The biggest drivers of fiscal responsibility under Clinton were the new technology paradigm and a bulldog in Gingrich who forced fiscal restraint. Admittedly, we have not had that combo since the 1990s.
You seem to be suggesting that all and everywhere it’s a taxing problem and not a spending problem. There is so much waste, fraud, abuse, overlap, and inefficiency in government spending that we could solve the entire deficit problem just by making cuts and making it more productive. Entitlements alone (even though they are “off balance sheet” but not off cash flow), along with interest on the debt eat up a ridiculous an inordinate amount of the deficit.
You want to reform SS, for example??? Alright, let’s do that. Let’s increase the taxable base, but let’s also gradually increase the age of eligibility, allow a chunk of it to be invested (so that your overall return adjusted for inflation isn’t actually negative on that money set aside for you), and perhaps index it to PCE instead of CPI. Or, perhaps not index it all, only raise it relative to GNP in any given year.
Tax policy issues are tricky, but, generally, I’m not a fan of confiscating someone else’s risk capital that can otherwise be spent or loaned through an economy just to inefficiently subsidize someone else’s government pet projects that only seem to grow and never seem to be audited or produce tangible results. A higher corporate tax? It will just cause even more companies and capital to flee for greener pastures in friendlier tax domiciles.
Finally, I’m not sure how much you guys want the rich to pay. They are already paying the bulk of Federal tax and state tax in progressive states. If you want to increase the tax on them, again, fine, but then everyone needs to pay taxes, including the lowest income strata. You do not get to vote if you don’t pay any federal or state income tax. Simple. Everyone need to have a real, tangible stake in this country.
I appreciate the question actually, because this is actually important, unlike all the superficial and peripheral bull$hit about abortion, J6, and poorly attended rallies. Such nonsense. Spoon fed by our media to the sheep.
I’ll leave you with this:
“In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.”
Amazing how nobody can articulate a well-reasoned response to this or refute the tax foundation article facts. Just downvote because it doesn’t “feel” or sound right. Rhetoric is what matters, not actions or lack thereof.
I am not bullish on the US of A anymore. This ain’t the “Halcyon Days” in the wake of 9/11 and the temporary unity and solidarity that yielded. Just like nobody really even remembers whar the Revolutionary War was about or the great cost and sacrifice entailed to procure our freedom. No representation without taxation. Simple. Must be a lot of non-working students here.
Actually those of us that work don’t ONLY post on letsrun and sometimes have to work. That article only focuses on income tax, which leaves out SS and Medicare payroll taxes. I’m unsure if anyone ends up not paying those if you are a super low earner, but as someone else pointed out, you can’t only focus on income taxes. As that website indicates, income taxes only make up 45% of total US tax revenue. So it’s not fair to say that people who pay no income tax pay no taxes. it’s also preposterous that you believe people that pay no income taxes should not be eligible to vote. Electoral college votes for states are based on total population - not income tax paying population. people matter, including those that don’t make enough to pay income taxes (children, old people that don’t work, low income people).
also, you gloss over the reality that the federal government has to take in some tax revenue. and a continued desire to cut taxes, without cutting major drivers of spend (defense, medicare, SS) will lead you to your dreaded debt problem. you ‘earned’ the money so don’t want anyone to tax it. what did Obama say - you didn’t build it! he’s right. You, other high earners, and corporations need to pay your fair share and stop trying to dodge paying taxes.
No man, speaking of AI, you have to do better than a Demagogued, wildly partisan response. Reducing access to social security and voting? Not even close. I just know one is unsustainable without reform, which, clearly you don’t, and the other should only be reserved for taxpaying citizens who have a stake in the economy. Why is that offensive?
The AI or the person you got your essay from literally wrote, "let's also gradually increase the age of eligibility" for social security. That means reducing access. Did you not even read the essay before you posted it?
It means solvency, bro. There’s more than one way to save social security and raising taxes, which takes money from other productive uses and investments is not the only, or even best solution. Raising the age of eligibility by even six months is hardly reducing access. The point is to keep access by making it solvent. Are you not able to truly understand basic economics and nuance?
The AI or the person you got your essay from literally wrote, "let's also gradually increase the age of eligibility" for social security. That means reducing access. Did you not even read the essay before you posted it?
It means solvency, bro. There’s more than one way to save social security and raising taxes, which takes money from other productive uses and investments is not the only, or even best solution. Raising the age of eligibility by even six months is hardly reducing access. The point is to keep access by making it solvent. Are you not able to truly understand basic economics and nuance?
and there's another thing we agree on.
SS has to increase the age of eligibility. (and the benefit of short posts)
Yeah, I’m not going to disagree with any of what you wrote, though, ironically (per my original Clinton comments) the technology and AI marvel continues to act as a tailwind and we’ve bought ever more of this growth with increasing levels of government credit. That is not a paradigm for long-term flourishing. By the way, a stronger dollar follows higher interest rates, no? And what is annualized inflation (not exempting food, energy, or housing and rent equivalents)? Inflation was government created. Supply shocks were a temporal and small, though real part of it.
