A menu of options being circulated by congressional Republicans also includes new tax cuts for corporations and the ultrawealthy.

One GOP proposal takes aim squarely at parents raising children on their own by eliminating the “head of household” filing status to reap some $200B more in taxes over a decade from single parents and other adults caring for dependents on their own.

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    4·
    3 days ago

    I think that while the relationship between tax revenue and spend can be fuzzy, there’s only so far you can push printing the “I helped!” stickers without regard for the amount coming in before it all breaks down. Part of the value of those “I helped” stickers is knowing that the authority doesn’t just print up a few quadrillion because they felt like it, and that the volume of incoming and outgoing “stickers” is at least somewhat in the ball park of comparable, and any deviation between the two at least be steady and predictable and thus subject for planning.

    • kibiz0r@midwest.socialEnglish
      3·
      3 days ago

      Yep. That was point three here:

      We’ve got stickers left over in the economy. So now our new stickers, allocated for next month’s projects, are competing against last month’s sticker-holders. To some extent, this is healthy, because it means people who worked extra hard this month can relax a bit next month. But we don’t want too much to accumulate in the hands of too few people, or else our government spending becomes worthless.

      Deficits still matter, they just don’t matter in the same way that we usually see in the media when they talk about “revenue” and “spending taxpayer dollars”.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 days ago

        Given that, I think the claim that there is zero need to offset spending would be pushing it too far. It might not be as simple as a naive interpretation and somewhat more flexible, but it still has a rather significant relationship that shouldn’t be neglected.