Had Congress left 1997’s tax code alone, households would pay an average of nearly $3,200 more, a 4.4% decline in after-tax income, according to the American Enterprise Institute. This year’s deficit would be about 40% lower.
Instead, the deficit this year is projected at over $1.5 trillion, or about 6% of GDP, and is expected to reach 7% by 2033. Federal debt as a share of the economy climbed from 33% in 2001 to 97% in 2022 and is projected to hit 115% in 2033. And that’s assuming the tax cuts expire after 2025.
By Richard Rubin
Sept. 13, 2023 Wall Street Journal
Nobody wants to pay more in taxes, no politician has the guts to say we need higher taxes. Americans believe they pay too much in taxes – they don’t. Even Medicare income based premiums are labeled unfair taxes – they aren’t.
Most Americans think the other guy pays too little in taxes.
Many Americans want more for their money from government and have little understanding of where the bulk of federal spending goes – which is to those of us age 65 and older.
You can’t be Denmark, Sweden, the UK or France without everyone giving up more cash to the social cause.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
“Had Congress left 1997’s tax code alone, households would pay an average of nearly $3,200 more, a 4.4% decline in after-tax income…”.
I’m sure (meh) he didn’t do that intentionally. If the average household saved $3,200, how much did the median household save? Some taxpayers are more equal than others.
“You can’t be Denmark, Sweden, the UK or France without everyone giving up more cash to the social cause.” ???
Everyone doesn’t pay taxes. Some of us are net tax recipients. I suppose I am if you compare what I receive (SS) vs what I pay. Most OECD countries are even more (or much more) redistributive than the U.S.
“In 2018, average income inequality among the working-age population of OECD countries, as measured by the Gini coefficient, was 0.41 before taxes and transfers, and 0.31 after government intervention in the form of taxes and transfers (on a scale where 0 represents perfect equality and 1 perfect inequality).”
LikeLike
When Congress creates a new program it never goes away!
LikeLike
Very true and in the process costs go up, usually above any projection
LikeLike
So, we could have paid much taxes since 1997 and still have large deficits and a large national debt. That’s assuming nothing was changed about federal spending during that time frame. We would be in the same place just less in debt. Again that’s assuming economic activity would have been the same even with the higher taxes. That’s assuming the powers that be would have restrained themselves from going on spending sprees during that time and added to the supposed deficits.
You know what they say about assume? It makes an ass out of you and me.
LikeLike
I have every confidence that should taxes be raised they won’t be used to lower debt or deficits, but theoretically pay for some new program. The idea of paying for what you already have committed to seems foreign to politicians and citizens. And so we go merrily along until a real crisis hits.
LikeLike
What responsible folks would advocate for college students to have a proportion of their college loan forgiven? Pure politics–very expensive–the truck driver, barber, hotel worker, etc. will pay for this. So we should increase taxes because debt cancellation will raise the deficit?
LikeLike