# Let's be forthright about the tax cuts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 15, 2018, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407 "2018-09-15T21:08:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/181 "2018-09-22T18:36:54Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Finally, and especially important, you’ve drunk the GOP Kool-Aid if you think 30% of the economy spent by government is outrageously high. Please remember, again, that most of the bureaucrats and regulatories are “rounding errors.” Other than military (and support for veterans) and debt interest the “huge” government spending is spent on educating, and providing medical care and pensions for many millions of Americans. Were I to implement a poll test before allowing people to vote, one of the questions would be: Government Spending is: A. A waste. B. A significant contributor to the economy. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/182 "2018-09-22T19:14:24Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Now mind you, imagine the fix SS would have been if the Republicans had their way in the late 1990s and had SS invest the surplus in the stock market. Depending on the time period - in general [the market](https://www.thebalance.com/stock-market-returns-by-year-2388543)way out-performs the ROI on SS. > [@manson1972](#): > > I don’t understand this. If I was a new doctor, and I only saw Medicare patients, I wouldn’t make any money? > [@](#): > > About three-fourths of short-term acute-care hospitals lost money treating Medicare patients in 2016, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent agency established to advise the U.S. Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program. [Cite](https://hbr.org/2017/11/5-ways-u-s-hospitals-can-respond-to-medicares-mounting-costs). Something to keep in mind in light of the recent idea of “Medicare for all”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/183 "2018-09-24T01:53:49Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > [1] I certainly do agree that the “game is being rigged” to favor the super-rich, but I don’t see the rich getting richer off of high treasury yields. Trump wants _low_ interest rates. The Fed will raise short-term rates only as needed to fight inflation. The possibility of high _long-term_ UST or AAA interest rates may lead to an interesting discussion, but in all cases supply-demand rules the day: Bond prices fall (yields rise) because people do NOT see them as a good investment. > > The article you link to may agree that bonds will perform as well as stocks in the middle term, but that’s not the same as saying USTs will be highly profitable. Your link mentions “Van Hoisington [was rewarded in 2007-2008 when] long-term U.S. Treasury market [rose] by nearly +60%” but UST prices rise _because yields fall._ I think that in the supply-demand equation, the US govt issuing another $10 trillion in bonds in less than a decade will drive up yields. What would it take for the Fed to stop raising rates under these circumstances? Look back to the Bush-Clinton surplus years. Getting the Fed to lower rates was the motivation for Bush’s electorally disastrous decision to raise taxes. Trump isn’t repeating that “mistake”. And the way I am envisioning the uber-wealthy taking advantage of this is not in the mold of Van Hoisington, but by straight-up buying the bonds. “A 5% yield or just stay invested in a 10-year bear stock market?” they’ll ask themselves. “I’ll take the 5%.” That may be naiive, and maybe if I could think like a billionaire I would be one, but it still makes a big pile of obvious sense to me. > [@](#): > > [2] So you agree that employer-paid payroll taxes should be reduced and the revenue recovered by carbon tax? 🙂 I think it’s a good idea too! I’d have to see the details, but yeah, I think Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! is a good goal when it is sincere and not just a rhetorical device. > [@](#): > > [3] One correct point you argue is that it is very difficult, both economically and politically, to raise taxes after they’ve been lowered. (Similarly the best remedy for opioid addiction is to not get addicted in the first place.) It is because of that difficulty that the stupid tax cuts will have long-term insidious destructive effects. The giant $20 Trillion debt is not going away overnight; all we can hope for is to gradually slow the fall into the abyss. The debt will get to $30 T and perhaps worse. (At this point the future is racing toward financial collapse or social dystopia or both. Smart money may be betting on both.) > > And what are you going to cut? Sure, give SocSec a 10% haircut if that’s so dear to your heart. I don’t like means-testing it, but that may be the least of evils if the opposition insists on some big cuts. > > But what about the military: should it get a haircut also? The USA spends almost as much on its military _ **as the entire rest of the world added together** _. And, not only is USA #1 in military spending but the #3, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #12, #13, #14, #15 and #16 countries are all staunch U.S. allies. _ **Each F-22 cost $340 million.** _ How many hip replacement surgeries can be performed for $340 million? > > Finally, and especially important, you’ve drunk the GOP Kool-Aid if you think 30% of the economy spent by government is outrageously high. Please remember, again, that most of the bureaucrats and regulatories are “rounding errors.” Other than military (and support for veterans) and debt interest the “huge” government spending is spent on educating, and providing medical care and pensions for many millions of Americans. > > Here are some comparative figures from two countries which do not have the huge military budget of the U.S.: 44% of the German economy is government, down from a high of 54% in 1995. 