Your emphasis on the middle class doing well under our welfare system is telling. I imply from it that you know welfare is insufficient for the lowest SES strata. Homelessness and hunger is high amongst the poor, which is the right metric to measure the adequacy of a nation's welfare system. I agree that all welfare should be means tested (except child benefits like school lunches because of peer pressure considerations), which would ease our mutual concern over the middle class consuming too much of our total welfare budget.
Speaking of metrics, the right measure of progressive taxation is the individual tax burden, and not the percentage of total taxes paid by SES strata. That the top 10% pay 76% of all collected taxes is a reflection of grievous wealth disparity. America's wealthiest SES strata are not individually burdened at all. At our wealth disparity, the wealthiest should be paying 90%+ of taxes to call our tax schedule progressive. Even at that level, they would not be burdened.
This type of progressive taxation is justified because individual capitalist wealth is largely unearned. Billions of dollars are made off the shoulders of thousands of others. Elon Musk, for instance, is not so brilliant that we can say he earned his fortune. American society earned the greatest part of his billions, so we should increase his tax burden. It's a canard to suggest that slight burden would diminish any capitalist drives for wealth accumulation.
The greatest risk to the economy and social tranquility is continuing tax rates that are too low and insufficiently progressive. While government fraud and waste are extensive, necessitating budget cuts, we must strengthen, not diminish the "welfare state."
American capitalism is the envy of the world, but continuing that success requires a healthy, educated, housed, well fed and internationally defended society; elements of the welfare state. America lags far behind our industrial peers in all of these bedrocks except the last. National defense expenditures are grossly excessive, with inefficiencies and ineffectiveness rampant. At the same time as these necessities are falling short, American capitalists are enjoying unprecedented wealth.
Budgets should be "zeroed out" every decade, and then reset by imagining the minimum needed for the welfare state in a fully effective and efficient manner. Then taxes need to be raised to meet that budget. Effectively and efficiently providing for the welfare state is a challenge that has not been met, but continuing with inadequate tax revenue while those problems are solved is a recipe for eventual social unrest that will damage capitalist fortunes.
Your concerns about the welfare state and taxation touch on crucial issues, but research provides a different perspective on these dynamics.
The U.S. welfare state is already extensive, with middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare being the largest components. These programs are not primarily targeted at the poor but disproportionately benefit middle- and upper-income retirees. For instance, Social Security redistributes resources across generations in a way that increasingly strains younger workers while rewarding wealthier seniors. Medicare, too, is heavily subsidized and higher earners benefit significantly despite their ability to self-finance healthcare costs.
America’s tax code is already among the most progressive in the industrialized world. The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 76 percent of all income taxes paid, and the top 25 percent paid 89 percent of all income taxes. However, despite this, federal revenue is insufficient to keep up with the rising costs of entitlements
Reforming entitlements—by slowing benefit growth and expanding means-testing—would better align benefits with fiscal capacity while preserving safety nets for the most vulnerable. Expanding entitlements without systemic reform risks crowding out other priorities like defense.
American capitalism has indeed fostered remarkable wealth creation, but heavy tax increases on capital and earned income could undermine the very economic engine that funds government programs.
Your vision for a well-managed welfare state is admirable, but the real challenge lies in ensuring these programs are properly targeted and financially sustainable without undermining the economic foundation that supports them.
Reforming the welfare state and reining in excessive spending—not raising taxes on top earners and innovators who already bear the brunt of the federal tax burden—will better protect both social stability and economic prosperity.
Looking forward to your J7 paper. Would love to see a list of corporate welfare and tax loopholes to be eliminated. That would also have the benefit of simplifying the tax system.
Your emphasis on the middle class doing well under our welfare system is telling. I imply from it that you know welfare is insufficient for the lowest SES strata. Homelessness and hunger is high amongst the poor, which is the right metric to measure the adequacy of a nation's welfare system. I agree that all welfare should be means tested (except child benefits like school lunches because of peer pressure considerations), which would ease our mutual concern over the middle class consuming too much of our total welfare budget.
Speaking of metrics, the right measure of progressive taxation is the individual tax burden, and not the percentage of total taxes paid by SES strata. That the top 10% pay 76% of all collected taxes is a reflection of grievous wealth disparity. America's wealthiest SES strata are not individually burdened at all. At our wealth disparity, the wealthiest should be paying 90%+ of taxes to call our tax schedule progressive. Even at that level, they would not be burdened.
This type of progressive taxation is justified because individual capitalist wealth is largely unearned. Billions of dollars are made off the shoulders of thousands of others. Elon Musk, for instance, is not so brilliant that we can say he earned his fortune. American society earned the greatest part of his billions, so we should increase his tax burden. It's a canard to suggest that slight burden would diminish any capitalist drives for wealth accumulation.
The greatest risk to the economy and social tranquility is continuing tax rates that are too low and insufficiently progressive. While government fraud and waste are extensive, necessitating budget cuts, we must strengthen, not diminish the "welfare state."
American capitalism is the envy of the world, but continuing that success requires a healthy, educated, housed, well fed and internationally defended society; elements of the welfare state. America lags far behind our industrial peers in all of these bedrocks except the last. National defense expenditures are grossly excessive, with inefficiencies and ineffectiveness rampant. At the same time as these necessities are falling short, American capitalists are enjoying unprecedented wealth.
Budgets should be "zeroed out" every decade, and then reset by imagining the minimum needed for the welfare state in a fully effective and efficient manner. Then taxes need to be raised to meet that budget. Effectively and efficiently providing for the welfare state is a challenge that has not been met, but continuing with inadequate tax revenue while those problems are solved is a recipe for eventual social unrest that will damage capitalist fortunes.
Your concerns about the welfare state and taxation touch on crucial issues, but research provides a different perspective on these dynamics.
The U.S. welfare state is already extensive, with middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare being the largest components. These programs are not primarily targeted at the poor but disproportionately benefit middle- and upper-income retirees. For instance, Social Security redistributes resources across generations in a way that increasingly strains younger workers while rewarding wealthier seniors. Medicare, too, is heavily subsidized and higher earners benefit significantly despite their ability to self-finance healthcare costs.
America’s tax code is already among the most progressive in the industrialized world. The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 76 percent of all income taxes paid, and the top 25 percent paid 89 percent of all income taxes. However, despite this, federal revenue is insufficient to keep up with the rising costs of entitlements
Reforming entitlements—by slowing benefit growth and expanding means-testing—would better align benefits with fiscal capacity while preserving safety nets for the most vulnerable. Expanding entitlements without systemic reform risks crowding out other priorities like defense.
American capitalism has indeed fostered remarkable wealth creation, but heavy tax increases on capital and earned income could undermine the very economic engine that funds government programs.
Your vision for a well-managed welfare state is admirable, but the real challenge lies in ensuring these programs are properly targeted and financially sustainable without undermining the economic foundation that supports them.
Reforming the welfare state and reining in excessive spending—not raising taxes on top earners and innovators who already bear the brunt of the federal tax burden—will better protect both social stability and economic prosperity.
Source re progressive US taxation: https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes
Looking forward to your J7 paper. Would love to see a list of corporate welfare and tax loopholes to be eliminated. That would also have the benefit of simplifying the tax system.
See Slashing Tax Rates and Cutting Loopholes, a comprehensive paper by my colleague Adam Michel that contains just such a list and more: https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/slashing-tax-rates-cutting-loopholes