$1.9 Trillion for the next Covet relief bill …

It now seems that the Democrat Congress is bound and determined to appropriate $1.9 trillion for the latest Covet Relief package without bipartisan support. Before we spend that kind of money, shouldn’t we think about perhaps spending less? All of this money is going to be more debt.

Here are some numbers to put the $1.9 trillion into perspective.

In 2019, the Federal Government’s total tax receipts were $3.46 trillion. $1.9 trillion is almost 55% of that total. Also, in 2019, $1.6 trillion was collected from 143.3 million individual tax payers. The current Covet relief bill is almost 119% of that total. In other words, individual tax payers would have to shell out almost 20% more just to pay for this bill. In addition to that, there are the other two Covet relief bills plus the normal operating expenses for the government which were about $4 trillion a year before the pandemic.

How many of you think that these numbers are sustainable? Would it not be prudent to think about scaling this back?

But tax cuts for the rich 1% doesn’t increase debt either. Amirite?

We’re likely ahead of the Laffer Curve, so no, it doesn’t.

Christina Romer, the head of Obama’s economic council looked into what the optimal tax rate is and she came up with 33%. In total taxation, meaning both Federal & State combined. We’re still at >50% in most States.

1 Like

That’s a very good fiscal point, and it should be said the there are a lot of nations with worse debt to GDP than the USA (Hello Japan).

My argument didn’t involve eliminating debt. It involves how raising debt is good if it doesn’t involve 99% of citizens and yet it is bad if it benefits all citizens.

No one seems to realize what $1 trillion is. To collect that in taxes, you need to take all of the income from 1 million people who made $1 million. In the mean time those people will be investing less and hiring less people, which means those people will be less able to pay taxes. I wonder how many people in Washington from both parties have considered that? Not many.

This is part of Keynes’ multiplier effect. Using the name “Keynes” will upset some conservatives here, but his observations are valid when looking at what taxation does to the economy.

And yes you will need to take $1 million from 900 thousand other people to pay for this bill.

Okay, but here’s a more practical solution. Abolish billionaires.

We have ~750 billionaires in the U.S. worth ~3.4 trillion collectively. You take 100% of every dollar over 1 billion. We still have 750 billionaires (still absurd, but baby steps), and now we have an extra inflow of tax money that starts with a ~2.65 trillion headstart.

For the record, I know they don’t have that much cash per se, but the point is we definitely have an untapped source of needlessly hoarded wealth.

It’s what Ronald Reagan accomplished. And yet America survived.

What are you going to tell the people who lose their jobs and incomes? You know this is how Venezuela got to where it is today. Are you ready to get your meals from a garbage truck instead of a food truck or the food store, @Gene?

You clearly have no idea how the economy works, @Gene. You are all emotion, envy and hate. There is no thought or knowledge in your rantings.

Oh, and by the way, when you do away with all billionaires, George Soros, Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg who gives hundreds of millions to your cause. Net worth is theoretical. When you take their wealth, what you get in the end is a lot less than their stated net worth.

How? All the billionaires would still be billionaires. This isn’t about their company’s revenues, this is their personal wealth and assets. 750 billionaires are now billionaires but by less. Is that so bad?

Total nonsense. Have you ever taken a business or economics course?

Wealth is not the same is income. Just saying. What you should be arguing for in a revision on income tax. Bring it back to the 60’s maybe.

Agreed. But I also want to see a wealth tax

That’s a can of worms I don’t want to see open ever. It can lead into guillotine territory for the wrong people real quickly.

1 Like

It’s wild they’d choose the guillotine over becoming only a billionaire, but hey, to each their own.

For the record, a wealth tax isn’t that crazy. Supposedly in the next week or so Warren is going to introduce a wealth tax of 2% on every dollar over 50 million in personal wealth

Going by what we see here, the Democrats are looking for ways to create poverty, not alleviate it.

These proposals are motivated by spite, not economics.

There’s an economic element as well; people in the initial part of the top tax bracket tend to be business owners who simply report their business income as their own.

Tax them more, you have less small and medium businesses, and your economy lacks dynamism.

This is a real problem in Japan. They’re over reliant on the Keiretsu, feeding them subsidies or regulating the economy to suit their needs while short-changing everyone else. I’d even argue Abe weakening the Yen was more to the former’s benefit.

There is inflation to consider, and that is more likely to occur if it’s everyone vs a smaller group.

If everyone has more dollars, but the number of products remain the same in the economy, then prices will rise to reflect that.

Personally, that’s why I prefer targeted means of help rather than “everyone gets a check”. That check will soon mean next to nothing, whereas if you’re targeting, you’re ensuring the people receiving it get consistent value from that help.

Not everyone needs food stamps, but certainly food prices would rise if everyone got them.

1 Like

Uh, Laffer Curve. You’re targeting the people who have the most means at their disposal to simply avoid or leave.

This happens in countries posting their marginal tax rate at 60%, much less “past here, we take everything”.

Sweden gave up trying to tax the 1% exorbitantly because they saw people leave and their revenues drop. Their own Social Democrats called it necessary to limit taxation on them.

As with most generous social safety nets, it’s paid for by the middle class.

To include Warren Buffet, who does pretty much everything he does with his fortune.

Same to Elon Musk.

To assume they all just sit on their hands is a mistake, especially now in an age where Billionaires are almost always work-a-holics who put their fortunes on the line to further what they do.

The century is young…

How soon before the have-nots decide that $100 million is enough for the rich? Or one million?

1 Like

We are not talking about “have nots” here. We are talking about people who are making middle class incomes or more who are jealous of the upper class. Like it was when they were kids, they all expect to get a trophy, even if they failed. “It’s not fair for some people to have more than I have,” they argue. This is what the “Everybody’s a winner” attitude has created.

Most people would call me rich, but I have nothing compared to the John Kerrys of the world. He gets to fly around in his private jet, despite the carbon footprint, and his “dedication to the climate change issue” and hold big government jobs where he gets to dictate how other people should live.

Frankly I don’t care about how he gets to live so long as he leaves me alone, but that is too much to ask of him. He can have his jet and his big house. I don’t care. But people like AOC, who complains about about people who have helipads in New York City, wants what the mega wealthy have and wants the government of confiscate it.

You see the same attitude expressed here by @Gene. He thinks that problems will be solved if we do away with the billionaires. Little does he know that they are too powerful to let that happen and if it did happen, it would be a disaster for the economy because they provide many of the jobs and innovations.

You can have your choice. You can have the government allocate resources with all of the crookedness and kick-backs that go with that, or you can private investors allocate the funds. The private investor system is far superior because many people get to make the decisions as opposed to have a few people do it. Some projects succeed; others fail; but that’s how the more efficient capitalist system works.