President Biden's Plans on the Deficit and Taxes

[medi]

I know there are other threads around here that cover some of the ideas on the federal budget, but I first saw a post this morning on NHK about what seems to them to be new stuff and then went looking on U.S. sites and finally decided to use the NYT article just published:

Biden Calls for Higher Taxes on Corporations and the Wealthy

The budget, which would cut the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, reinforces Biden’s efforts to counter Republican tax proposals that Democrats deride as giveaways to the wealthy.

www.nytimes.com

And after reading that article twice I have to honestly state there are some really weird ideas being proposed.

And let me start with this paragraph you'll find a bit down that NYT's page:

The budget also assumes that a global tax agreement the United States helped broker in 2021 will be enacted, despite the fact that Republicans have refused to entertain the new levy. Under that agreement, more than 130 countries pledged to enact minimum corporate tax rates of 15 percent that firms must pay on their foreign earnings. Mr. Biden wants the U.S. rate to be increased from 10.5 percent, which is not compliant with the agreement, to 21 percent.

130 countries pledged to do WHAT!?

 

[Slavister]

Who gives a %$^t?

Having democracy in this country instead of being run by a conman trying to steal elections and be a dictator sucking up to the worst dictators of the world seems more important than specifics of deficit and tax proposals.

 

[Phys251]

I know there are other threads around here that cover some of the ideas on the federal budget, but I first saw a post this morning on NHK about what seems to them to be new stuff and then went looking on U.S. sites and finally decided to use the NYT article just published:

Biden Calls for Higher Taxes on Corporations and the Wealthy

The budget, which would cut the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, reinforces Biden’s efforts to counter Republican tax proposals that Democrats deride as giveaways to the wealthy.

www.nytimes.com

And after reading that article twice I have to honestly state there are some really weird ideas being proposed.

And let me start with this paragraph you'll find a bit down that NYT's page:



130 countries pledged to do WHAT!?

Righties: The deficit is too high!!!!!!
Reasonable people: OK then, we can cut some spending, but we must also raise taxes on the wealthy.
Righties: NO!!!!!!!

 

[dmpi]

Righties: The deficit is too high!!!!!!
Reasonable people: OK then, we can cut some spending, but we must also raise taxes on the wealthy.
Righties: NO!!!!!!!

Why raise taxes on the wealthy? Why not start taxing the 50% that pay no taxes?

 

[Phys251]

Why raise taxes on the wealthy? Why not start taxing the 50% that pay no taxes?

Tax those who have the means to pay. Or are you suggesting raising taxes on the working poor?

 

[Gatsby]

Why raise taxes on the wealthy? Why not start taxing the 50% that pay no taxes?

Because they don't have much money. There's just not much revenue to squeeze.

 

[Gatsby]

A few things are true:
- Our debt-to-GDP truly is alarmingly high by historical standards.
- Most of the increase happened during two economically catastrophic times: The Great Recession (and its aftermath), and COVID. And in both cases we were fully justified borrowing a lot of money. In fact, we probably didn't borrow enough during the Great Recession.
- Our debt-to-GDP has been pretty flat since the end of the COVID pandemic. Scary headlines like "the debt is increasing by a trillion dollars per quarter" are missing this basic fact.
- BUT: When the economy is booming, as it is now, it's really not good enough that our debt-to-GDP is flat. These are the times when it really needs to be decreasing.

 

[dmpi]

Tax those who have the means to pay. Or are you suggesting raising taxes on the working poor?

If you live in this country and you receive benefits from the goverment then you should at least pay something for its continued operation.

 

[Gatsby]

If you live in this country and you receive benefits from the goverment then you should at least pay something for its continued operation.

If you want to stick to that principle on moral grounds, fine. (Personally I think it's a bad principle.) But in terms of its impact on the deficit, taxing people who don't have any money isn't going to move the needle at all.

 

[dmpi]

View attachment 67497797

A few things are true:
- Our debt-to-GDP truly is alarmingly high by historical standards.
- Most of the increase happened during two economically catastrophic times: The Great Recession (and its aftermath), and COVID. And in both cases we were fully justified borrowing a lot of money. In fact, we probably didn't borrow enough during the Great Recession.
- Our debt-to-GDP has been pretty flat since the end of the COVID pandemic. Scary headlines like "the debt is increasing by a trillion dollars per quarter" are missing this basic fact.
- BUT: When the economy is booming, as it is now, it's really not good enough that our debt-to-GDP is flat. These are the times when it really needs to be decreasing.