41% of U.K. economy is government down from 51% in 1981. The idea that U.S. government “social spending” is too high deserves its own Pit thread. I want to treat SS in a sympathetic way that preserves the program. Some cuts may be required, especially in the context of a… grand bargain? big deal? that the Dems won’t just have to make with the Pubs, but also with themselves and the public. I’d like to cut the military by 25%. It really seems like we can defend our borders, pick off terrorists and be prepared for a hypothetical war at that (still huge) level. Not sure what the full consequences of this are, though. Close a fighter factory and you have cut jobs. Less bombs = less demand for materials and labor. Where are these people going to go? Does this 25% cut help them somehow? And, it’s not that I think 30% of GNP is an outrageously high level, but that a true revenue-sider will face an uphill battle selling $1 trillion/year in tax increases. Be my guest in patiently explaining to the FOX crowd how 35% is still way lower than in Germany or France. If we try to make a deal that the most people can believe is fair while still actually solving the problem, we oughta cut SS, Medicare on the cost/negotiation side, and the military. Do the rest with revenue, and then shamelessly trumpet the fact that you ‘cut government spending’ like you are some kind of orange carnival barker. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/184 "2018-09-24T04:50:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > On average, doctors and health care providers lose money treating Medicare patients. About 35% IIRC. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Cite, please? > [@Slash1972](#): > > I don’t understand this. If I was a new doctor, and I only saw Medicare patients, I wouldn’t make any money? > [@Shodan](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > About three-fourths of short-term acute-care hospitals lost money treating Medicare patients in 2016, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent agency established to advise the U.S. Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program. > > [Cite](https://hbr.org/2017/11/5-ways-u-s-hospitals-can-respond-to-medicares-mounting-costs). Something to keep in mind in light of the recent idea of “Medicare for all”. > > Regards, > Shodan Did you have a cite that backed up your assertion, or are you moving your own goalposts? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/185 "2018-09-24T08:36:26Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > And the way I am envisioning the uber-wealthy taking advantage of this is not in the mold of Van Hoisington, but by straight-up buying the bonds. “A 5% yield or just stay invested in a 10-year bear stock market?” they’ll ask themselves. “I’ll take the 5%.” That may be naiive, and maybe if I could think like a billionaire I would be one, but it still makes a big pile of obvious sense to me. Predicting interest rates, inflation rates and dollar strength ten years from now would be an interesting topic and I tried to start such a thread. I wouldn’t be expecting a crystal-ball seer, just for a knowledgeable economist to lay out the plausible scenarios. But all that would be off-topic in this thread. FWIW, your argument makes little sense to me. If bonds are a good investment for billionaires then they are ALSO a good investment for (a) little guys like you and me. (Obviously our 5% will end up much smaller in absolute terms than the billionaires’ 5% but that’s true for _any_ investment.) (b) big guys like foreign banks, who will then bid down the interest rate. (Your scenario seems to involve billionaires knowing bonds are better than stocks, but others not making the same deduction.) Ignoring 1981-1990, when high interest rates were due to on-going inflation fears, there have been only seven Septembers since 1954 when the real rate (interest minus inflation) on ten-year Treasuries exceeded 3.5%. Four of these 7 came during the booming 1990’s: low demand for bonds was due to booming stocks. The other three Septembers with 10-year UST yielding more than 3.5% real: [ul][li] 2009 — \*DE-\*flation was 1.3% and QE wasn’t yet in full swing.[/li][li] 1955, 1959 — isolated episodes. I’ll let experts comment.[/li][/ul] TL;DR - Our corrupt government has far simpler ways to enrich billionaires than to badmouth its own debt! ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/186 "2018-09-24T20:05:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > “counter to all economic wisdom” seems like an overly-broad claim. If I can find an economist that disagrees, would you be willing to retract this claim? If you ever came up with that economist I missed it. It’s been a week; do you need more time? I have been trying to help. Here are some of the top Google hits; 3 or 4 of the economists have Nobel Prizes; one comes from FoxNews: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3sAfBNiGYo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3sAfBNiGYo) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huilZjeSI9c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huilZjeSI9c) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_aHWz5DFpfM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aHWz5DFpfM) Can you find one you like here, or should I keep looking for you? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/187 "2018-09-25T02:57:04Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > FWIW, your argument makes little sense to me. If bonds are a good investment for billionaires then they are ALSO a good investment for > (a) little guys like you and me. (Obviously our 5% will end up much smaller in absolute terms than the billionaires’ 5% but that’s true for _any_ investment.) > (b) big guys like foreign banks, who will then bid down the interest rate. (Your scenario seems to involve billionaires knowing bonds are better than stocks, but others not making the same deduction.) > > Ignoring 1981-1990, when high interest rates were due to on-going inflation fears, there have been only seven Septembers since 1954 when the real rate (interest minus inflation) on ten-year Treasuries exceeded 3.5%. Four of these 7 came during the booming 1990’s: low demand for bonds was due to booming stocks. The other three Septembers with 10-year UST yielding more than 3.5% real: > [ul][li] 2009 — \*DE-\*flation was 1.3% and QE wasn’t yet in full swing.