesn't help if you borrow against the money put in. The US is not alone in taking money from the baby's/old peoples fund unfortunately, same happened here but worse the money was just taken. Although it was mostly spend on education and construction so there is that at least.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    How is social security adding to debt when its funded by payroll tax? And the government has borrowed 3 trillion from it. Replace Medicare and Medicaid with a socialised 1 payer system as it would be much cheaper. The numbers I saw was that the current system costs 48t and 1 payer system would be 32t. And negotiate down costs and all materials and drugs on top of that.
    - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
      >How is social security adding to debt when its funded by payroll tax? Simple - the payroll tax doesn't raise enough funds to cover the full cost of the program. Even if it did raise 100% of the needed funds, that's still money Congress cannot tax a second time. At the end of the day, the government has two buckets: income and expenses. It doesn't matter whether some of that income is called "payroll tax", and some of it is called "income tax". Every cent raised through a payroll tax, is a cent that cannot be raised through an income tax, and visa-versa. >Replace Medicare and Medicaid with a socialised 1 payer system as it would be much cheaper. Yet...none of the advocates of a socialized healthcare system have ever put forward a real bill that can be rated by the Congressional Budget Office. Instead, they put forward shell bills which importantly lack any funding mechanisms. > The numbers I saw was that the current system costs 48t and 1 payer system would be 32t. The current system is divided between public and private spending. Even if you could reduce the overall cost to 32T, that's still a net cost increase on the public side. How will the government raise that money? The advocates for social healthcare never say.
      - Hikikomori 2y ago
        I mean it ran at a surplus for 30 years until 2009 when boomers started retiring, still has over 3T in assets. How can you claim it's adding to the deficit? If it's removed and replaced with nothing do you just let old people die in the streets? Or did you want to keep the tax but stop paying out? I don't see how the outcome is different then. Increase income tax on the wealthy? It's not hard, you used to do it.
        Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
- Daz1 2y ago
  >In 1960 the top tax rate was 91% How many times does this need to be debunked?
  - jquery 2y ago
    I just googled it, and it's true. So there's nothing to debunk.

No but it's not rocket science. In 1960 the top tax rate was 91%. In 1980 it was 70%. Reagan dropped it to 35% and it's stayed below 40% since. Then add in that corporations and the wealthy have moved away from having normal income that isn't taxed (loans backed by assets) and you've lost half the tax revenue that paid for cheap housing, nearly free healthcare and public college and you have a healthy society and middle class. But then to screw the pooch even more, Bush printed 5 trillion for his wars and two tax cuts. Trump printed money for his tax cuts too. (these expenses were never in the annual budget - they just printed the money) Tesla, one of the richest corporations in our country just reported 0% tax in three years. Our national debt has nothing to do with the annual budget and expenses, including USAID and helping Ukraine. It is 100% because of tax policy.

Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
While tax cuts do contribute to the national debt, it is not accurate to say the national debt is "100% of tax policy". Tax revenue as a % of GDP has been pretty stable for a long time. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S So what actually is driving the national debt higher? The never popular answer is entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) + interest, which is exasperated by an aging population. In fact, almost all future debt growth is driven by these programs. The rest of the budget is expected to balance out. Tax revenue is expected to increase, and discretionary spending is expected to fall as a % of GDP.
- ChicagoDave 2y ago
  GDP is 27 trillion. The government "borrowed" from the SS fund. That's why it's endangered. The money was there and it should still be there. The government also screwed the postal service by taking their profits (one of the few things in government that actually makes one) and then yells at them for not making enough income. We need a flat corporate and billionaire tax that has no loopholes.
  - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
    The government borrows money from Social Security, and the government pays that money back with interest. So what you are complaining about is actually a transfer of money from the general fund into Social Security. And when we talk about the impending insolvency of Social Security, we're talking about the point at which this subsidy stops (because they won't have any surplus funds to lend), and the program is forced to cut benefits to match what payroll taxes bring in.
- consp 2y ago
  Also very predictable exenditures over time, which increase with an aging population with decreased firtility rates. Which have little to do with actual firtility but are just a measure of kids vs parent ratio, it might play a role though. Everyone always forgets that it is entirely predictable but nobody does something about it because it hurts. Also doesn't help if you borrow against the money put in. The US is not alone in taking money from the baby's/old peoples fund unfortunately, same happened here but worse the money was just taken. Although it was mostly spend on education and construction so there is that at least.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  How is social security adding to debt when its funded by payroll tax? And the government has borrowed 3 trillion from it. Replace Medicare and Medicaid with a socialised 1 payer system as it would be much cheaper. The numbers I saw was that the current system costs 48t and 1 payer system would be 32t. And negotiate down costs and all materials and drugs on top of that.
  - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
    >How is social security adding to debt when its funded by payroll tax? Simple - the payroll tax doesn't raise enough funds to cover the full cost of the program. Even if it did raise 100% of the needed funds, that's still money Congress cannot tax a second time. At the end of the day, the government has two buckets: income and expenses. It doesn't matter whether some of that income is called "payroll tax", and some of it is called "income tax". Every cent raised through a payroll tax, is a cent that cannot be raised through an income tax, and visa-versa. >Replace Medicare and Medicaid with a socialised 1 payer system as it would be much cheaper. Yet...none of the advocates of a socialized healthcare system have ever put forward a real bill that can be rated by the Congressional Budget Office. Instead, they put forward shell bills which importantly lack any funding mechanisms. > The numbers I saw was that the current system costs 48t and 1 payer system would be 32t. The current system is divided between public and private spending. Even if you could reduce the overall cost to 32T, that's still a net cost increase on the public side. How will the government raise that money? The advocates for social healthcare never say.
    - Hikikomori 2y ago
      I mean it ran at a surplus for 30 years until 2009 when boomers started retiring, still has over 3T in assets. How can you claim it's adding to the deficit? If it's removed and replaced with nothing do you just let old people die in the streets? Or did you want to keep the tax but stop paying out? I don't see how the outcome is different then. Increase income tax on the wealthy? It's not hard, you used to do it.
      - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
Daz1 2y ago
>In 1960 the top tax rate was 91% How many times does this need to be debunked?
- jquery 2y ago
  I just googled it, and it's true. So there's nothing to debunk.