
Realistic Predictions for the 2020's - kp98
https://medium.com/@kentonpalmer7/realistic-predictions-for-the-2020s-b76208bddf83
======
adventured
> Notice American tax revenue to GDP is only 27%, which is low compared to
> many developed nations.

Total government tax revenue is about 32% to 33% of GDP.

fy2020 Federal: $3.65t; State: $2.1t; Local: $1.4t

Out of an economy roughly $22.x trillion in size for fy2020.

Those all must be counted as they each provide useful, typically different,
government services at various levels and are paid for via taxation.

Total government spending is equal to about 37% to 38% of GDP (throw an extra
trillion x in spending on the Federal number). This figure in particular is
much closer to being aligned with typical OECD developed nations.

The deficit spending up at 37-38% comes out of American pockets one way or
another regardless of taxation, via future currency debasement, QE infinite.

A VAT is a horrific idea and is wildly regressive. The very, very obvious tax
change the US needs to make is also very simple: raise taxes on the top ~25%.
And particularly raise taxes by a lot on the top 10%. There's absolutely no
need to introduce a VAT when the US system is already perfectly well set up to
boost taxation by a lot through its existing levers and the US system has
immense slack income taxation potential. In most of the US you have to make
around $600,000 to $700,000 per year before your total tax rate hits 40%. You
can go make $5m, $20m, $60m per year and stay around 45% (higher in CA, NYC,
etc). That's obviously going to change in the next 10-15 years.

~~~
kp98
You're right about the tax numbers, I was referencing 2018 data, so I'll
update that. Also I don't disagree with what you said about the deficit
spending, I do believe that the long term solution is shrinking government
spending, but I don't think that will be politically feasible in the next
recession.

As far as a VAT goes, you could adjust the VAT to fall heavily on certain
items, but in many ways you're right. My point in that statement was to find a
way to tax large corporations. I don't think the US tax code is "perfectly set
up to boost taxation" when one of the largest growth sectors pays such low
rates. Also the top 25% already pay quite high tax rates, and this option is
also politically infeasible at least right now.

------
softwaredoug
These are fun to discuss. I do think it’s more interesting to discuss broader
trends than individual politicians. Even if Trump loses, for example, there’s
likely to continue to be serious populist, “anti multicultural” (to put it
lightly) political forces to contend with across the globe in 2020s.

Moreover elites will continue to assume that demographics will eventually
solve this problem, and continue to be disappointed when this doesn’t come
true. All you have to do is look at slowing immigration in the US and how
previous Democratic constituencies continue to switch towards the populist
Republican messaging.

~~~
kp98
I agree, I think the days of someone like Yang polling 5% in some places, but
getting left out of tons of media, pushed aside on the debate stage, etc will
come to an end. The media generally pretends like Bernie Sanders doesn't
exist, and they acted like Trump had zero vision or capability from day one.
To sum is up that arrogance has to end for them to remain relevant. The antics
need to end, too. Currently it looks like the DNC and media have
systematically propped up candidates one by one (Buttigeg, Biden, Warren,
Harris, Klobuchar) in order to split the vote and take it to super delegates
the same way it was done in 2016 with Bernie. I don't agree with any of them,
but for the DNC and media to stay relevant things need to change.

