Won’t be the revenue bonanza some people expect. The highest estimate is $70 billion a year. Much lower under a lot of other models. No scenario brings in enough to be fix the funding of the programs you list.
That’s more than the entire existing budget of the Department of Education.
15 Likes
I agree, at least when it comes to a new top marginal tax rate. My point, again, was that putting this top marginal rate in place opens up the possibility of serious discussion in the mainstream about other taxes that could provide serious funding for such programmes – a discussion that have been taboo under the neoliberal consensus for almost four decades in the U.S. That it could add $70-billion a year in revenue, or a only quarter of that, is a bonus but not the main benefit.
7 Likes
And less than the increase in the deficit last year. So your point is?
And so? Can we fucking stop letting perfect be the enemy of good?
No it isn’t a complete fix but it is a damn good start.
12 Likes
Oh, I agree. It’s a start. But you hear people saying it will fund healthcare, SS, etc.
1 Like
“The programs you list” I assume means:
Regarding single-payer healthcare, the US pays more public money into healthcare than Canada does per citizen, in addition to all the private money funneled into it. If a magic wand could be waved to substitute America’s healthcare system out and put Canada’s in it’s place would save America about $200B a year.
Few countries pay more than the US for healthcare from the public purse, and no country pays even two-thirds of what America pays for it when you add the private costs as well. There is no evidence from reality that would make us think single payer will cost more than the current system
13 Likes
See, you are talking about a real solution. Talking about an extra $70 billion dumped into existing healthcare is not.
1 Like
Fair enough! $70B into the current system would be a bit like tears in the ocean.
1 Like
That’s the real issue here. We’re never going to have single-payer universal health insurance when the “reality” starts from the assumption that AOC’s proposal is grossly unfair to the American people (including to anyone making over $10-million/annum).
The neoliberal consensus created that reality, we’ve been living in it since the 1980s, and chipping away at its weakest contentions (i.e. people making $10-million plus will suffer horribly under this new marginal tax bracket) is where we have to start. Maybe then we might be able to discuss in a grown-up manner the other Norquist absurdities that prevent the U.S. from joining the rest of the OECD countries in looking after the health and welfare of its citizens.
8 Likes
But what would all the fence-sitters and self appointed ‘devil’s advocates’ have left to talk about then?
7 Likes
The pointy stick up my ass?
Sounds like a person problem; you might want to get that looked at by a professional.
4 Likes
I kid. I’m not fence sitting on the proposal, just shaking m head at what people think the effect will be. It’s my belief that people believing it will have a meaningful impact distracts and delays actual fixes.
(to clarify, it’s not a bad proposal itself, but is not enough.)
So raising the tax rate on the richest Americans is pointless, but lowering it is vital to exponential growth in the GDP and will save the little babies and honeybees.
Got it.
5 Likes
Hey - that’s 14 beautiful border walls!
5 Likes
Also, doing nothing changes NOTHING.
12 Likes
Great question. The problem is not whether the statement is strictly, narrowly true, but what the statement implies.
It is true that “the top marginal rate was much higher during Reagan’s presidency”. But it implies that was an affirmative policy of the time. Instead, that was the historical beginning of the supply side tax cutting movement that continues today. As you can see from the chart, Reagan was elected promising to cut taxes, which he did significantly, and also set a north star for policy that Republicans follow to this day.
Another example, Republicans around the time of of the 2010 midterms and 2012 general loved pointing out that when Obama entered office, gas was under $2/gallon, but at the time of the subsequent elections it has raised to over $3. This is a disingenuous argument because it ignores the question why that may be so - namely the global financial crisis that lowered demand (thusly lowering prices), and the subsequent recovery which increased demand (thusly increasing prices). In other words, higher gas prices were indicators of positive economic recovery and growth, but were taken out of context and used as a weapon.
These kinds of arguments are good for dunking on the other party but they are bad because they ignore context entirely.
1 Like
It might be. It’s less than 10% of the current fiscal deficit.
Never said that. I say a lot of dumb stuff, but I didn’t say that.
2 Likes
I guess I see why you’d say that. I don’t really agree. To me, “top marginal rate was much higher during Reagan’s presidency” doesn’t imply intent, it just puts a point on the historical trend. For me pointing this out is just giving the scope of the history we are talking about. How far do we have to go back to get a comparable tax rate? We have to go back to Reagan.
If you feel that people will take it the wrong way, then I understand why you wouldn’t say it. I don’t think anyone here was trying to sneak a hidden meaning into that. None of us are confused that Reagan was the one who started the trend of lower and lower and lower taxes.
4 Likes
