Biden claims will not raise taxes on anyone earning over $400,000.

Do you believe him?

The US has been running big budget deficits every year for a while now, getting into more and more debt. And then on top of that there was a special $900 billion spending bill, which represented a 19 percent increase in the normal annual budget, and then shortly after that another $1.9 trillion spending bill.

Previous analysis has shown that if the country only just taxed super-rich people (let's say those earning over $400,000), it would not be enough to cover substantial increases in spending or really address the debt issue.

There seems to be a myth that if taxes were only just increased to high levels on the very wealthy, the country wouldn't have to worry about money and huge spending increases. The actual math though doesn't really bear that idea out.
If the US wants big spending increases there are going to have to be substantial tax increases on the middle class (those earning between $35,000 to $85,000 approximately).

US President Joe Biden remains committed to his campaign pledge that no one earning less than $400,000 should see an increase in their taxes, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said.​

March 15, 2021
Biden would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000: White House | Reuters

Is Biden being deceptive? Is Biden just telling other people to convey this message, because he doesn't want to be on record making this type of promise?
Does Biden actually believe this?
There are so many other Americans who seem to believe government can spend more money and it will never affect them, that eventually they will just increase taxes on the very rich to pay for it.

That's kind of a dangerous and irresponsible policy though, in my opinion.
If the rich really have so much money to effortlessly pay for all this, why not tax them now??
Why not have a balanced budget now? Shouldn't you make absolutely sure that those "super rich" can pay for this right now and that it won't cause big economic issues?

This just seems like a classical case of politicians throwing out free money and getting the country into ever more deeper amounts of debt.
The day or reckoning is going to come some day in the future, where the people are going to have to pay for that. It's not going to pretty.
And even poor people who pay very little taxes, especially those poor people, are going to feel a big squeeze, as money is siphoned off in the economy to pay for these huge tax increases. Very high tax levels can start creating disincentives and limiting growth.

I state what should be obvious here, but a lot of you are not aware of the obvious.

 

A few years ago, we couldn't have known that a pandemic would close down the country(nay the World) and cause a deep recession unable to be lifted until everyone's been given a shot(or two) of one of the vaccines. And, without the many aid packages targeting different sectors of the economy, we would be living in the stone-age by now. Now is the time to spend. And, yes, we will be paying this off for a very long time, and, perhaps, delay the implementation of several government social programs, that progressives love, due to the lack of funds. And, yes, the taxes of everyone have to be raised. But you knew that.

 

The question is, are the benefits worth the cost?
Many don't think so.

Before we can think logically about something we need to be able to have some way to quantity it a little more precisely.

There are different levels of need. If someone needs to immediately come up with money or a loanshark is going to break his legs, does it make sense to borrow from another loanshark who will kill him when he can't pay the money back?

I think that sort of situation is very analogous to the issue here of whether we really "need" to spend that money.

 

Where did you come up with loansharks and who do they represent? Violence and murder are illegal. So, unless we're talking about the mob, chances are the state can step in... and, while I'm at it, there is a reason that there are bankruptcy laws for most things.

 

The point was, you don't really "need" something if it will just end up putting you in a future worse position than you'd otherwise be if you didn't have that thing.

No matter how much you "need" that thing, you don't really need it if it's going to lead to an even worse outcome, but just delayed a little into the future.

People are saying they "need" to spend all this massive amount of money.

 

There are too many on the left and right that need campaign funds from the corporate and others with high incomes. The middle class always gets the short stick no matter who is in power. Ill believe it when I see it.

The problem is the centralization of power to the few rich. We need higher tax to decentralize wealth and increase democracy and give smaller businesses and free-lance individuals a fighting chance. Just look around. Corporations are eating up smaller companies and the news is fed to you is owned by a few rich CEOs.

Also, private taxes are not a tax on business. If the rich don't want to face the heavier tax bracket, they can reinvest it in business so that they can deduct it. I don't think taxing the higher brackets will hurt the economy. In fact, it could help the economy.

It's the tax on the middle class that hurts the economy because it reduces their spending power and this slows the economic gears.

 

It's too late. We can't even pay the interest. Spending more and more to delay the collapse is the only choice. Inflation is inevitable. The death of the dollar is inevitable.
Buying assets that keep their value and maybe some in an alternative exchange like crypto currency might be necessary imo.
I am not bringing kids into this shitty future.

 

The economy is going to collapse, and people who can't afford to store valuable resources are going to have nothing as currency drops in value. If you can buy property, gold or even just storable food, its time to stock up. You'll be able to trade it for a lot soon.

 

Well, I would hope that we are taking lessons from the Great Recession when we bailed out the banks but left main street to fend for themselves. It caused massive homelessness among the people, and took years to climb out of that hole.

 

Here's a question for you: What percent of this bailout actually went directly into the pockets of normal people?

The Washington Post is saying only one-fifth of the total relief money spent went to workers & families:
The U.S. coronavirus bailout spent trillions solving the wrong problem - Washington Post

 

By the way, I'm hoping that there is a roaring economy just waiting for the Coronavirus shutdowns to end.

 

Well, I didn't keep track, but a lot of the money went to businesses and corporations as forgivable loans.

Too big to fail was also a rallying cry of the Great Recession.

 

And the frustrating part is there will be no real way to prove one way or the other whether this gigantic relief package made the economy better or worse than it otherwise would have been without it.