Fixing Budget Deficit Means Both Tax Hikes and Spending Cuts

April 18, 2011 RSS Feed Print

OK, this is the day everyone hates. You have to pay your taxes. Who wants to write that check? Nobody, probably.

The truth, however, is that Rep. Paul Ryan, the Tea Party, and most politicians are not being honest when they tell us there is no revenue problem, only a spending problem.

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

The Associated Press reports today that an IRS analysis tells us that 45 percent of Americans will pay no federal income taxes for 2010. Plus, the 400 Americans with the highest adjusted gross incomes averaged $345 million for the year. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992. Wow, and they need another tax break?!

This confirms the Warren Buffett line that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does.

But here is our problem: We cannot come close to dealing with this deficit unless we both cut spending and raise revenue. We certainly won’t accomplish anything unless we deal with the tax problem and reform our tax code.

I firmly believe that every American who works or gets income should pay something in federal taxes. Even if it is a small amount. This by itself won’t do much to dent the deficit, but it would be important as a symbol that everyone is in this together. Second, and most important, the gap between rich and poor and the middle class is widening in this country. Those who earn over a million dollars did not deserve an average tax cut of $120,000 under George Bush; they certainly don’t need that raised to $200,000 under the Ryan plan. [Vote now: Should Ryan's budget plan become law?]

We need to recognize that the richest 2 percent of Americans should pay more, but we also need to make this tax system make sense. How can you have a society where nearly half the income earners pay no income taxes, due to deductions, loopholes, and special deals? 

I am not arguing that struggling families should be hit with a whooping tax bill, but, rather, that our politicians should be honest with the American people. If you are fighting two wars, you have to pay for them. If you have to save the car companies and our financial institutions, you have to pay, at least initially. If you are going to provide Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, bridges, roads, and air traffic controllers, for that matter, you have to have the revenue. [Read Robert Schlesinger: Where did the national debt come from?]

It is just plain dishonest to put forth a budget and a plan that says “we have no revenue problem.” That is modern snake oil. It is time that we dealt with our tax problem, otherwise we won’t really be dealing with our deficit at all.

Tags:
tax exemptions,
tax deductions,
Paul Ryan,
deficit and national debt,
budget cuts,
federal spending,
Congress,
income tax,
politics,
national security terrorism and the military

Reader Comments Read all comments (23)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The idea that the deficit can be reduced by public spending cuts or tax increases is a popular piece of nonsense. The flaw in this idea is that such cuts (and tax increases) raise unemployment, which in turn increases spending on the automatic stabilisers, like unemployment benefit. In fact there is even evidence that public spending cuts actually RAISE public spending! See:

http://www.debtonation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Fiscal-Consolidation1.pdf

The above bit of nonsense is popular with those who have not grasped the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics. A microeconomic entity (like a household or business) CAN reduce its deficit by cutting expenditure or raising income. A government which is a macroeconomic entity CANNOT.

But what a government CAN do – at least to cut the structural debt - is simply to reverse the process that brought the debt into being. What brings a structural debt into being is failing to collect enough tax to cover spending. Reversing that consists of, 1, printing money and buying back the debt (i.e. QE), and 2, raising taxes and paying off the creditors. And those tax increases would NOT reduce GDP or total numbers employed as long as the tax increase and QE were pitched at levels such that the demand reducing effect of the tax equalled the demand increasing effect of the QE.

For more details, see here:

http://ralphanomics.blogspot.com/2011/06/fast-fiscal-consolidation-would-not.html

Ralph Musgrave 12:40PM June 26, 2011

We need to get out of this recession, in addition to tax hikes and spending cuts! This country has always grown itself out of economic downturns and to pay off deficits, so getting the economy going and getting people employed should be the first priority.

Deficits didn't matter to Republicans when they created the $10 trillion of our $14 trillion debt. But since its such a big deal to them for political tactics, lets go for it. Ron Paul has been the only GOP to dare call for military budget cuts - we spend more on our military that all the rest of the world combined. So next, eliminating Reagan's and Bush's Tax Cuts for the Rich will get the deficit trend going back in the right direction. In addition let's get some real tax reform, ridding the tax codes with all the loopholes that allow companies and the wealthy to pay no taxes whatsoever.

Yes, I want us all to be taxed equally but that means taxing the rich more. Taxes on the rich are the lowest in fifty years and American corporations pay some of the lowest taxes in the modern industrial world in practice - sure the tax rates look in line, but all the loopholes let companies pay zero effective tax rate. Some of the same conservatives who are so happy to let corporations not pay no taxes yet often are the same ones who want heavy military spending. We spent billions for BP to invade Iraq (apparently that was the bribe to get the UK to join us), and BP makes trillions harvesting our resources, yet BP doesn't contribute a nickel to our Treasury - to the contrary BP is on welfare, collecting checks from the US Govt because of Bush's subsidies to the oil companies.

We all want taxation to be fair and equal but that means taxing the deadbeat corps and the deadbeat rich, both who are the worst leeches on our economy.

There's one more thing we need to do to get rid of the deficit, that's campaign finance reform to get rid of the lobbying profession entirely, which is the biggest tax on our economy and business in the US.

Sam of NV 9:21PM April 24, 2011

First Peter Fenn is a democrat consultant, that should be known to the readers of this article. I think we should start taxing all union dues at 36% that are not used for collective bargaining purposes. PBS and NPR add revenue and residuals from shows should be taxed at 36%.

susan of RI 7:58AM April 23, 2011

Peter Fenn

Peter Fenn

Peter Fenn is a Democratic political strategist and head of Fenn Communications, one of the nation's leading political and public affairs media firms. Fenn Communications has worked in over 300 campaigns, from presidential to mayoral, and has represented a number of Fortune 500 companies. Fenn is also an adjunct professor at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Get God Out of the Gay Marriage Debate

The government shouldn't tell churches who they should marry, but neither should churches tell the government which marriages it can recognize.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement