Hacker News Reader

Comment by InTheArena | Hacker News Reader

This is a problem that is far far older then DOGE.

And maybe, just maybe, the answer is to both raise taxes and reduce spending?

The thing is, the most common spending that they attempt to cut is spending that has multiplier effects on the economy, because it's giving money (whether directly or indirectly) to the poorest people.

Really? Please provide a decline in net dollars (excluding projected drawdowns) that demonstrates this point.

On a dollar-by-dollar basis, regardless of economic station, _every_ American has seen a combined discretionary + non-discretionary increase in benefits since 1980. The group that is less advantaged is the upper-middle class, which has seen relative stagnation.

Aren’t tariffs basically raising taxes like you’re suggesting?

The new tariffs are projected to raise an additional $200B this year for the federal government.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-could-collect-300-billio...

I don’t think the next administration, whichever party ends up winning, will be likely to reverse these tariffs just based on how much revenue they bring in for the federal government.

Reducing spending is of course another different problem altogether.

It raises taxes but arguably impacts GDP in a very direct and equal way, so it mostly nets out. The argument that follows from there would be that taxing the rich would have less of an impact on GDP.

Of course that's the answer, it's just people don't want to do that.

unfortunately boomers want neither :)

No point dunking on retirees. You'll understand when you retire (and become a boomer equivalent)

i pray every day that i dont become as selfish and uninterested in the welfare of the next generation as current boomers.

Why would you pray for that?

Do you not have some influence over your future morals? There's always a religious reference to say the same thing e.g "The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com