From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
Note that by 2050, the debt from the Bush tax cuts alone will equal 100% of GDP. 100% of GDP. Say that to yourself slowly a few times and savor it.
Two take-homes from this:
Any Republican who claims to be worried about the deficit but wants to extend the tax cuts (which is basically all of them) is a liar or an idiot or both.
It's profoundly depressing and irresponsible that Obama is willing to even consider making the middle class tax cuts permanent. IIRC, the ten year cost of the tax cuts is about $4 Trillion (with a T), of the which the cost of the upper-class tax cuts are $700Bn. So Obama making the correct argument that we can't afford the tax cuts for the rich, but ignoring the much more pressing fact that we can't afford the rest of the cuts either. Not that it matters, since Dems have so backed themselves into a corner that they'll all be made permanent anyway.
We are governed by idiots, truly.
6 comments:
Far be it from me to disagree that we are governed by idiots, because indeed we are, but also note that without the tax cut extensions, we're still 200% over GDP, so the damage is profound with or without.
I think our taxes are too low. I think that we can do more good by pooling our money than by spending such a large poriton of it solely for our own individual interests; particularly that portion of our money that exceeds the living wage. (What shall we say, 4 x the poverty line, for that?)
Typically, I disagree. I happen to believe that when people keep their wealth that fosters motivation and innovation. The history of the 20th century bears that out.
That having been said, there's a line and anything in the extreme is damaging.
1. Matt, re: debt w/o Bush tax cuts. Yes, but remember that also assumes the continued runaway inflation of Medicare and Medicaid. So we need to fix both.
2. I don't think people "keeping their wealth" per se is what fosters innovation. It's the creation and maintenance of a marketplace that fosters innovation. Yes, wealth drives the marketplace, of course. But it's a means to an end, not then end in itself. To the degree that a free & fair marketplace exists, it should be encouraged and left as unrestricted as possible. However, there are many sectors in which there really is no market, and collective resources are better. Some of these services (e.g., unemployment insurance) are also quite stimulative to the economy, so that can be a win-win.
Some of these services (e.g., unemployment insurance) are also quite stimulative to the economy, so that can be a win-win.
Certainly true, but I would imagine our expectations of what could be more stimulative than non-taxation will be very different.
Plus, Jim brought up capping wealth, which is a frightening notion and one that clearly is impossible. Top-down design of wealth distribution has always been a disaster.
[First response so full of typos I couldn't read it.]
Plus, Jim brought up capping wealth, which is a frightening notion and one that clearly is impossible.
That is not what I intended to say here. My reference to pooling resources as better was intended only to suggest a higher tax rate on the higher portions of our income. I think we need to pool more of our resources to be more efficient--that is, have a higher marginal tax rate. I recognize that the lower portion of our income goes more to necessities and it would be harmful to take away that money from individuals given our current system in which individuals are responsible for their own necessities.
Post a Comment