"Able bodied unemployed people receiving Medicaid" is not a constituency that actually exists. The intention and effect of the Medicaid cuts is to take away poor people's healthcare to finance (partially) high end tax cuts. Full stop. That's not a political judgment; it's a judgment of what the bill actually does, by people whose job is to analyze the legislation.
You can tax the rich to feed the poor but you can't tax the rich to feed the middle class. Not enough rich people, too many middle class people. But the post-war welfare state has sought to do just that. It's promise of 'universal' benefits for all people are financed with debt and inflation after the tax spigot is emptied. So we are where we are today. My gut feel, however, is that we're going to be ok. Productivity and growth will save us. lol hopefully. Any thoughts?
Of course you cannot take the politics out of politics.
For the record, I opposed the revenue reductions of 2017 Tax Cuts for the Rich and Deficits Act. [Structurally, reducing taxation of business income was good.]
I’m not aware of any revenue reducing element of the BBB that has a deadweight loss big enough to justify the additional borrowing said reduction will entail.
I really object to using “deductions” rather than partial tax credits to reduce revenue as deductions are more valuable to higher marginal rate taxpayers.
I would not oppose a good-faith work requirement designed to encourage layabouts to get a job. In practice I think this is likely to see working people that cannot negotiate complicated proof of employment systems losing benefits. A good-faith work requirement would just create an in kind EITC and reduce no expenditure.
What is wrong with social insurance for those “unlucky” enough to need consumption more in some life circumstances – sickness, unemployment, old age, rearing children -- even if they are middle class, if the transfer is paid for with a consumption VAT?
I agree with everything here except the VAT advocacy; why be an exponent of that?
"Able bodied unemployed people receiving Medicaid" is not a constituency that actually exists. The intention and effect of the Medicaid cuts is to take away poor people's healthcare to finance (partially) high end tax cuts. Full stop. That's not a political judgment; it's a judgment of what the bill actually does, by people whose job is to analyze the legislation.
I love your heterodox thinking.
If you think she is heterodox, read "Radical Centrist!" :)
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/
Thx for the reference!
You can tax the rich to feed the poor but you can't tax the rich to feed the middle class. Not enough rich people, too many middle class people. But the post-war welfare state has sought to do just that. It's promise of 'universal' benefits for all people are financed with debt and inflation after the tax spigot is emptied. So we are where we are today. My gut feel, however, is that we're going to be ok. Productivity and growth will save us. lol hopefully. Any thoughts?
So don't finance it with debt and inflation, but with a consumption VAT. :)
Agree...
" thoughtful tax reform"....tooth fairy thinking. Politics makes good sense go away. Too bad for us, we will have to live in this world.
Of course you cannot take the politics out of politics.
For the record, I opposed the revenue reductions of 2017 Tax Cuts for the Rich and Deficits Act. [Structurally, reducing taxation of business income was good.]
I’m not aware of any revenue reducing element of the BBB that has a deadweight loss big enough to justify the additional borrowing said reduction will entail.
I really object to using “deductions” rather than partial tax credits to reduce revenue as deductions are more valuable to higher marginal rate taxpayers.
I would not oppose a good-faith work requirement designed to encourage layabouts to get a job. In practice I think this is likely to see working people that cannot negotiate complicated proof of employment systems losing benefits. A good-faith work requirement would just create an in kind EITC and reduce no expenditure.
What is wrong with social insurance for those “unlucky” enough to need consumption more in some life circumstances – sickness, unemployment, old age, rearing children -- even if they are middle class, if the transfer is paid for with a consumption VAT?
Don’t go back on that podcast. They have all the answers so you should go to places that are open to critical thinking.
Don't do podcasts, period. Just publish the transcripts.