One question—what is the ultimate goal? Is it to reduce debt as fast as possible to 0%? To bring deficits to $0? Achieve a 50%/30%/etc debt to GDP ratio within a certain timeframe?
I think the timing is a very important question because it can completely alter some of your positions. It still took Switzerland about 20 yrs to go from 50% to 16% but then Greece has slashed its debt by something like 50% in 5-7 years, which was extremely painful.
This is mostly fine. In your individual reform are you wiping out all the tax expenditures but just not talking about it? That’s a bigger swing than corporate welfare and so you should be. Tax preferenced spending is the original sin of health care, spiking home mortgage deduction would push housing prices down helping young over old adjusted for inheritance
I expected to like this to be something I’d support. I can’t decide if I really want to spend the time to reply in detail, but I think you have a fine as a politician. You readily wave things away or suggest changes without enlightening your audience as to what you mean or what the implications. Many people will hear this as common sense, almost painless changes but you should climb back into your hope and keep digging. 1) [180B] in corporate subsidies. You give nothing info on the components or why it would be difficult in democracy but sensible fixes in your 24 hours as Thomas Friedman. Are we really subsidizing Colgate and Catepiller? Or is it more complex. I suspect most are ag subsidies. What’s the impact of cutting it off next Monday? Is some of it R&D? I don’t know. Corporate subsidies sound like AOC. 2) Retiree welfare- you intend to take my dad’s retiree benefits and retroactively cut them now that he’s old and “wealthy”. You give no elaboration on what that means but let’s say at 70 he had $1m in savings and $1m house. He planned for retirement. Has a 25 year life expectancy (both parents lived that long). So Biden inflation means his payments are cut while people who didn’t prepare get increases? He was a farmer. He definitely has a pitchfork.
That’s from the front end. Sorry to be rude but it’s not particularly insightful into what needs to happen, particularly the impact of the changes you suggest.
One question—what is the ultimate goal? Is it to reduce debt as fast as possible to 0%? To bring deficits to $0? Achieve a 50%/30%/etc debt to GDP ratio within a certain timeframe?
I think the timing is a very important question because it can completely alter some of your positions. It still took Switzerland about 20 yrs to go from 50% to 16% but then Greece has slashed its debt by something like 50% in 5-7 years, which was extremely painful.
This is mostly fine. In your individual reform are you wiping out all the tax expenditures but just not talking about it? That’s a bigger swing than corporate welfare and so you should be. Tax preferenced spending is the original sin of health care, spiking home mortgage deduction would push housing prices down helping young over old adjusted for inheritance
Good point. I should have specified this, but the x tax would get rid of that stuff.
I expected to like this to be something I’d support. I can’t decide if I really want to spend the time to reply in detail, but I think you have a fine as a politician. You readily wave things away or suggest changes without enlightening your audience as to what you mean or what the implications. Many people will hear this as common sense, almost painless changes but you should climb back into your hope and keep digging. 1) [180B] in corporate subsidies. You give nothing info on the components or why it would be difficult in democracy but sensible fixes in your 24 hours as Thomas Friedman. Are we really subsidizing Colgate and Catepiller? Or is it more complex. I suspect most are ag subsidies. What’s the impact of cutting it off next Monday? Is some of it R&D? I don’t know. Corporate subsidies sound like AOC. 2) Retiree welfare- you intend to take my dad’s retiree benefits and retroactively cut them now that he’s old and “wealthy”. You give no elaboration on what that means but let’s say at 70 he had $1m in savings and $1m house. He planned for retirement. Has a 25 year life expectancy (both parents lived that long). So Biden inflation means his payments are cut while people who didn’t prepare get increases? He was a farmer. He definitely has a pitchfork.
That’s from the front end. Sorry to be rude but it’s not particularly insightful into what needs to happen, particularly the impact of the changes you suggest.