Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It Would Take A 50% Hike in Income Tax to Fund Our Current Deficit
Mauldin Economics ^ | 10/13/2017 | BY JOHN MAULDIN

Posted on 10/14/2017 12:24:49 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Authored by John Mauldin via MauldinEconomics.com,

The projected total US debt will be $30 trillion within 10 years, using the CBO’s own numbers. But the CBO also makes the rosy assumptions that there will be no recessions and that GDP will grow at a 4% nominal rate.

Now, that’s possible; I'm inclined to haircut it a bit.

If you asked me to bet the “over/under” on the debt in 2027, I would bet the over at $35 trillion.

After the next recession the deficit will be $30 trillion within 4–5 years and then grow from there at a rate of anywhere from $1.5 to $2 trillion per year (I covered my team’s calculations in this letter).

Is it any wonder why I’m so concerned about pensions?

Social Security Is Impossible Under This Deficit

Note: That is not the CBO’s projected debt. It does not take into account the off-budget deficit that still ends up having to be borrowed. Last year the deficit was well over $1 trillion—but we were told it was in the neighborhood of $600 billion.

If any normal company tried to use accounting like the US Congress does, the SEC would rightly declare it fraudulent and shut it down immediately.

Here’s a chart from the Treasury’s annual financial report, projecting government receipts and spending:

Note that this chart expresses the various items as percentages of GDP, not dollars. So the relatively flat spending categories simply mean they are forecasted to grow in line with the economy, or just a little faster.

But the space representing net interest grows much faster than GDP does - fast enough to make total federal spending add up to one-third of GDP by 2090.

Obviously, this chart is based on all kinds of assumptions, and reality will be far different. I doubt we will make it to 2090 (or even 2050) without at least one global depression or other calamity that radically resets all the assumptions.

Beneficial changes are also possible - biotech breakthroughs that reduce healthcare expenditures, for instance.

Still, looking at the demographic reality of longer lifespans and lower birthrates, it’s hard to believe Social Security can survive over the long run in anything like its present form.

But any major change will mean that the government is breaking its promise to workers and retirees.

How Will We Fund the Deficit and Fulfill Pensions?

And now we come to the really uncomfortable part.

Larry Kotlikoff wrote in an article on Forbes that we would need an immediate approximately 50% increase in taxes to fund our future deficits. That’s what we would need to create a true entitlements “lockbox” with the funds actually in it.

But surely everybody knows by now that there is no lockbox with Social Security funds in it. That money was spent on other government programs and debts. And so when the CBO doesn’t count the trust funds as part of the national debt, they are not only being disingenuous, I think they are committing financial fraud.

The money that will actually pay for Social Security and Medicare down the road is going to have to come out of future taxes, just as for any other debt of the US.

So at some point – even though Republicans are jawboning hard about cutting taxes now – we are going to have to raise taxes in order to fund Social Security and Medicare. I personally think it will have to be done with a value-added tax (VAT), because the necessary increase in income taxes would totally destroy the economy and potential growth.

And yes, I know some of you will write back and say we had much higher tax rates in the 50s and we had good growth then, but our demographics and productivity levels were completely different in that era.

Plus, nobody actually paid the highest tax levels. I remember that in the 80s, before Reagan cut the tax rate, I had so many deductions that my effective tax rate was about 15%. The irony is that after the Reagan tax cuts, my total tax payments went up, not down – I lost all of my cool deductions! Aaah, the good old days…

But the simple fact of the matter is that no Congress is going to fund Social Security and Medicare through tax hikes. Before they ever go there, they will means-test Social Security and increase the retirement age – which they should.

Of course, Congress could always authorize the Treasury Department to authorize the Federal Reserve to monetize a certain amount of the Social Security and Medicare debt, which is essentially what Japan is doing (and seemingly getting away with it).

I think we should all be grateful to the Japanese for being willing to undertake such a fascinating experiment in monetary and fiscal policy.

Let me close with a quick sidebar note. I think the Fed’s mad rush to raise rates and reduce its balance sheet at the same time is unwise.

I mean, seriously, is the Federal Reserve balance sheet making that much of a difference to the US economy? Perhaps when that extraordinary balance was created, it did… but not today. This is one of those times when I think our policy makers should go slowly and tread carefully.

Just saying…

*  *  *

Sharp macroeconomic analysis, big market calls, and shrewd predictions are all in a week’s work for visionary thinker and acclaimed financial expert John Mauldin. Since 2001, investors have turned to his Thoughts from the Frontline to be informed about what’s really going on in the economy. Join hundreds of thousands of readers, and get it free in your inbox every week.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Society
KEYWORDS: debt; deficit; retirement; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 10/14/2017 12:24:49 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why hike the income tax on those who already pay? Just make the 50% who DNO'T pay income tax to chip in.
2 posted on 10/14/2017 12:28:37 PM PDT by Cowboy Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The money that will actually pay for Social Security and Medicare down the road is going to have to come out of future taxes, just as for any other debt of the US.


Not at all clear that the above statement is true.

The U.S. government can simply create the money out of a thin electron soup. It is what it has been doing for the last 8 years.

