[flagged]
https://manhattan.institute/article/a-comprehensive-federal-...
The U.S. already taxes the rich—measured by both tax rates and tax revenues—at levels roughly equal to the OECD average. Yes, the other 38 OECD nations collect tax revenues that, on average, exceed the U.S. by 7.5% of GDP (at all levels of government). However, nearly this entire difference results from the other 38 OECD nations hitting their middle class with value-added taxes (VATs) that raise an average of 7.2% of GDP. And while the progressive avatars of Finland, Norway, and Sweden exceed U.S. tax revenues by 16% of GDP, that gap virtually disappears after accounting for the 14.5% of GDP in higher payroll and VAT revenues that broadly hit the Nordic middle class. Europe finances its progressive spending levels on the backs of the middle class, not the wealthy.[37]
This plan should be a must read for people from any spot along the American political spectrum.
https://manhattan.institute/article/a-comprehensive-federal-...
"Deep defense cuts. Since the 1980s, the Pentagon budget has fallen from 6% to 3% of GDP—not far above Europe’s target of 2%. Cutting U.S. defense spending to the levels pledged by European members of NATO would save 1% of GDP, or less than one-fifth of the Social Security and Medicare noninterest shortfall by the 2040s and 2050s."
Read the budget. Learn something. None of the partisan mantras solve the problem. The only solution is to trim ss, trim medicare, and raise taxes across the board.
The rest of the budget almost doesn't matter.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
As a hypothetical, if we'd cut everything that isn't in the Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Interest, and Health categories we'd still have $169 billion in deficits. Odds are VA benefits will not be cut any time soon, so if that's preserved we still have $429 billion in deficits.
And we'll never actually cut all of these spending categories. This leaves us having to touch the untouchable and/or raising taxes to balance the budget and get the debt under control.
I'd argue that the tax cuts aren't as useful as nasa
The problem is the budget cut combined with the order to axe certain things in favor of other things (like human spaceflight) that happens at the same time as the (even larger) budget cut.
NASA is intentionally hamstrung by congress. It's earmarks on earmarks on earmarks on pork. If they's just lets NASA do its priorities without letting every goddamn junior congressman drag their dick all over the budget damn near at the line item level you'd see twice as much get done for half the money.
NASA's budget in 2024 was ~24b USD, for the overall debt this is less than a drop in the bucket, for an agency doing cutting-edge R&D which has trickle down technological effects into the rest of society making multiples of their budget in advances to the US's technological prowess.
Are you really defending to cut their budget over so many other options? Yes, the cuts needs to come from somewhere but perhaps not from programs from an agency which has empirically proven to have a very high ROI?
Starting with Medicaid/Medicare since it's a huge expenditure: why even bother running a system that has worse outcomes and is more expensive than a single-payer/socialised system?
There are many models to follow from successful countries, almost all of them would be cheaper than the current one, the population already pays for healthcare insurance, turn it into a tax to spread the insurance pool over the whole population, it's been proven to work.
Why not expand tax income instead of giving tax cuts to corporations and rich folks? It seems like the current arrangement is bankrupting the country, less public investment will cripple potential revenues of undiscovered technology, it's rare that a major new advancement comes straight out of private industry, they're usually pretty good at monetising public research (such as NASA, DARPA, etc.), why continuously give them tax cuts to then defund the whole foundation that actually enables them to even exist?
The example of a doctor isn't really meaningful in isolation. It is also pretty reductive to think only in terms of simple percentages and how much of "what they have earned" they keep. Different parts of the world have a different cost of living. If you live in the states and make $200K per year, you are capable of living a comfortable life anywhere in the country. If you make $400K, how much more comfortable? What about $800K? If the doctor is making $800K and their tax rate drops by half, then what? There is a sense of how much is reasonable for someone to contribute back to society, and if the amount they contribute drops significantly so that they are perceived as not contributing enough, then it is fair to regard that tax cut as a handout.
Do you have a vision of that?
The article on Japan illustrated debt looks different between different countries (although Japan and Argentina are always economic exceptions). It's the same with people, I suppose.
Someone with a $100k annual salary and $100k in debt can be a good thing (a mortgage or a cashflowing business) or a bad thing (credit card debt, high-interest student loans and no degree). Although someone with that same salary and $10MM in debt would be a different story, almost regardless of what they did with the money. So there's definitely an upper limit to debt.
Have you not lived in the same US that is trillions in debt your entire life?
Also, note my comment up above. If this was about finances, why is Trump's budget proposal increasing the debt?
DoD budget was $850 billions.
Just saying...