https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primar...
They of course don’t have the authority to do that, but they can tell congress to do so
Assuming the upper end of that and half the usual 2% YoY growth we paid 1.2% of our GDP for a 1% increase in growth... So literally nothing as reducing taxes causing an increase of the same amount in GDP isn't meaningful. And that is assuming some generous conditions.
While these cuts never “pay for themselves”, raising the gdp at all is a lower bar.
Saying "but it would have been lower" is pointless.
Or cutting spending. Either way, fiscal policy creates and destroys money much more powerfully and equitably.
In the 2022 US federal budget, out of the $6.3T worth of total spending, $4.1T was mandatory: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. $1.7T was discretionary (top item being DoD), and $0.5T interest payments. Revenues were $4.9T.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
What do you want to cut in discretionary spending?
Unclear. If structured as a promise, it could be considered backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. That’s Constitutionally protected.
I can’t believe anyone by MBAs and VCs seriously think we should go back to ZIRP.
A more fair approach would be a special assessment on net worth.
Note that that is probably unconstitutional, aside from just being a bad idea in general (see similar implementations in other countries).
People past the 10 million $ mark have already succeeded at the American Dream - even at measly 1% return rates, they and their offspring don't have to work a single day in their lives again. They can be taxed without the economy even breaking into a sweat.
Personally, I think there should be a hard wealth cap at some point between 100M to 1 billion dollars. "Trickle down" has been proven to be outright bullshit, and the uber rich have political power similar to landed gentry, in some cases nearly as much as kings back in the days. It's enough.
how would a wealth tax incentivise people to save more and spend less?
It should be pointed out that people who currently work hard aren’t rewarded the same way people were when a lower tax environment existed. Do you think that is fair , if the taxes were raised significantly to cover the debt ? Specifically debt that the government accumulated before you even entered the workforce.
We have a lot of headroom for more taxes.
Which the current supreme court would strike down even if congress could put its pants on and try
It seems pretty reasonable on magnitude grounds to mention something that cost $1.9 trillion in a single year while and omitting something that cost $1.7 trillion over five.
I don't 100% agree with this article, but I think you are somewhat misrepresenting it. If taxes were at the level they used to be then we would be in a better position debt-wise than we are now. Whether you disagree with raising taxes or not, it does seem reasonable to examine cost-increasing measures like tax cuts.
The OP article includes this paragraph:
“Getting the debt under control will require taking a serious look at health care, Social Security and the tax code,” CRFB president Maya MacGuineas said in a news release.
which mentions taxes.
I don’t see what the big problem is with specifically mentioning the ARPA given how absolutely enormous it was. My objection wouldn’t have been not mentioning specific tax cuts, but instead not mentioning CARES which was even larger at $2.2 trillion.