Public debt our debt

[zantax]

@PeterGriffin

Wild inflation has been predicted for a long time, it hasn’t shown any signs of materializing. I’m not sure I fully understand MMT but it’s proving to be a lot more accurate than the Friedman types.

Debt started exploding during the 80’s. That is when the tax burden was shifted to the working poor and middle class and it’s been trying to keep a lid on debt ever since, with little success.

I’m not really interested in any “cut spending” takes unless it’s at the bloated military, but we have to recognize that that spending is the closets thing we have to a jobs program and it will reduce GDP if not replaced. Across the board cuts are ideological and dumb. Why cut 10% from a successful program just because?

Bold never happened. Tax burden was actually shifted more onto the wealthy.

[PeterGriffin]

@zantax

Bold never happened. Tax burden was actually shifted more onto the wealthy

There were six increases in payroll taxes during the 80’s, went from 2.2% to the current 9.1%. Those taxes are paid on every dollar earned up to the cap. That’s how the tax burden was shifted to the middle class and working poor.

[zantax]

@PeterGriffin

@zantax

Bold never happened. Tax burden was actually shifted more onto the wealthy

There were six increases in payroll taxes during the 80’s, went from 2.2% to the current 9.1%. Those taxes are paid on every dollar earned up to the cap. That’s how the tax burden was shifted to the middle class and working poor.

The top quintile pays more and the lower ones less than they used too.

from How the tax burden has changed since 1960

[Axxowiz]

Yes and just passed the biggest spending bill in history. This is the opposite of what the Simpson/Bowles committee suggested and the
CBO just issued a warning we are heading into uncharted territory and said we are on the path to double the debt 202% of GDP that’s not good.

[Snowfinch]

@zantax

The top quintile pays more and the lower ones less than they used too.

I’d like to understand if this is due to an increase in the tax rate on the top quintile, or just an effect of income distribution skewing more to the top quintile.

It is possible that the top quintile had their taxes reduced, but incomes increased more than the bottom quintiles.

[tnt]

Thanks for the post - interesting stuff…

[WuWei]

@PeterGriffin

In a growing diverse modern country, the government should be getting bigger,

@PeterGriffin

Tax the ever loving ■■■■ out of the rich.

If it were up to me, you wouldn’t be allowed to vote.

[DougBH]

@PeterGriffin

@zantax

Bold never happened. Tax burden was actually shifted more onto the wealthy

There were six increases in payroll taxes during the 80’s, went from 2.2% to the current 9.1%. Those taxes are paid on every dollar earned up to the cap. That’s how the tax burden was shifted to the middle class and working poor.

And those payroll taxes are disproportionately for the benefit of those earning less money.

[DougBH]

@Axxowiz

Yes and just passed the biggest spending bill in history. This is the opposite of what the Simpson/Bowles committee suggested and the
CBO just issued a warning we are heading into uncharted territory and said we are on the path to double the debt 202% of GDP that’s not good.

The COVID stimulus bill has nothing to do with COVID stimulus. It is a bailout of high spending states and an income redistribution bill. The payments to individuals are not based on job loss or any other demonstrable loss due to COVID. Stimulus? It might stimulate Walmart and the Chinese exports it distributes, it certainly won’t stimulate closed restaurants and gyms.
Once people get the taste of free money its going to be hard to stop repeating the process politically.

[DougBH]

@PeterGriffin

Tax the ever loving ■■■■ out of the rich. That’s an idea that is wildly popular with Americans. Make America great again like it was in the 50’s minus the segregation and misogyny with 90% upper marginal tax rates, generous social programs and low cost education like the Boomers grew up with before they pulled the ladder up.

Lets tax workers in the oil industry.

[zantax]

@DougBH

@Axxowiz

Yes and just passed the biggest spending bill in history. This is the opposite of what the Simpson/Bowles committee suggested and the
CBO just issued a warning we are heading into uncharted territory and said we are on the path to double the debt 202% of GDP that’s not good.