Nonetheless, nothing you wrote is germaine to the tax policy discussion, which is what the original poster asked about. You are answering a question that nobody asked. Agip, as long as I continue to call you out on your “existential threat to Democracy” party line, you’re never going to agree with anything I say.
not true.
We both agree that the country is heading for a financial crisis because no one wants to reign in the debt.
Ok, amen. Crisis being the operative word. Good, I’m glad you can see it. I will respond to the original poster in due time, even though nowhere did I ever advocate LOWERING taxes. I’m just asking if there are better ways to go about this. Also, he assumes that I didn’t spend many years working my a$$ off in school, oh, I don’t know, perhaps making partner and being a rainmaker, maybe investing in a bunch of multi-family projects and actually creating jobs and paying income along the way… something I guarantee 99% of LRCers haven’t done or would even know how to do, let alone have the courage to take the risk.
So, is the answer to reining in the debt one of merely higher taxation? That’s a good strategy to discourage investment and encourage capital flight. Which helps nobody. Is that the solution?
It means solvency, bro. There’s more than one way to save social security and raising taxes, which takes money from other productive uses and investments is not the only, or even best solution. Raising the age of eligibility by even six months is hardly reducing access. The point is to keep access by making it solvent. Are you not able to truly understand basic economics and nuance?
and there's another thing we agree on.
SS has to increase the age of eligibility. (and the benefit of short posts)
Kamala eviscerated Trump. That's it. I love watching the Trump worshippers loosing their minds over it. They can blame the moderators all they want. If Trump can't stand up to David Muir and Linsey Davis, how can he stand up to world dictators? And if Trump is dumb enough to take the bait every time, he's too dumb to be president.
We both agree that the country is heading for a financial crisis because no one wants to reign in the debt.
Ok, amen. Crisis being the operative word. Good, I’m glad you can see it. I will respond to the original poster in due time, even though nowhere did I ever advocate LOWERING taxes. I’m just asking if there are better ways to go about this. Also, he assumes that I didn’t spend many years working my a$ off in school, oh, I don’t know, perhaps making partner and being a rainmaker, maybe investing in a bunch of multi-family projects and actually creating jobs and paying income along the way… something I guarantee 99% of LRCers haven’t done or would even know how to do, let alone have the courage to take the risk.
So, is the answer to reining in the debt one of merely higher taxation? That’s a good strategy to discourage investment and encourage capital flight. Which helps nobody. Is that the solution?
obvi there is a correct balance of tax and spend.
Everything seemed to be going manageably until the trump tax cuts and then the covid spending.
a real shame we kept spending in 2023 and 2024 after the covid stimulus was no longer needed. That is probably the biggest mistake of the biden admin.
Do taxes need to come up? Yeah, they do.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
It means solvency, bro. There’s more than one way to save social security and raising taxes, which takes money from other productive uses and investments is not the only, or even best solution. Raising the age of eligibility by even six months is hardly reducing access. The point is to keep access by making it solvent. Are you not able to truly understand basic economics and nuance?
and there's another thing we agree on.
SS has to increase the age of eligibility. (and the benefit of short posts)
See how America can heal?
I don't think that's a particularly controversial topic from a financial accounting perspective. The issue is that neither party is inclined to muck with SS because they'd probably get killed in the next election cycle.
You won't get much push back on the concept that there is wasteful spending in government but you'd have a hard time reaching a consensus on what bits ought to be reeled in or eliminated. Hence the past few decades have been characterized by the GOP cutting taxes, nominally to starve popular programs without having to live with the fallout of cutting popular programs and the Dems trying to expand programs while finding a way to increase revenue without raising taxes on the largest parts of the population.
Not certain why you continue to put words in my mouth. At no point did I ever refer to any of those referenced by you as "far left." Par for the course, I guess.
To compare Biden's governance to that of Clinton is laughable; to suggest Kamala would govern in a Clinton-esque fashion is even moreso. Frankly, if her policies resembled anything near Clinton's, I would be actively supporting her campaign.
Are you not aware that Clinton was one of the first big name people to endorse Kamala after Biden stepped down? Did you miss Clinton's speech supporting Kamala at the DNC?
Conflating Clinton's endorsement with how he actually governed makes no sense. Using that logic, do you expect Kamala to adopt Cheney's policies too?
on SS...we're living longer. not really reducing access.
trump IS an existential threat to democracy, certainly.
he led an organized multi-pronged attempt to overthrow an election so he could stay in power.
then he said we should terminate the constitution so he could stay in power.
Shame on anyone who supports it.
pretty plain to see.
