These revenue-raising options are modest and unlikely to cause economic havoc. Plus, they allow me to close the remaining $1.55T deficit gap.
Job completed.
Viewing entries in
Politics and Economics
Based on the experience of OECD countries and the lower estimate given for a U.S. wealth tax by Saez and Zucman., I’m going to assume a wealth tax in the U.S. would bring in around 1.5% of total federal tax revenue on average. Last year the IRS collected close to $5 trillion in tax revenue. $5 trillion x 1.5% = $75 billion.
Note that the entire after-tax income of the top 1% isn’t enough to close the federal deficit gap of $1.55 trillion. Maybe we can squeeze a bit more out of these lemons but it won’t come close to closing the gap.
Not bad, but $6.55T is still $1.55T short of the goal of cutting the Federal Deficit by $8.1 trillion. So I thought it might be time to go after the rich, tax-wise - but not so much as to undermine the country’s economic growth and vitality (ie, the source of future tax revenue). After all, the rich are the investor class; hit them too hard and the economy goes down with them.
What the American Medical Association says: “Nurse Practitioners are essential members of the physician-led care team, but they are plainly not trained to practice independently.” What researchers have found: “Public safety is often used as an argument against expanding scope of practice (SOP) for nurse practitioners, despite the benefit of filling unmet health care demand…[We found] absolutely no evidence that states that expanded scope of practice performed worse than states that chose not to in terms of public safety.” Bhai & Mitchell, 2025
As documented in the last post, the AMA gives “three big reasons” for opposing independent nurse practitioners (NPs):
It won’t solve the rural access problem.
It will raise health care costs, not cut them.
It threatens patient safety.
I tackled the rural access issue in the last post. This time I will address the second reason the AMA gives for opposing independent NPs.
According to its website, the mission of the American Medical Association (AMA) is to “promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.” The AMA is also a lobbying organization that promotes the self-interest of its members: physicians and medical students. But sometimes the greater good does not mesh with the self-interest of physicians. And sometimes the AMA puts self-interest first.
I’m more interested in the salary gap between physicians and the average worker. As it turns out, that gap is also bigger in the US than in Canada, France and Germany. And yet Americans see their doctors less often than the Canadians, French and Germans. In fact, the bigger the salary gap, the fewer doctor visits per capita…
One reason the federal government spends so much on Medicare and Medicaid (M&M) is that the entire US healthcare system is expensive, no matter who pays the bills. The providers and suppliers are pretty much the same, whether the payer is private or public. Sure, the feds have some pricing power, but squeeze too hard and healthcare service providers will simply say thanks but no thanks.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that up to 25% of health care spending in the United States pays for low-value services, defined as unnecessary or ineffective procedures, tests, scans, and medications. A recent study estimates that in 2022, 71 per 100 Medicare beneficiaries received low-value services. In 2023, Medicare and Medicaid spending reached $1.9 trillion. Reduce that by 10%…
10. Raise Payroll Tax Rate by 1%: $1510B in savings. Social Security is mostly financed by a 12.4 percent payroll tax, split equally between employees and employers. This option would increase that rate by one percentage point to 13.4 percent, phased in over ten years. This increase would only apply to income under the current taxable maximum of $176,100.
The US national debt (which excludes what the government owes itself) is expected to surpass the all-time record of 106% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2029. To put that in perspective, the average over the last 50 years was about 49% of GDP…My goal in this series is to figure out how to reduce the debt to a manageable level. In this quest, I’ll follow the guidance of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), which says that the federal government will need identify around $8.1 trillion in tax increases and budget cuts* to stabilize debt at 100% of the economy by 2035. So that’s what I’m going for.
“It’s when uncertainty collides with urgency that the authorities enter the fray, convene commissions, and issue findings. Those who accept the sanctioned conclusions gain official backing. Those who don’t are ruled out of bounds. No longer recognized as colleagues with legitimate hypotheses, they risk being treated as crackpots, deniers, and conspiracy theorists.” - Doctor’s Orders: It used to be progressives who distrusted the experts. What happened? By Daniel Immerwahr/The New Yorker. May 26, 2025
In their recent article, Best- and Worst-Run Cities in America, WalletHub compared the operating efficiency of 148 of the largest U.S. cities to determine “how well city officials manage and spend public funds by comparing the quality of the services residents receive against the city’s total budget”. Among WalletHub’s 36 metrics of comparison were per Capita Budget and Financial Stability. I had a hunch that, on average, cities with Republican mayors would have smaller per capita budgets and greater financial stability than cities run by non-Republicans (mainly Democrats). So I checked out if my hunch had any merit.
“Property crime fell from the early-1990s onwards because of security improvements, particularly to vehicles and households. As fewer young people became involved in property crime, fewer progressed to violence (which is fortunately rarer), and fewer crimes were committed in which violence also occurs, such as robbery and aggravated burglary.” - Professor Graham Farrell, School of Law/University of Leeds. (Letter to The Economist, June 7, 2025 issue)
I recently read some articles claiming Gen Z -Americans born between the late 1990s and the early 2010s - have become “unprecedentedly rich”, an assessment purportedly based on some number-crunching by the Federal Reserve. Turns out that’s not what the Fed found. To quote:
Why does this matter? Because workers support the young, elderly, and other nonworkers, aka “dependents”. A larger working-age population supports economic growth, thereby generating additional tax revenue to fund pensions, healthcare, public education and other programs that benefit the young, old, disabled, etc. Too few workers relative to dependents, the economy tanks, tax revenues plummet, and the dependents go without – majorly. And that’s where we are headed.
Several developed countries have lowered capital gains taxes over the last couple decades, mainly to stimulate economic growth, investment, and global competitiveness, as well as to discourage investors from holding on to their assets simply to avoid taxes. However, some argue that lower capital gains taxes mainly benefit the rich and have little impact on economic growth or investment. The verdict is out on that score.
Before all these intervening factors muddled the causal picture, many (especially partisans) offered confident opinions on the impact of TCJA. For instance…