Yes, I think most people are patriotic.
I’m delighted to be American. Where did you get the impression I wasn’t?
Arithmetic exercise #1.
Scenario #1 (Now): The “Top 1%” earn 20% of total income and pay 40% of total personal income tax (or 20% of a more broadly defined total tax).
Scenario #2 (Some hypothetical future date): Due to a continued rise in inequality the “Top 1%” earn 40% of total income but, due to making the tax code less progressive, pay only 50% of total income tax (or 25% of a more broadly defined total tax.)
The rich pay 40% of the total tax in #1 and 50% in #2. In which scenario are the rich subjected to a heavier burden?
@ spifflog — Care to take a stab at this?
You appeared to be addressing me, despite that I never mentioning cutting DoD at all, let alone by half, and certainly mentioned no golden egg. Who’s frustrated about imposing false stereotypes?
Anyway, my query to you was very precise and sought to determine if your numeracy was sufficient to understand why the statistic you quoted which ignored how large the rich’s income was was flawed — flawed to the point where it can be fairly described as propaganda directed at those with poor numeracy.
I guess your answer to Exercise 1 is that the 50% rate laid out there is more oppressive than the 40% rate. Got it.
Arithmetic Exercise #2.
Dick has a salary of $60,000 and pays 10% tax on the first $100,000 thereof.
Jane has a salary of $1,000,000 and pays 10% tax on the first $100,000 thereof.
What is Dick’s net tax rate? Jane’s?
No, it is not.
You are focusing on some political interpretation of the idea of borrowing by the government because of your political colors. It has no coherency outside of the political posturing.
No, borrowing does not work the same between an individual and a company. This is simply the simplistic illiteracy in financial economics. The borrowing characteristics of a company and an individual are very different… the credit analysis of the individuals and the credit analysis of the companies (excepting the small proprietors who essentially manage their companies indeed as their own pocketbooks and the lifespan of their companies is not different from their own).
The analysis of the borrowings for a company, like that of a state, are based on factors including the potential invest and the potential for the added returns. The extension of the terms and the spreads for the timing for the states and for the companies - the corporations that raise money via the bonds more properly - are on time frames and conditions that have no sense and are impossible for an individual.
The consumer individual borrowings almost never can respond to such analyses.
but of course I am only a financial economist in the investment sector, so what do we who actualy place the investment capital know…
That’s how it seems to go. Republicans have been doing this game now for at least 2 decades. One could argue all the way back into George HW Bush’s term that there were fiscally responsible Replublicans. But not anymore.
The Dems aren’t exactly fiscal saints either. But they’re less of a scam in this area than Republicans.
Yes; doctors, nurses, firefighters, teachers, soldiers. They get paid for what they do, but the good ones go above and beyond the call out of a sense of duty to the rest of us.
And I’m not saying that lots of rich people don’t find ways to contribute to the common good, or that they didn’t work hard for what they have. I just dislike the attitude that rich people have to be offered incentives to remain Americans.
It may surprise people, but the notion that the rich will flee if they are taxed comes up sometimes in Scandinavia as well. And generally they don’t actually do that when they get taxed, its a bit like people who say they’ll emigrate if the other candidate wins. I mean, the theory that the rich flee taxation have been tested in a few countries now. Most rich people do not flee. I suppose there are knock-on effects to living in a low-crime, well run country that are hard to reproduce in a low-tax nations of just your own wealth.
I’m saying that it may be a regressive tax, but it’s paid in a progressive way. The SS tax is capped, but so is the pay out, and the pay out structure is progressive. There are two sides of this coin, the tax and the payout. We have to look at both sides of this to understand the entire program.
That’s fine, but that has nothing to do with understanding the issue at hand, which was the tax burden on the wealthy versus the poor. Nothing I addressed has anything to do with whether Social Security is good, fair, or otherwise – I was only speaking about who pays taxes and the relative burdens.
Well, that’s completely misleading. Here are CBO’s projections of future deficits, with the first number being the estimate from the late Obama Administration, and the second number being the most recent estimate (or actuals from 2017).
2017: -559; -665
2018: -487; -804
2019: -601; -981
2020: -684; -1,008
2021: -797; -1,123
2022: -959; -1,276
2023: -1,000; -1,273
2024: -1,027; -1,244
2025: -1,165; -1,352
Your implied argument that deficits would go up regardless is belied by the fact that the projected deficits have grown by roughly 35 percent.
One of the very few areas where “both sides” do actually “do it” to a certain extent, and the simplistic analysis of the situation is correct: Democrats are tax-and-spend, GOP is spend-and-spend.
Correct: GOP is tax cut and spend.
It’s a generic you, HD.
This looks like confirmation of the statement “projections near the end of the Obama administration had us scheduled to hit trillion-dollar deficits again, regardless of who won the 2016 election”, not a rebuttal of it.
Sure, if someone is so obtuse to confuse the years 2023 and 2020, and ignore $2.5 trillion in additional debt during that time.
To that end, I guess there’s no real difference between a toddler dying from leukemia and a grand-grandma passing away at 104, because we are all projected to die anyways. Right?
Okay, then as a financial economist, tell me what part of this you think isn’t true:
How do you think borrowing works?
As a bonus, tell me what part of that you think is political.
The part of the irrelevant generalities and banalities that bring absolutely zero understanding.
Like observing that an Ant and a Lion are both the animals and then declaring this an insightful declaration for discussing some birds.
I have already indicated that the understanding of the structure and the return to borrowing is compeltely different between the corporate type entity - if it is the State as the non human person as or the corporation
If it were a useful analysis in the credit sector to treat a corporate or a state borrowing like a personal borrowing we would do so. We do not.
the political is your attempt to collapse the complete differences so that a badly informed analogy can be used.
I didn’t “confuse the years”. I didn’t make any claim about the years at all, just a statement of fact about the budget projections at the end of the Obama administration. I think it’s a fair observation to note how those projections have changed since Trump took over, but there’s no need for all the invective (“completely misleading”, “so obtuse”). Besides, it does nothing to change the fact that my statement was correct.
Of course you think your statement is correct. I don’t think anyone really argues with the idea that deficits aren’t a big deal to conservatives when conservatives are in power; and they are a huge deal to conservatives when liberals are in power. I think that’s the underlying rationale you’re actually espousing.
This is in contrast to what you typically find with liberals, who hew to the mainstream Keynesian view that deficits aren’t really a problem if the economy is in the tank, but are a big problem when the economy is doing well.
I think Democrats are less dishonest about it than Republicans. Both sides do it. But it’s not an equal thing.
For a counterintuitive answer to the OP’s question, it’s worth considering “modern monetary theory,” of which Keynes said "“[The] argument is impeccable. But heaven help anyone who tries to put it across.” (He was talking about a proto-form of the MMT argument, to be clear.)
A decent intro (to me, a layman, anyway) here. Two key points:
My nickel summary as it addresses the OP: we shouldn’t worry about balancing the budget because of “the national debt.” Or “paying it off.” Everything depends on context. (I don’t think, to be clear, that MMT theorists would say the US government is doing a good job.)
Another journalistic summary for laymen here.
I’m not qualified to explain or debate MMT – I’m not a believer, although it seems to make sense to my dumb old brain. But it’s worth checking out as an alternative to the “balancing our national checkbook” approach to debt/deficits that politicians love to trot out.