[/li][li] 1955, 1959 — isolated episodes. I’ll let experts comment.[/li][/ul] > > TL;DR - Our corrupt government has far simpler ways to enrich billionaires than to badmouth its own debt! Well, my reasoning is pretty simple. It isn’t inflation fears particularly that I expect to drive up yields. I don’t think it will be people turning away from bonds either- I expect them to get more popular. It is the simple fact that the plan is to issue so damn many of them. We’ve just cut taxes for the wealthy by about $200 billion a year. They did not live up to the moronic prediction that they would pay for themselves, they are being paid for with borrowing. And, spending has increased as well, also paid for with borrowing. We’re on a track to issue about $10 trillion worth of bonds over the next decade, probably more. It is quite an acceleration. Even if people think they are a good investment, it seems like this massive supply will outstrip demand and drive up yields anyway. My opposition to the tax cuts won’t change if I turn out to be wrong about future bond yields, but that aspect of things just bugs me every time I think about it, this massive publicly funded income stream for the super wealthy. I don’t think you’ve addressed this theory of bond yields directly- I’d be interested in why you (probably) think things won’t play out this way. Do you think the market can readily soak up another $10 trillion in bonds? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/188 "2018-09-25T04:41:11Z")
There is a threshold where money stops being for survival/comfort and starts being about power. Hence, shifting more of it to the already wealthy becomes not a question of making their lives better but of allowing them to accrue more power over others. This is problematic because it seems fairly common that a person who manipulates large amounts of money tends toward sociopathy. Hence, many of the very wealthy who have control of society are visiting their disease upon all of us. This is not a net positive, and reducing their social obligation just makes everything worse. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/189 "2018-09-25T05:13:37Z")
A cap on annual income might be helpful. Something like, “Nobody is allowed to earn more than $100 million a year, and if you do, the extra money must simply go to Uncle Sam.” The only issue with that is that private entrepreneurs might not be able to start up ventures entirely out of their own pocket, if, say, they wanted to start up a billion-dollar venture. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/190 "2018-09-25T08:00:00Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > There is a threshold where money stops being for survival/comfort and starts being about power. Hence, shifting more of it to the already wealthy becomes not a question of making their lives better but of allowing them to accrue more power over others. This is problematic because it seems fairly common that a person who manipulates large amounts of money tends toward sociopathy. Hence, many of the very wealthy who have control of society are visiting their disease upon all of us. This is not a net positive, and reducing their social obligation just makes everything worse. This is an over-generalization. Many good performers enjoy performing well, and enjoy being compensated for it. This is true of performing artists like Beyoncé or Springsteen, and also of high-performing investment managers like Buffett or Soros. Although I picked these four examples for their fame, all four are noted for philanthropic giving. But I do not want to over-generalize in the opposite direction! The super-rich also include Martin Shkreli, Charles Koch and David Koch. Many acquire their wealth through unproductive means or even fraud; some even sent to prison, e.g. Charles Kushner or Bernie Madoff. Simply put there are both good and bad people throughout the income spectrum. And obviously there’s some tendency for a businessman motivated by carnal greed to outperform a businessman with humane instincts. Inequality of income and wealth is a major problem for several reasons — this has been discussed before. Rational thinkers do not seek sudden confiscation of wealth, but they want to see policies that point in the correct direction. An extra $100,000 is a big deal for a working man. An extra $1,000,000 is chump change for the super-rich. In 2017, the heirs of a married couple with a $22 million estate would have to pay a $4 million estate tax — is that so onerous? Remember that the estate may contain unrealized capital gains that _were never taxed to begin with_. In 2019 the estate tax on that same $22 million estate is … Zero. The way Republican voters have been gulled to vote for increases in wealth and income inequality in the U.S. is without precedent. When I first visited Thailand in the 1980’s I was stunned by the income inequality. But I watched Thailand’s GINI coefficient decline over the next decades due to active government programs like rural electrification, road building, rising minimum wages, and public-financed hospitals. Over the same period, the U.S. GINI rose sharply and _is now significantly higher than Thailand’s GINI_! Among developed countries, only Israel and Saudi Arabia have GINIs as high as the U.S. Even Russia’s GINI is lower. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/191 "2018-09-25T13:11:07Z")