GDP is like I made $100,000 and I spent $100,000. It don't mean I actually saved anything. To pay down debt you actually have to spend less than you make and use those savings to pay down debt. When your debt is 100% of GDP I'm not sure that has any significance or meaning.

 

[Gatsby]

GDP is like I made $100,000 and I spent $100,000. It don't mean I actually saved anything. To pay down debt you actually have to spend less than you make and use those savings to pay down debt. When your debt is 100% of GDP I'm not sure that has any significance or meaning.

Debt-to-GDP is the number that matters, not the overall amount of debt. Even if we never pay down the debt (i.e. run a surplus), the debt-to-GDP can still erode over time as long as the economy grows faster than the debt. Generally speaking it would be good to get that ratio back to where we were before the Great Recession, or at least before COVID. A debt-to-GDP ratio above 100% is not great.

 

[dmpi]

If you want to stick to that principle on moral grounds, fine. (Personally I think it's a bad principle.) But in terms of its impact on the deficit, taxing people who don't have any money isn't going to move the needle at all.

You need to impart a sense of fairness and that we're not singling out people and we're all in this together. I think you'll get better cooperation from everyone.

 

[dmpi]

Debt-to-GDP is the number that matters, not the overall amount of debt. Even if we never pay down the debt (i.e. run a surplus), the debt-to-GDP can still erode over time as long as the economy grows faster than the debt. Generally speaking it would be good to get that ratio back to where we were before the Great Recession, or at least before COVID. A debt-to-GDP ratio above 100% is not great.

Having a high GDP means you have high potential if you can ever get your act together. But just because you got high income don't mean you know how to manage money. That's kind of the dilemma were in right now.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

Righties: The deficit is too high!!!!!!
Reasonable people: OK then, we can cut some spending, but we must also raise taxes on the wealthy.
Righties: NO!!!!!!!

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

If you live in this country and you receive benefits from the goverment then you should at least pay something for its continued operation.

14% of Americans go to bed hungry. And you want to tax them. Brilliant. These minimum wagers should pay nothing.

 

[Ishm]

I know there are other threads around here that cover some of the ideas on the federal budget, but I first saw a post this morning on NHK about what seems to them to be new stuff and then went looking on U.S. sites and finally decided to use the NYT article just published:

Biden Calls for Higher Taxes on Corporations and the Wealthy

The budget, which would cut the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, reinforces Biden’s efforts to counter Republican tax proposals that Democrats deride as giveaways to the wealthy.

www.nytimes.com

And after reading that article twice I have to honestly state there are some really weird ideas being proposed.

And let me start with this paragraph you'll find a bit down that NYT's page:



130 countries pledged to do WHAT!?

IIRC this is the agreement to make companies at least recognize some profits in the countries they make them in. I.E. they pay 15% tax everywhere on sales outside their home country, in the country the sales occur in. Might not have that exactly right, but something like that. Having been involved in ITP (international transfer pricing) discussions for tax management in the past I know how difficult this can be. In the example I was involved with for several years we literally agreed with the countries IRS that we would pay 5% in tax, and they said they would be happy with that. Compared to the money we made in that country and shipped back to our base country that 5% was a pitiful amount, but the management of ITP's is so complex that their IRS thought we were being extremely reasonable. In real terms the auditing of ITP's used to shift money between countries would consume half the worlds accountants if the decision was to make the taxes as perfect as possible. The other half of the worlds accountants would be on the other side arguing for the companies. I have no idea if the 15% is a good or bad number, but a single number is by far the most pragmatic solution I believe.

 

[post]

You need to impart a sense of fairness and that we're not singling out people and we're all in this together. I think you'll get better cooperation from everyone.

"Fairness"? Did you miss the part in which RWE billionaires bought the Supreme Court and the Justices they installed on it, starved the IRS appropriation since 2013 based on an excuse that didn't happen, and own all Republicans in federal office?

https://www.politico.com › news › 2023 › 01 › 20 › dark-money-leonard-leo-00078657

Dark money group linked to Leonard Leo is dissolved - POLITICO​

Jan 20, 2023 Leo's network of outside groups built successful advocacy campaigns around the nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and ...

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

".,Most individual income taxes are reduced, until 2025..,. but the corporate tax cuts are permanent.."

 

[OrphanSlug]

During an election year many things are going to be called for, and lots of "plans" are thrown out.

But even Biden knows the House will never go for it therefor this is a campaign "plan," not a likely fiscal change plan.

 

[jonny5]

I know there are other threads around here that cover some of the ideas on the federal budget, but I first saw a post this morning on NHK about what seems to them to be new stuff and then went looking on U.S. sites and finally decided to use the NYT article just published:

Biden Calls for Higher Taxes on Corporations and the Wealthy

The budget, which would cut the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, reinforces Biden’s efforts to counter Republican tax proposals that Democrats deride as giveaways to the wealthy.

www.nytimes.com

And after reading that article twice I have to honestly state there are some really weird ideas being proposed.

And let me start with this paragraph you'll find a bit down that NYT's page:



130 countries pledged to do WHAT!?

Sounds like the usual plan, soak the rich and evil corporations. And do basically nothing. 3 trillion less deficit over 10 years, the debt would still increase by 15 trillion. And thats if no new spending is passed, which we know it will be. Democrats always have a next crisis to spend on.

Biden keep claiming he cut the deficit, but its higher than ever. Twice as high as before the pandemic.

 

[Roadvirus]

I know there are other threads around here that cover some of the ideas on the federal budget, but I first saw a post this morning on NHK about what seems to them to be new stuff and then went looking on U.S. sites and finally decided to use the NYT article just published:

Biden Calls for Higher Taxes on Corporations and the Wealthy

The budget, which would cut the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, reinforces Biden’s efforts to counter Republican tax proposals that Democrats deride as giveaways to the wealthy.

www.nytimes.com

And after reading that article twice I have to honestly state there are some really weird ideas being proposed.

And let me start with this paragraph you'll find a bit down that NYT's page:



130 countries pledged to do WHAT!?

Calling for raising taxes during an election year? Really dumb.

 

[volitleaire]

Why raise taxes on the wealthy? Why not start taxing the 50% that pay no taxes?

Why doesn’t that 50% pay taxes? Could it have something to do with not strangling class motility? Maybe to grow the middle class?

 

[jonny5]

Why doesn’t that 50% pay taxes? Could it have something to do with not strangling class motility? Maybe to grow the middle class?

Nope, just standard vote buying. There is plenty class motility and plenty middle class. And neither of those things are the purpose of taxes or govt. Govt collects taxes to pay for security and justice. And everyone should share in that cost. Taxes should not be used for political games or social change.

 

[volitleaire]

Nope, just standard vote buying. There is plenty class motility and plenty middle class. And neither of those things are the purpose of taxes or govt. Govt collects taxes to pay for security and justice. And everyone should share in that cost. Taxes should not be used for political games or social change.

Taxes shouldn’t be used for the betterment of society? So education, infrastructure, checking baby food is baby food and not rat poison, these should be cut?

 

[jonny5]

Taxes shouldn’t be used for the betterment of society? So education, infrastructure, checking baby food is baby food and not rat poison, these should be cut?

Generally yes. Those are individual's responsibilities, not govts. Certainly not the FEDERAL govts. Its job is very limited, to protecting the states from invasion, currency, delivering the mail (which is no longer neccessary), punishing people who do harm, regulating interstate commerce.

 

[volitleaire]

Generally yes. Those are individual's responsibilities, not govts. Certainly not the FEDERAL govts. Its job is very limited, to protecting the states from invasion, currency, delivering the mail (which is no longer neccessary), punishing people who do harm, regulating interstate commerce.

There are state taxes AND federal taxes, and both are used in a myriad of ways. Public schools are generally funded through local property taxes, state funding, and some federal funding. You argue this is the individual’s responsibility, yet we clearly see individuals have decided to fund public education through taxes (my own city regularly passes a levy to continue funding public schools). At what level does education funding transfer from individual decision to “the government’s” (which I would point out is elected by individuals).

In article 1, section 8 of the US constitution, you’ll find the "necessary and proper” clause. This has long been the bane of anti-federalists. New-deal federalism extended the powers of the feds to encompass pretty much anything they wanted (which played no small role in reviving the American economy after the great depression).

My two questions for you are as follow:
1) What is public education, if not individuals taking responsibility for the collective benefit of an educated nation?
2) How can the federal government possible provide for “the general welfare” by doing what is “necessary and proper” if they can’t use taxes?