Baltimore Sun

A new era of taxing and spending?

- By Steven J. Klees

We need a revolution in government taxing and spending.

On the taxing side, this isn’t about bashing the rich, but about tax justice — witness Warren Buffet’s famous statement that his secretary is taxed more than he is, the recent open letter to 2020 presidenti­al hopefuls by 18 “ultrarich” Americans saying they should be the ones to pay more taxes or the work of the organizati­on Patriotic Millionair­es, which helped support a conference last month in Washington, D.C., attended by 200 or so researcher­s, analysts, strategist­s and campaigner­s and titled: “Taxing the (Very) Rich: Finding A Cure for Excessive Wealth Disorder.”

The conference looked at the ways excessive wealth disorder is harming our environmen­t, our politics, our democracy, the racial divide and more, though its core was found in 20 presentati­ons exploring alternate ways to tax the very rich — focused mostly on the 0.1%, not the 1% — from wealth taxes to income tax surcharges to inheritanc­e taxes.

Relevant to the spending side, we have a climate crisis, a health care shambles, inadequate housing, crumbling infrastruc­ture, a shameful degree of hunger, skyrocketi­ng college debt, insufficie­nt early childhood education and more. As we saw in the first round of Democratic presidenti­al candidate debates, various contenders have plans to deal with some of these problems; Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have plans to deal with almost all of them.

Not including health care, the sum total of dealing with all of these fundamenta­l problems would cost about $1 trillion a year. This is substantia­l, but equals only about 5% of our GDP, an increase of about 25% in government spending, to be financed by taxes, deficit spending and reduction in military expenditur­es. Medicare for all, a system that all other rich nations have, would add more, but it would pay for itself and actually save money by reducing what American families are now paying for health care.

Whether this is “socialism” depends on your point of view. To me, it is more the fulfillmen­t of President Franklin Roosevelt’s intended New Deal, only a portion of which got funded.

We live in a world where, for the last 40 years, since Ronald Reagan, market fundamenta­lism has held sway, and the role of government has been vilified. Yet the market can’t solve the critical problems we face, and these problems are growing ever more serious.

We need a revolution in thinking that recognizes that in today’s world, it is only through the collective and concerted action of local, state and national government­s, as well as internatio­nal organizati­ons, that we will be able to thrive — or even to survive.

It is fashionabl­e to say that government­s are inept, but they have accomplish­ed much — public schools, libraries, police and fire protection, astronauts to the moon, Medicare and Medicaid, roads and bridges, electrific­ation and other utilities, national defense, Social Security, extending civil and political rights, food safety, worker safety and so on. We need to improve government, not try to get around it. The challenges we face and the programs to ameliorate them don’t exhaust what we need to do. For example, we should have national service for our youth, continued exploratio­n of space, and, probably, a guaranteed annual income at some point given the projection­s of artificial intelligen­ce and the automation of work. Of course, to do all this we would need to increase taxes on more than the top 0.1%, but the benefits would be huge.

For 40 years, we have been headed in exactly the opposite direction of what is needed. We need a sea change, and the movement of the Democratic Party to the left may well usher one in.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States