Debt and budget question

[Anonymous]

The budget bill includes spending cuts and also tax cuts, which are mostly or entirely an extension of the previous tax cuts. And they are saying that in its current form, the budget bill will increase the debt by $4-5T. There's some math included where the tax cuts are considered to reduce the debt by spurring growth, not sure how that fits in the calculation.

If they kept the same budget, with either current spending levels or with spending cuts (may not be possible via reconciliation), but let the tax cuts expire, would that have an effect of $4-5T? While that would not pay down the debt entirely, it seems like it would help. Is this math correct?

[Anonymous]

Extending the tax cuts cost 3.8 trillion according to JCT (before interest). Letting them expire would raise revenue by same amount.

Extending for middle class and allowing billionaires tax cuts to expire (which is what Dems want) would reduce the 3.8 trillion price tag.

[Anonymous]

The bill also proposes new tax cuts that expire in 4 years (republicans love that trick). In 4 years, they’ll ask for those be permanent too.

If the whole package, extended TCJA cuts and new temporary tax cuts, were permanent, the real cost would be 5.4 trillion before interest.

There is spending in the bill too for defense and border but tax cuts dwarf everything else.

[Anonymous]

Nowhere do I see a deficit turning into a surplus, so there is no paydown of debt. Just either the debt will increase by a large amount or the debt will increase by a small amount.

There is the matter of interest rates, with more than one trillion a year of interest on the debt.

Also, there is the added revenue from tariffs. $16 billion in April.

[Anonymous]

What was the point of DOGE again? Wasn't it to get the deficit down??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nowhere do I see a deficit turning into a surplus, so there is no paydown of debt. Just either the debt will increase by a large amount or the debt will increase by a small amount.

There is the matter of interest rates, with more than one trillion a year of interest on the debt.

Also, there is the added revenue from tariffs. $16 billion in April.

Isn't this revenue from the tarriffs essentially tax revenue since it's fees passed down from the government through companies to consumers/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was the point of DOGE again? Wasn't it to get the deficit down??

Their cuts are focused on discretion spending only which a minute fraction of the total. They just want to make sure bureaucrats and regulations do not hamper them ..and they want everyones data. They do not care about the deficit.

[Anonymous]

The tax cuts will not spur growth. The "trickle down" myth has been pushed by the Republicans since at least the 80's as a justification for minimal taxes for the rich and big corporations.

IF you were in an actual high tax situation, like maybe 60% or 80% of income and profits, then cutting taxes could spur investment and growth. But with taxes as low as they are now, particularly on excessive amounts of earnings, cutting taxes just helps the wealthy amass more wealth. A billionaire can only manage so many productive investments at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nowhere do I see a deficit turning into a surplus, so there is no paydown of debt. Just either the debt will increase by a large amount or the debt will increase by a small amount.

There is the matter of interest rates, with more than one trillion a year of interest on the debt.

Also, there is the added revenue from tariffs. $16 billion in April.

It was a fraction of $16 billion in April and even if that number were accurate, it pales in comparison to the broader GDP and economic costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The tax cuts will not spur growth. The "trickle down" myth has been pushed by the Republicans since at least the 80's as a justification for minimal taxes for the rich and big corporations.

IF you were in an actual high tax situation, like maybe 60% or 80% of income and profits, then cutting taxes could spur investment and growth. But with taxes as low as they are now, particularly on excessive amounts of earnings, cutting taxes just helps the wealthy amass more wealth. A billionaire can only manage so many productive investments at once.

There is a reason it was called 'voodoo economics' by other republicans, from the get go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was the point of DOGE again? Wasn't it to get the deficit down??

It was to dismantle essential services like monitoring weather, education programs that prepare students with disabilities for life after high school, end social programs which provide funding for childcare and early education, threaten programs that help small businesses navigate the contracting process, and make it harder for people to afford housing and exit homelessness our and Americans will pay the price. All of this to give the illusion of cutting waste so MAGA could hand billionaires more money.

[Anonymous]

If Republicans were proud of their Big Brutal Billionaires Bill, why are they voting on it at 1 am tonight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was the point of DOGE again? Wasn't it to get the deficit down??

No, it was to dismantle all the organizations investigating Elon’s companies and to get his AI company all of our data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The tax cuts will not spur growth. The "trickle down" myth has been pushed by the Republicans since at least the 80's as a justification for minimal taxes for the rich and big corporations.

IF you were in an actual high tax situation, like maybe 60% or 80% of income and profits, then cutting taxes could spur investment and growth. But with taxes as low as they are now, particularly on excessive amounts of earnings, cutting taxes just helps the wealthy amass more wealth. A billionaire can only manage so many productive investments at once.

It is close to 60% for rich people in some places, like New York City and California.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tax cuts will not spur growth. The "trickle down" myth has been pushed by the Republicans since at least the 80's as a justification for minimal taxes for the rich and big corporations.

IF you were in an actual high tax situation, like maybe 60% or 80% of income and profits, then cutting taxes could spur investment and growth. But with taxes as low as they are now, particularly on excessive amounts of earnings, cutting taxes just helps the wealthy amass more wealth. A billionaire can only manage so many productive investments at once.

It is close to 60% for rich people in some places, like New York City and California.

In theory or in practice?

On all income or marginal?