The problem is that half the political system thinks you can cut taxes and grow revenues.
Which is an intentional strategy to repeal social programs that they’d never get the votes to do so via legislation
Which is an intentional strategy to repeal social programs that they’d never get the votes to do so via legislation
In practice though tax cuts usually make rich richer without helping the economy to grow (because of lobbying/corruption).
This is being generous. It's much simpler.
The poor don't pay any federal taxes at all so you can't give them a tax cut because they don't pay any. You can give them a credit at best.
Edit:
Some data
> Another 60.3 million returns showed AGIs of less than $30,000. The average effective tax rate for those taxpayers was 1.5%, even before refundable tax credits were applied.
From: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/who-pays-...
Even if we exclude poor there are many options how to split taxes between different income brackets, how to tax salaries vs capital gain, how to split taxes between individuals and businesses, how to avoid loopholes e. t. c. (e. g. in the UK I see small business struggling because of rising taxes while multinationals pay little taxes by moving profits offshore and reporting no profits in the UK).
And the other half thinks you can pay for a European-style welfare state without European-style middle class taxes. Americans are Disney adults.
Given that the US has a population of 342.7 million people [3], those two trillion dollars divides out to $5800 per resident per year.
The UK's universal healthcare system costs ~$4700 per person per year (~£3,500)[4].
If we could spend healthcare dollars as efficiently as the UK, the current government spending in the US is enough to support a single payer healthcare system covering every resident without raising taxes.
[1] https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-repo...
[2] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/medicaid-financing-the-basics/#...
Except we couldn't. For the same reason our public schools can't get Finland's test scores while spending $3,000 less per student pear year than the U.S. For the same reason our public transit systems can't build subways for $100 million per km, like Spain.
Why that is is a bit complicated and doesn't have a single root cause. It's also a bit tricky because every major component blames the other components for the total cost.
Part of the problem (roughly 10% by one estimation I read) is drug prices. Drug prices in the US are >2x the price as compared to other developed countries [1].
No, my point is that we couldn't achieve UK costs by doing "single payer." Our publicly funded systems, like schools and transit, are also cost-inefficient (public schools somewhat less so, public transmit somewhat more so).
I already mentioned drug prices, another input in the cost of US healthcare is the cost of physician salaries. Physicians in the US are paid ~2x what physicians in the UK are paid [1].
One input to physician salaries is that we limited the number of new doctors by limiting the number of residency positions.
[1] https://www.physiciansweekly.com/post/how-do-us-physician-sa...
If I compare the prices of a PS5 in the US to a PS5 in the UK (excluding the 20% Tax), they are basically the same price [1].
If I buy a pair of 501 Levi's jeans in the UK [2] and a pair of 501 Levi's jeans from the US [3] I pay basically the same price (again excluding VAT).
If I buy a Ford compact crossover in the US and buy a Ford compact crossover in the UK, I pay basically the same price of ~$33k.
Please explain why it is a fact of life that a drug in the US costs considerably more than the same drug from the same manufacturer just purchased in Europe.
Why can we not compare the cost of drugs Canada, Japan, UK, Germany, ... to the price of drugs in the US?
And again, drugs cost considerably more in the US whether they were purchased publicly or privately.
[1] https://blog.playstation.com/2026/03/27/new-price-changes-fo...
[2] https://www.levi.com/GB/en_GB/clothing/men/jeans/straight/50...
[3] https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/clothing/men/jeans/straight/50...
Services aren't goods manufactured in a single place. Delivery of healthcare services in the U.S. versus U.K. reflect myriad factors that are rooted in differences between Americans and British people. Americans wouldn't tolerate the trade-offs in the British healthcare system--a system I think is very good, btw--for the same reason they wouldn't tolerate living in little British houses or driving little British cars.
> Please explain why it is a fact of life that a drug in the US costs considerably more than the same drug from the same manufacturer just purchased in Europe.
It's a policy determination to subsidize drug companies to make sure we get access to the latest drugs.
I do not believe this is true. Keep in mind that the UK has universal healthcare (NHS) but also has a private healthcare system.
The private healthcare system can be used to prioritize speed, comfort, elective procedures, ...
Around 12% of the UK population has private medical insurance [1].
> It's a policy determination to subsidize drug companies to make sure we get access to the latest drugs.
There are cases in which a drug is under extreme demand outstripping manufacturing capacity. In these cases, paying more can provide access to a limited resource.
However, to my eyes, this appears to be an unusual occurrence rather than the typical state of drug production worldwide. I don't see evidence that the amount the US pays for drugs results in dramatically higher access.
I believe the opposite is true. If a drug is available in a US pharmacy but it is unaffordable, does one have access to it? I would say no.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/30/almost-one-i...
In the UK, 61% of people report being satisfied with their healthcare, according to OECD. In the US, it’s 75%. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025...
Republicans are the only party that in the 21st century acts as though we can simultaneously cut taxes and increase spending and everything will be fine.
What does change(and is more important) is Debt/Revenue:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=TZfm
The ratio is looking like it is trending in the right direction. If GDP decreases while nominal tax receipts increase, GDP does not change the debt, while the debt/Revenue ratio looks good for paying bills, while not boding well for economic health.
What is this "real world" you are referring to? There has to be a balance between current and future expenditures and economic health to facilitate these. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
Republicans may generally prefer creating money over destroying money, but that doesn't mean they aren't applying taxation. "Tax cuts" in normal speak just means a reduction in how much money is being destroyed. It does not refer to a reduction in your tax burden.
Exactly. Also known as a tax. You can make someone poorer by taking their money and destroying it, or you can make someone poorer by letting them keep their money and devalue it by creating more. Same coin no matter which side you want to look at it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The taxes are always going to get paid in the end. The only choice is in exactly how you want to pay it. Each method has its own set of tradeoffs, so, like with everything, different groups understandably believe in different methods. In practice, both methods will be used. Nobody, apart from the previous commenter, is ever completely hardline "money must only be destroyed" or "money must only be created", but groups will still debate over what is the optimal ratio.
"Taxing billionaires" is the left's version of "cut Medicaid fraud." It's a message for low-information voters who have a gut feeling that free stuff will require more taxes, but get confused converting from billions to trillions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/06/msnbc-sug...
That's why Democrats say "we're the only developed western country without universal healthcare," but never "we're the only developed western country without a 15%+ VAT."
The only thing intentional in politics is preserving your personal status and wealth. This is bipartisan.