Always expressed with a heavy dose of sarcasm on my end. I don’t have to support Trump or condone his behavior at all to point out the severe and abrasive irony of calling someone an existential threat to Democracy in the wake of the biggest governmental assault on individual liberty w the institutionalized COVID response, the forced coup of Joe Biden and installation of a candidate who was never primaried or voted on, the severe neglect of the border allowing the biggest influx of illegal immigrants ever for three years before seeking a political win of “bipartisanship” while tucking significant Ukraine and Israel aid into the poison pill bill, and the “Democratization” of those soon to be Democratic voters with or without government ID. To say nothing about the debt and entitlement crisis and perpetual war.
Now, you want to say existential threat to the Republic? Perhaps I will allow that.
Ok, amen. Crisis being the operative word. Good, I’m glad you can see it. I will respond to the original poster in due time, even though nowhere did I ever advocate LOWERING taxes. I’m just asking if there are better ways to go about this. Also, he assumes that I didn’t spend many years working my a$ off in school, oh, I don’t know, perhaps making partner and being a rainmaker, maybe investing in a bunch of multi-family projects and actually creating jobs and paying income along the way… something I guarantee 99% of LRCers haven’t done or would even know how to do, let alone have the courage to take the risk.
So, is the answer to reining in the debt one of merely higher taxation? That’s a good strategy to discourage investment and encourage capital flight. Which helps nobody. Is that the solution?
a real shame we kept spending in 2023 and 2024 after the covid stimulus was no longer needed. That is probably the biggest mistake of the biden admin.
I don’t know about biggest, but, yeah. Yuge mistake.
By the way, I do give Obama credit for the exploratory tax reform commission that he was a catalyst for. However, I do not give him credit for not using some political capital to author a bill, even after he couldn’t get a supermajority. Holding your hands up and saying, “See, I tried,” is not good governing. That bill was both “raise some taxes and cut some spending.” That was one of the last, best chances to right the ship. When debt/GDP was still well below 100%.
on SS...we're living longer. not really reducing access.
trump IS an existential threat to democracy, certainly.
he led an organized multi-pronged attempt to overthrow an election so he could stay in power.
then he said we should terminate the constitution so he could stay in power.
Shame on anyone who supports it.
pretty plain to see.
Always expressed with a heavy dose of sarcasm on my end. I don’t have to support Trump or condone his behavior at all to point out the severe and abrasive irony of calling someone an existential threat to Democracy in the wake of the biggest governmental assault on individual liberty w the institutionalized COVID response, the forced coup of Joe Biden and installation of a candidate who was never primaried or voted on, the severe neglect of the border allowing the biggest influx of illegal immigrants ever for three years before seeking a political win of “bipartisanship” while tucking significant Ukraine and Israel aid into the poison pill bill, and the “Democratization” of those soon to be Democratic voters with or without government ID. To say nothing about the debt and entitlement crisis and perpetual war.
Now, you want to say existential threat to the Republic? Perhaps I will allow that.
That’s part junk, part nonsense, part policy.
if Americans don’t like it, they can vote those people out.
But if trump had his way and America didn’t like it…we couldn’t vote him out. He tried to terminate the constitution so he could stay in power. His words.
different levels of threat. Obvi trump’s is far far higher than the Dems.
SS has to increase the age of eligibility. (and the benefit of short posts)
See how America can heal?
But, but, but… you’re reducing access!!!!😡🤬🤯.
And Trump is an EXISTENTIAL threat to Democracy!
Yes, if you raise the retirement age from 67 to 68 or higher, that means you are reducing access for people who are 67.
When I critiqued your proposal, I said, "good luck with that." The reason I said that is it's an extremely unpopular proposal. Nearly 80% of Americans are against raising the retirement age.
There's a reason that Social Security is called "the third rail of American politics" – as in, touch it and die. Most Americans – especially seniors – are fiercely protective when it comes to their retirement benefits. A fina...
-Trump bombed Syria. -Trump also bombed Yemen. -Trump also bombed Somalia. -Trump dropped the "mother of all bombs" on Afghanistan and bragged about it. -Under Biden-Harris, fewer soldiers have died in combat than in any administration since Jimmy Carter. -Trump assassinated a foreign military leader. -In Iraq and Syria alone, Trump drone strikes killed an estimated 13,400 civilians, per Airwars. -Trump INCREASED troop levels in Afghanistan by 25%. -Trump bragged abt relaxing "rules of engagement" in Afghanistan, which nearly doubled civilian casualties. -Trump freed 5k Taliban, including the terrorist now running Afghanistan. -Trump pulled out of the INF Treaty. -Trump pulled out of the Open Skies Treaty. -Trump LOVES Putin's slaughter of Ukraine civilians, calling it "genius" and "savvy." Trump pulled out of the Iran nuke treaty, even though our military insisted Iran was complying. So any future Iranian nukes will be 100% thanks to Trump.
