So, if we double the revenue extracted from the 1%, we approximately meet our goal.
If we double the revenue extracted from the rest of the top 5%, it only gets us half way there. (And they would then be spending half of their income on taxes)
If we increase by 150% the amounts extracted from both groups, we're 3/4 of the way there.
Non-discretionary spending is mandatory spending, aka entitlement spending. Implied in the name 'non-discretionary' is that you can't just cut it without major entitlement reform.
The point of the article is that without that entitlement reform it's very hard to balance the budget, even with 100% taxes on the 1%.
> I don't think that is possible without creating new loopholes elsewhere.
It's totally possible, especially if the tax code is simplified and different mechanisms are used to incentivize behavior. Many loopholes are side-effect of complexity, and many of the others were deliberately created to benefit some group or other. Both of those are solvable without creating more loopholes.
8 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 28.4 ms ] threadThis page (https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-20...) shows the fraction of existing income tax revenue supplied by the various income quantiles (top 1% -> 39%, 5%-1% -> 20.5%, etc).
So, if we double the revenue extracted from the 1%, we approximately meet our goal.
If we double the revenue extracted from the rest of the top 5%, it only gets us half way there. (And they would then be spending half of their income on taxes)
If we increase by 150% the amounts extracted from both groups, we're 3/4 of the way there.
The point of the article is that without that entitlement reform it's very hard to balance the budget, even with 100% taxes on the 1%.
It's because of loopholes and deductions that Buffet has a lower tax rate than his secretary. Let's get rid of those.
It's totally possible, especially if the tax code is simplified and different mechanisms are used to incentivize behavior. Many loopholes are side-effect of complexity, and many of the others were deliberately created to benefit some group or other. Both of those are solvable without creating more loopholes.