I’m not so concerned about other people having more money than me. I’m more concerned about other people not having enough. And various transfer programs do pull people out of poverty.\* Those programs cost money, and we all know where the money is. If we borrow it now, that’s means more of it has to go to debt service tomorrow. \*[https://doi.org/10.7916/D8RN3853](https://doi.org/10.7916/D8RN3853) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/192 "2018-09-25T13:19:24Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Those programs cost money, and we all know where the money is. Yes, it’s in the middle class. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/193 "2018-09-25T15:15:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, it’s in the middle class. And I can certainly afford higher taxes. Although it depends how you cut “middle”. Median household income last year was about $59k. Twice that is $118k, just shy of the 80th percentile. And the top quintile pulls in 51% of household income. Doubtless you could fiddle with the numbers to push the line around. But if we use my arbitrary range, most of the money is not in the middle. And if we looked at money in excess of the poverty threshold, that just pushes more of it to the top. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/194 "2018-09-25T16:55:31Z")
Sure, you can swap the numbers around. My point was that the rich do not consist of this large, untapped source of money for new programs or expansion of old ones. There aren’t enough rich, they already pay the lion’s share of taxes. > [@Ruken](#): > > And I can certainly afford higher taxes. I suppose, so could I, for various definitions of “higher”. But there is no realistic possibility that we could reduce the deficit without raising taxes on the non-rich, reducing spending on the non-rich, simply by raising taxes on the rich. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/195 "2018-09-25T21:13:45Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > In 2017, the heirs of a married couple with a $22 million estate would have to pay a $4 million estate tax — is that so onerous? Remember that the estate may contain unrealized capital gains that _were never taxed to begin with_. In 2019 the estate tax on that same $22 million estate is … Zero. > > The way Republican voters have been gulled to vote for increases in wealth and income inequality in the U.S. is without precedent. Two words: Death Tax. Whatever GOP strategist came up with this phrase is a genius. GOP voters complain about “elites,” they complain about their wages stagnating while the rich get richer, and then they vote for people who abolish the estate tax so the elite rich can keep even more of their money. Why? Because the phrase “death tax” makes it sound like Hillary and Obama are going to crash their funerals and extract money from their grieving families. Fucking genius. ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/196 "2018-09-25T22:38:04Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Whatever GOP strategist came up with this phrase is a genius. GOP voters complain about “elites,” they complain about their wages stagnating while the rich get richer, and then they vote for people who abolish the estate tax so the elite rich can keep even more of their money. But I was told that these people were all poor family farmers who would have to sell their homestead to pay the tax (because the land they had farmed for generations just happened to be formally high in value)! I’m sure that 99% of estate tax payers were like that, and wealthy scions of investment bankers are the exception. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2018, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/197 "2018-09-26T00:40:34Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Two words: Death Tax. > > Whatever GOP strategist came up with this phrase is a genius. That was Frank Luntz, a pollster and focus grouper whose name comes up all the time in these things. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2018, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/198 "2018-09-26T14:07:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That was Frank Luntz, a pollster and focus grouper whose name comes up all the time in these things. Did he come up with “pro-life” and “right to work” too? It’s depressing how the right seems to regularly come up with these 2-3-word terms that the left seems incapable of countering in less than a paragraph. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2018, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/199 "2018-09-26T14:28:42Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That’s not what **RTFirefly** said: Just to make sure nobody gets the wrong impression, what I said was: > [@](#): > > state income taxes are … less regressive than state sales taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2018, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407/200 "2018-09-26T16:08:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I suppose, so could I, for various definitions of “higher”. But there is no realistic possibility that we could reduce the deficit without raising taxes on the non-rich, reducing spending on the non-rich, simply by raising taxes on the rich. In case people want numbers, there’s a crude analysis here: [Can We Fix the Debt Solely by Taxing the Top 1 Percent?-2015-08-06](http://www.crfb.org/blogs/can-we-fix-debt-solely-taxing-top-1-percent) It’s with old deficits and old brackets, it assumes no changes to corporate, inheritance, or capital gains taxes, and it assumes no behavioral changes. But it gets the point across. I’ve learned over the past couple years that what I consider “realistic” doesn’t always match reality, but the third scenario in the table is closest to what I have in mind and I agree and wouldn’t call it realistic. That’s if we keep the same bracket structure. The top quintile does pull in about $8 trillion per year and pays an effective tax rate (including payroll taxes) of about 25%. Increasing the effective rate to ~32% would balance the budget. But the devil is in how you do it. And the top 1% already pays that rate if internet randos are to be believed: [https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/federal-taxes-are-very-progressive](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/federal-taxes-are-very-progressive) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-be-forthright-about-the-tax-cuts/821407.md?page=11)