The COVID stimulus bill has nothing to do with COVID stimulus. It is a bailout of high spending states and an income redistribution bill. The payments to individuals are not based on job loss or any other demonstrable loss due to COVID. Stimulus? It might stimulate Walmart and the Chinese exports it distributes, it certainly won’t stimulate closed restaurants and gyms.
Once people get the taste of free money its going to be hard to stop repeating the process politically.

That ship has already sailed, the masses. have discovered they can loot the treasury and I doubt they will forget.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@PeterGriffin

generous social programs and low cost education like the Boomers grew up with before they pulled the ladder up.

What are you talking about, the social programs of the 40’s and 50’ are nothing like what is going on today? Regarding the cost of education I reposted in a thread I did about this some time back. It has little to nothing to do with the states pulling funding. Check out the thread and the links in it.

[tnt]

@DougBH

And those payroll taxes are disproportionately for the benefit of those earning less money.

How so? Payroll taxes are capped at 137K. A person making $1M pays the same as a person making 137. Seems like a benefit for the wealthy to me.

[Axxowiz]

Oh I agree bail states out so they can repeat the same mistakes for a longer period now on the taxpayers dime.

[DougBH]

@tnt

@DougBH

And those payroll taxes are disproportionately for the benefit of those earning less money.

How so? Payroll taxes are capped at 137K. A person making $1M pays the same as a person making 137. Seems like a benefit for the wealthy to me.

It would be if the person making $1M got paid proportionally more in government benefits as is his $1M compared to someone making $50K, but we both know that is not the system…or I hope we both know that.
In fact, the opposite is true. The person making $50k gets a much bigger portion of benefits compared to his earned income over the years.

[tnt]

@DougBH

It would be if the person making $1M got paid proportionally more in government benefits as is his $1M compared to someone making $50K, but we both know that is not the system…or I hope we both know that.
In fact, the opposite is true. The person making $50k gets a much bigger portion of benefits compared to his earned income over the years.

I disagree.

The person making 1M - obviously this is an off the cuff example - let’s say he is an executive at Walmart. One reason his corp is so successful is:

• State department negotiating trade deal with china
• DoT maintaining the highway system for shipping
• Most pertinent to our discussion, government subsidies for food and shelter that allows Walmart to employ people for pennies.

All of those expensive government spending programs allows him to earn his 1M.

And on top of that, he pays the same payroll taxes as someone making 1/10 of his salary.

[Snowfinch]

@DougBH

The person making $50k gets a much bigger portion of benefits compared to his earned income over the years.

This is the wrong metric. The benefit needs to be compared to what you put in, not your absolute (and untaxed) income.

So both get the same out of the benefit as it is based on the taxed earnings. Persons who become disabled, or the survivors of deceased could be considered as getting more out than they put in.

So I guess you could say single people and healthy people are in position to pay more than they get out. But this is by design as it functions as an insurance program and we all start out equally able to have a family or become disabled.

The bigger disadvantage is generational as baby boomers benefitted from high payments AND government spending subsidized by the excess SS contributions. The follow up generations will see both debt come due AND downward pressure on payment. A net transfer of this tax from one generation to the last in my opinion.

[wiley8425]

The $4T dumped into the stock market was for the sole benefit of the cats making millions off “investments”, not the poor slobs making $50k a year. Same reason when some of those poor slobs started playing around in the stock market and started winning using the very same rules those cats came up with, suddenly the cats were crying that the Federal Government needs to step in and stop the slobs from breaking the cats’ casino. But sure, the slobs benefit way more. You bet.

[wiley8425]

No it was just based on income, which surely in no way was affected by job losses or any other demonstrable losses because well reasons. Then Republicans, being the ever worried saints they are complained that the income limit for eligibility was too high. Purely out of concern for those who lost their jobs you see.

[PeterGriffin]

@DougBH

Lets tax workers in the oil industry.

They might not like that so much. If thats supposed to be directed at me, I got out a couple years ago, can’t take the boom and bust cycle any longer. Make a ■■■■ pile of money and then whittle it all down when you get caught up in mass layoffs.