It's odd how policy-literate people consider "no tax on tips" some sort of damning PR-to-policy campaign disaster when the main future deficit problem is how much money Medicare spends on well-to-do retirees. It's the high-brow version of complaining about Ukraine Aid as if it's even close to the main driver of spending in America. Tax revenue as a % of GDP has been consistently around 17% since the Korean war, despite Democrats' best efforts to mislead voters and raise taxes further. Check the CBO's 50-year charts if you don't believe me, I'll wait.
The main problem of our deficit is one of rising spending, mostly on seniors. The good news is you can just keep existing benefits and not grow them as much[1]. Of course, because Democrats have twice now trimmed Medicare's growth to spend on partisan bills (the ACA and IRA), they might not like that. Republicans also share with Democrats some of those rich seniors who would like to keep their multi-million-dollar homes and 401k disbursal trajectories with current Medicare premium and service trajectories. Tough luck for them; it's morally reprehensible to spend money like this while transferring away from young workers[2]. That's basically my top reason to vote for a GOP Congress, and in a way, I sometimes suspect Harris winning with GOP House control might be the best option for me despite writing in the presidency.
I agree the main driver of increased spending is health care costs. I also agree that we could make up for that with either spending cuts, or by making the tax code more progressive, including lowering the burden on low-income people and increasing it on high-income people. I also agree that, right now, divided government with the Dems controlling the WH and GOP controlling Congress is likely best for deficit reduction policies.
Things like "no tax on tips" are garbage not because they cost us revenue, but because they barely help anyone. If you want to make the tax code better for the poorest half of Americans, you can't cut their federal income tax, because they don't pay any. They *do* pay the payroll tax. But if you want to cut that for them, just cut that for them, so that low-income folks who don't work for tips can also get the benefit. "No tax on tips" is just weak retail politics that sounds great as a campaign idea but doesn't actually do all that much for the intended group, leaves out a lot of equivalent people, and opens up a thousand new loopholes for the wealthy.
This is fair, I might be a little sour by how many mediocre ideas[1] are being quietly proposed all the times with concentrated benefits and defused costs to the entire public. I also agree it'd be good to reduce payroll taxes, and probably in favor of a universal flat anti-poverty Social Security design in the future. As you correctly note, so much of politics is about the intense periods of deals struck in Congress, not the elections between them. But the former don't get as much media interest as the latter. Perhaps that's for the best.
I hope you will write more often in the future Matt! In list format, or otherwise :) Your articles are some of the most informative I've read on how American politics actually works. More podcasts with Nate Silver would also be awesome.
People like you are the reason why we must elect Trump for President. He is the only one that can turn the demise of this country around. Democrat woke and socialist policies, if allowed to continue another 4 years, will put the USA on a path that will almost be impossible to recover from.
Matt, A perfect example is in Oregon where a State employee got in trouble recently for hiring the most qualified candidate. When we pay our tax dollars to State and Federal Government, which exist to serve the people, we should have every expectation that those dollars will be spent responsibly and in our best interests. Every job should be filled based on merit. This is just one tiny, narrow example of what I'm talking about. All I'm asking for is competence in our Government, which is certainly not what we have had, nor what Harris is capable of providing.
"Candidates can’t just take all the popular positions" ... but they could certainly take more popular positions! Are there many examples of candidates going too far to the center and paying a significant price for it? Who's been losing elections because they're too moderate?
There are increasing psychic costs, especially for staff. And future employment/social incentives for staff. And a candidate for a lower office could pay a price for future primary positioning. But not sure where we've seen candidates pay a price for being too centrist in a particular election.
Also, the hypothetical example of Trump on abortion could be applied to Trump on entitlements, right?
It's odd how policy-literate people consider "no tax on tips" some sort of damning PR-to-policy campaign disaster when the main future deficit problem is how much money Medicare spends on well-to-do retirees. It's the high-brow version of complaining about Ukraine Aid as if it's even close to the main driver of spending in America. Tax revenue as a % of GDP has been consistently around 17% since the Korean war, despite Democrats' best efforts to mislead voters and raise taxes further. Check the CBO's 50-year charts if you don't believe me, I'll wait.
The main problem of our deficit is one of rising spending, mostly on seniors. The good news is you can just keep existing benefits and not grow them as much[1]. Of course, because Democrats have twice now trimmed Medicare's growth to spend on partisan bills (the ACA and IRA), they might not like that. Republicans also share with Democrats some of those rich seniors who would like to keep their multi-million-dollar homes and 401k disbursal trajectories with current Medicare premium and service trajectories. Tough luck for them; it's morally reprehensible to spend money like this while transferring away from young workers[2]. That's basically my top reason to vote for a GOP Congress, and in a way, I sometimes suspect Harris winning with GOP House control might be the best option for me despite writing in the presidency.
[1] https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2024/10/04/how_to_balance_the_budget_1063073.html
[2] https://manhattan.institute/article/the-overextended-retirement-state
I agree the main driver of increased spending is health care costs. I also agree that we could make up for that with either spending cuts, or by making the tax code more progressive, including lowering the burden on low-income people and increasing it on high-income people. I also agree that, right now, divided government with the Dems controlling the WH and GOP controlling Congress is likely best for deficit reduction policies.
Things like "no tax on tips" are garbage not because they cost us revenue, but because they barely help anyone. If you want to make the tax code better for the poorest half of Americans, you can't cut their federal income tax, because they don't pay any. They *do* pay the payroll tax. But if you want to cut that for them, just cut that for them, so that low-income folks who don't work for tips can also get the benefit. "No tax on tips" is just weak retail politics that sounds great as a campaign idea but doesn't actually do all that much for the intended group, leaves out a lot of equivalent people, and opens up a thousand new loopholes for the wealthy.
This is fair, I might be a little sour by how many mediocre ideas[1] are being quietly proposed all the times with concentrated benefits and defused costs to the entire public. I also agree it'd be good to reduce payroll taxes, and probably in favor of a universal flat anti-poverty Social Security design in the future. As you correctly note, so much of politics is about the intense periods of deals struck in Congress, not the elections between them. But the former don't get as much media interest as the latter. Perhaps that's for the best.
[1] https://nypost.com/2024/10/09/opinion/kamala-harris-500b-home-care-election-bribe-and-her-faulty-math/
I hope you will write more often in the future Matt! In list format, or otherwise :) Your articles are some of the most informative I've read on how American politics actually works. More podcasts with Nate Silver would also be awesome.
Thanks!
People like you are the reason why we must elect Trump for President. He is the only one that can turn the demise of this country around. Democrat woke and socialist policies, if allowed to continue another 4 years, will put the USA on a path that will almost be impossible to recover from.
Thanks for the feedback, I always use reader input to shape my views and future writing. Much appreciated.
Matt, A perfect example is in Oregon where a State employee got in trouble recently for hiring the most qualified candidate. When we pay our tax dollars to State and Federal Government, which exist to serve the people, we should have every expectation that those dollars will be spent responsibly and in our best interests. Every job should be filled based on merit. This is just one tiny, narrow example of what I'm talking about. All I'm asking for is competence in our Government, which is certainly not what we have had, nor what Harris is capable of providing.
"Candidates can’t just take all the popular positions" ... but they could certainly take more popular positions! Are there many examples of candidates going too far to the center and paying a significant price for it? Who's been losing elections because they're too moderate?
There are increasing psychic costs, especially for staff. And future employment/social incentives for staff. And a candidate for a lower office could pay a price for future primary positioning. But not sure where we've seen candidates pay a price for being too centrist in a particular election.
Also, the hypothetical example of Trump on abortion could be applied to Trump on entitlements, right?