Theory says we should be in inflation, big time. But we are not, at least to an appreciable degree, which is where it counts.


3 posted on 10/14/2017 12:32:33 PM PDT by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Normal rules say: hike taxes on the people already paying taxes, and that way we can pay for stuff.

But this clearly will not work.

Okay then: Normal rules do not apply.

So watch Trump solve the problem differently.


4 posted on 10/14/2017 12:32:45 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Benedict McCain is the worst traitor ever to wear the uniform of the US military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It Would Take A 50% Hike in Income Tax to Fund Our Current Deficit.

And how much to retire the debt?

5 posted on 10/14/2017 12:35:11 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

When you own the world’s reserve currency you can get away with printing money up to roughly the rate of growth of world GDP without inflation (in theory). The UK did this for decades when they printed pounds back when they had their empire.


6 posted on 10/14/2017 12:43:47 PM PDT by Gideon7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gideon7

When you own the world’s reserve currency you can get away with printing money up to roughly the rate of growth of world GDP without inflation (in theory). The UK did this for decades when they printed pounds back when they had their empire.
____________________________________________________________

It fits with what I have been observing.


7 posted on 10/14/2017 12:46:14 PM PDT by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

And how much to retire the debt?


I would imagine this is essentially incalculable. I would think to pull that much money away from the economy any predictions would be a shot in the dark. Even if you amortized it over 10 years. Heck, even 20.


8 posted on 10/14/2017 12:47:33 PM PDT by cornfedcowboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That kind of tax hike would kill the economy so even more would be taxed. Fact is, we cannot possibly pay down the deficit with our current spending level.

We can only pay it off by cutting spending. NOTHING in the constitution calls for welfare. Those are Taxation Without Representation.


9 posted on 10/14/2017 12:51:20 PM PDT by CodeToad (CWII is coming. Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Repubican tax planning is to grow the economy at 3-5% annually. That kind of economy—especially above 4% will throw off the taxes needed to pay down the deficit.


10 posted on 10/14/2017 12:57:48 PM PDT by ckilmer (q e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

John Mauldin ....irrelevant since 2003.


11 posted on 10/14/2017 12:58:29 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (Apoplectic is where we want them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

There is no politically available choices left.

Except for bankruptcy


12 posted on 10/14/2017 1:09:24 PM PDT by redgolum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

That would trigger a recession, and put more people on welfare.

Or rather, it would revel that a lot of government jobs ARE welfare.

The other thing is 75% or so of the people working today will not be need very soon (according to people like Musk).


13 posted on 10/14/2017 1:12:09 PM PDT by redgolum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Exactly.

We likely would have already gone broke if not for fracking. It was the only positive economic thing going the previous 8 years.

The US is potentially a very rich nation if we just do smart things.


14 posted on 10/14/2017 1:13:23 PM PDT by crusher2013
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad; SeekAndFind; All

>
We can only pay it off by cutting spending. NOTHING in the constitution calls for welfare. Those are Taxation Without Representation.
>
Correct, but there IS quite a few things in the Constitution that make welfare ILLEGAL: A1S8, 5th, 13th (outside of the 9th/10th for the ‘State level’ crowd)

Only ONE sentence in the whole thing worth a hill of beans: “If any normal company tried to use accounting like the US Congress does, the SEC would rightly declare it fraudulent and shut it down immediately.”

Yet, here we have “(C)” pontificating on how to make these illegal/unconstitutional programs of theft and economic servitude ‘solvent’ (though I concur *NOBODY* should pay $0%...EVER. Nobody DOESN’T utilize the govt, ever, so everyone should have skin in the game.).


15 posted on 10/14/2017 1:18:18 PM PDT by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Raising taxes by any extreme amount would not accomplish anything but a dead economy and higher debt.

It’s a silly concept to even talk about.

We have a spending problem, not a taxing problem.


16 posted on 10/14/2017 1:25:08 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (CNN IS ISIS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
A 50 per cent hike may possibly reduce the deficit. As soon as it is announced it will cause a large rearrangement of income and in the second year a large reduction of revenues to the Federal Government as will as an economic subsidence that will produce a further reduction in revenues.

Proposing a tax hike that would supposedly fund the deficit is no better than proposing printing enough money to fund the deficit, which is what happens anyway.

17 posted on 10/14/2017 1:38:19 PM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gideon7

But what happens when the world decides that they no longer want to hold dollars like they have in the past?


18 posted on 10/14/2017 2:12:46 PM PDT by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have been told but have not done the math, that if the Alternative Minimum tax were rewritten as “everyone pays at least 5%”, we would be be within a fraction of a percent for a balanced budget.


19 posted on 10/14/2017 2:50:35 PM PDT by taxcontrol (Stupid should hurt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How about lifting the cap on SS wages .... Jimmie Dimon, Buffett, Clintons, Bezos, Cook, Soros, etc. whining about not paying enough taxes ... wait for the screeching!!!!


20 posted on 10/14/2017 2:55:41 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (Start using cash and checks or the elite class and bankers will make "cashless" the norm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson