Biden's Budget Will Raise Taxes Without Addressing the Federal Government's Spending Problem
Biden is set to propose a new tax on unrealized investment gains and to quadruple a recently imposed tax on stock buybacks.

"I want to make it clear," President Joe Biden said two weeks ago as he teased his forthcoming budget proposal. "I'm going to raise some taxes."
That's one promise Biden won't be accused of breaking.
The president's annual budget proposal, set to be officially unveiled later today, will include a host of tax increases aimed at wealthier Americans and businesses—which pass those taxes on to workers and consumers. The pièce de résistance, according to a New York Times preview of the president's plans, will be a new tax on money that doesn't exist in the form of a levy on unrealized gains sitting in the investment accounts of households worth more than $100 million.
Biden's budget will also include quadrupling the new tax on stock buybacks implemented just months ago.
And it will include plans to hike the payroll taxes that pay for Medicare to shore up one of the entitlement program's critical trust funds, which is on pace to hit insolvency before the end of the decade. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that the budget will "increase the Medicare tax rate on income above $400,000." That threshold is politically significant since Biden has promised not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than that amount annually.
As a practical matter, the president's budget is only as serious as its chances of getting approved by Congress. Those chances are slim at best, given Republican control of the House and the GOP's likely opposition to Biden's planned tax hikes.
But these proposals still matter because they provide the clearest glimpse into Biden's sense of the government's most critical issues. Once you cut through all the political chuff and buster, making a budget is nothing more than setting priorities.
In that regard, one of the main takeaways from Biden's budget proposal is that deficit politics might return from the dead. The White House is framing Biden's tax proposals as an attempt to curb runaway deficits—the increased revenue will help reduce deficits by a cumulative $3 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Times' preview of Biden's plans—and ensure the continued solvency of Medicare, the federal government's old-age health care program.
In short, Biden's budget acknowledges that the government can't keep borrowing as recklessly as it has for the past few years, and should try to pay for the things it spends money on.
That's a welcome development but one that might ignore the actual problem: the spending itself. Indeed, the federal government doesn't have a revenue problem at all. Federal tax collections hit an all-time high of $4.9 trillion last year. As a share of the overall size of the economy—a measurement not affected by inflation—tax collections hit 19.6 percent last year. That's the highest level since 2000, the fourth-highest total since World War II, and well above the average post-war rate of about 17 percent.
The problem, of course, is that spending continues to outpace revenue by a wide margin. The Congressional Budget Office projects that under current law, the government will collect about 18 percent of GDP in tax revenue over the next 10 years but will spend a whopping 24 percent—a recipe for large and growing deficits that will slow economic growth and add to the already dangerous amount of debt the country is carrying.
Biden's plan to raise taxes might help reduce that gap, but the costs of those tax increases will be felt by every American who earns a paycheck and tries to save for retirement.
And even before the details of the tax proposals are fully public, there are worrying signs. One part of the proposal to shore up Medicare will reportedly rely on shifting revenue from the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT)—a 3.8 percent surtax on high earners imposed as part of the Affordable Care Act—into Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That might help keep that trust fund solvent for longer, but it will reduce tax revenue for Congress to spend on other priorities.
"That would strengthen Medicare on paper without truly improving its financing," warns Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit that advocates for lower deficits. "Absent offsetting measures, this part of their plan simply robs Peter to pay Paul and, in the process, would worsen the budget outlook outside of the trust fund."
Those are the types of difficult decisions that the government will face as entitlements drive deficits higher, and it becomes more evident that there's not enough money to go around.
To some extent, Biden deserves credit for his willingness to admit that Americans are going to have to pay higher taxes if they want to continue having a government that spends over $6 trillion—and that is on pace to spend over $9 trillion annually by 2033, according to the CBO's estimates.
But paying for all that government isn't as easy as saying, "I'm going to raise some taxes." The hard part is still to come.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You "reluctantly" voted for this Eric.
Aaaaaaaah beat me to it.
Feel free to add the link =)
Which I see you did.
I’ve profited $17,000 in just four weeks by working from home comfortably part-time. I was devastated when I lost my previous business dec right away, but happily, I found this project, which has allowed me to get thousands of dollars from the comfort cfs06 of my home. Each person may definitely complete this simple task and earn extra money online by
visiting the next article———>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Libertarian moment!
Most libertarian president ever!
—Reason
First they came for 100 million. I do not have 100 million, so I ignored it.
Then they came for 50 million. I do not have…,
Then they came for 10 million. I do not have…,,
Then they came for 1 million….
Then they came for 100k….
Then they came for 10k…..
Then……
"Biden's Budget Will Raise Taxes"
That's fine. I'm sure he's strategically and reluctantly raising them.
#LibertariansForBiden
#CheapLaborAboveAll
Dollars earning straightforward job to figure and earn on-line. begin now creating daily over $500 merely acting from home.~hn114~ Last month my earning from this are $16205 and that i gave this job solely two hours from my whole day. simplest way to earn additional financial gain online and it doesn’t desires any quite special experience. Move to this web site without delay andfollow details to induce
started right now……………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
the increased revenue will help reduce deficits by a cumulative $3 trillion over the next 10 years
Thanks to the multiplier effect, that extra $3 trillion will enable them to increase spending by $6 trillion over the next decade. $2 trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
See, the Keynesian multiplier is real and far above 1! It simply multiplies something different!
I recently received my 3rd online check for $21,850 which I won by doing a super simple and easy job online. wq300 This online business is amazing and the regular acquisitions that come from it are amazing. Online according to the subtleties referenced on
this site………… http://Www.Smartjob1.com
The author could have pointed out that raising taxes almost never collects as much as politicians project. So that deficit reduction, I'm calling bullshit on it.
Let's call it "The Tax Accountant Retirement Fund"
Maybe we should quite pissing away billions in Ukraine? How about eliminating this DEI nonsense?
FDA, DEA, DOJ... Ruduce big.gov by 90%. I did not sign up for this bullshit.
I've said multiple times I'm not opposed to defense cuts if they targeted the waste built into the system, but they never do, they always target those on the front edge and those supporting them, either through reduction in force, equipment cutbacks, or less training. Start at the Pentagon, the proportion of 0-6 and above is far higher then at any point in our history, we have way to many fucking generals/admirals, most of them doing stupid political makeshift work. When Ike commanded Operation Torch, he was only a Major General (and that wasn't a permanent rank either). Now there are more Full Generals and fewer divisional and army commands. Then let's look at DoD civilians, about three quarters could easily be eliminated, as in my experience only 25% ever do anything anyhow, the rest put more effort into not doing their jobs then it would take to do them. Then let's reform procurement so that all contracts are open contracts, find some way to make sure politicians aren't gaming the system for their benefit, and that we stop buying the Edsel Defense projects (Zumwalt destroyer, Freedom Class Litoral Combat Ship, Ford class Carriers, OV-22 Osprey, F-35 (any model), etc).
How can these authors continue to run cover for the Democratic agenda while only criticizing Republicans? Are they even self aware? And what's the deal with having to criticize Trump in every article about Biden? They're still mad that Hillary lost. Fucking leftist shills.
Why are you unable to ever criticize a Democrat? Straight to troll mode when a criticism of a Democrat is actually issued.
Poor sarc
Did you read the article, though? This is almost a backdoor praise of Biden.
Everything Reason posts is praise for Biden. Even when they are critical they are praising.
So no. Just like you didn't watch the Tucker videos to see NBC was lying when they said Tucker claimed there was no violence.
Consistent at least.
In short, Biden’s budget acknowledges that the government can’t keep borrowing as recklessly as it has for the past few years, and should try to pay for the things it spends money on.
That’s a welcome development….
So, stealing more from people is a welcome development because they’ve been spreading loot around like crazy! And this makes sense to you?
Well they were against tax cuts calling it fake news.
https://reason.com/2018/10/25/trump-middle-class-tax-cut-fake-news/
And Boehm on payroll tax cuts is quite hilarious.
https://reason.com/2019/08/22/how-would-trumps-payroll-tax-cut-work-glad-you-asked/
There's nothing more irresponsible than pairing spending increases with tax hikes. If they were responsible they'd be like Republicans and pay for spending hikes by lowering taxes and putting it all and then some on the debt.
Lowering taxes actually increases revenues you dumb bitch!
What does Biden's proposed budget do on the spending side? If it does not include spending cuts, or even cuts in the rate of spending growth, then it is not serious. The government taking 19%+ cut out of the economy is approaching the point of diminishing returns, where the tax burden is lessening economic growth beyond what increased tax rates bring in.
The rate of spending is unsustainable, no matter what the tax policy is.
That's the magic of GDP though, it includes government spending. So if the government takes everything, GDP will double!
You're responsible for it, Boehm.
You are personally guilty.
Fuck Joe Biden.
+++
that is just a deranged rightwing trope. Everyone should respect and honor drooling mcpoopy pants.
Warren Buffett has already trashed the idiotic stock buyback tax.
But two upsides were left out - his budget increases Medicare's ability to negotiate drug prices and finally - at least Sleepy Joe realizes there is a deficit problem unlike the King of Debt - Fatass Donnie.
I am raising my grade for Old Joe's economic rating to a D- for this lame but real deficit cutting exercise. . Fatass still rates an F.
Youre applauding a change to Medicare to cost shift and increase drug prices for those not in government plans? Cost shift is already estimated at 20% from payment rates.
Defend big government at all costs.
Biden has increased non covid spending by trillions of dollars. He doesn’t care about the deficit. Only spending.
Defend Biden at all costs.
No, I am applauding a plan to allow Medicare (the largest buyer of prescription drugs in the world) to negotiate discounts.
https://www.axios.com/2023/03/09/bidens-medicare-budget-drug-prices
Fatass never made an effort to cut the deficit. Joe's attempt is mostly hokum but it is an attempt - sort of.
How may trillion has Biden added compared to Trump?
Did you know that turd, the ass-clown of the commentariate, lies? It’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
get rid of medicare problem solved.
Do you know what medical industries do when government underpass? Hint i said it in the first post.
I am curious about what happens to drug development when the US stops subsidizing the world's use of pharmaceuticals.
Despite Fat Ass Donnie’s abuse of women, hatred of minorities, bigotry against disabled people, anti-science environmental policy, disastrous Covid response, and his insurrection that nearly destroyed this country, my main complaint was that he raised the deficit too much.
"...increase the Medicare tax rate on income above $400,000..."
Hey, doctors, now you're not only going to have to take care of old people, but you're going to have to pay more to do so.
Mike, great work. I appreciate your work since I presently make more than $36,000 a month from one straightforward internet business! I am aware that you are now making a good living online starting sb-05 with merely $29,000, and they are simple internet operational chores.
.
.
Just click the link————————————>>> https://www.join.hiring9.com
not a serious budget proposal. any budget that does NOT cut spending is complete garbage.
To some extent, Biden deserves credit for his willingness to admit that Americans are going to have to pay higher taxes if they want to continue having a government that spends over $6 trillion—and that is on pace to spend over $9 trillion annually by 2033, according to the CBO's estimates.
This is untrue.
thank Jeebus the opposition party has a minimal say.
>>To some extent, Biden deserves credit
oh no you don't.
Biden isnt even aware of what's going on with the budget. This has nothing to do with Biden.
If Biden actually cut spending Democrats would lose in the next election .
That would be a threat to "Democra[t]cy"
I would vote for the first person to "actually cut spending"
They couldn't even get an agreement to cut the planned GROWTH to spending. During a financial catastrophe. we are doomed. They are going to borrow themselves into a hyperinflation scenario and all us non-elites have to deal with it.
I'm on a constant search for the McCloud secret to eternal life but I assume I'll be dead by the time it all fails.
I agree we have a spending problem, but what to cut?
Border security? Reason.com would probably like that, but that's not happening.
Military? With Russia at war? Not a chance.
Veteran's benefits? You'll go down in history as the President who hates veterans.
Social Security? You want seniors out on the street.
Welfare? You're a heartless racist.
What *should* be cut vs. what is *politically possible* to cut are definitely two different discussions.
The answer is nothing will ever be cut, and they will borrow themselves into inflationary oblivion, all the while slightly edging up taxation levels because.
What should be cut is what is cut in every typical corporate merger, administrative redundancy and middle management. Merge agencies that do the same or similar tasks, reduce the administrative redundancy and get rid of a middle management layer.
Done!
Social Security and Medicare don't need to be cut, they need to be transformed into privately invested mandatory savings plans. For "private investment", you should get a choice between something 401(k) like, a defined benefit pension plan, and/or some form of life insurance that provides a payout. Current retirees, of course, need a transition.
The problem with SS/Medicare is that government collects the money, wastes it on projects that provide an insufficient return, yet gives people inflated benefits for political reasons.
why should there be mandatory savings plans?
Because after a century of progressive indoctrination, teachers unions, and a slow march through the institutions, the vast majority of Americans are incapable of functioning in a free market or taking responsibility for their own lives. The vast majority of Americans can’t even choose foods that don’t kill them or set a budget and save 15% of their income every month.
And while you may say “so what? let them sink or swim!”, the reality is that the US today is a nation with universal suffrage, so if you adopt libertarian policies cold turkey, they are going to last a few years before the vast majority of voters is so pissed off and scared that they switch completely over to authoritarian socialism.
Ukraine is bipartisan. Touching SS and Medicare are political suicide. Let me guess, Medicaid or free healthcare and/or GRaNTs will keep expanding for “migrants”. Reason will start writing articles about public charge immigration-Bahahaha.
This is not going to pass now. The dream is 2025 with lower wealth thresholds.
"In short, Biden's budget acknowledges that the government can't keep borrowing as recklessly as it has for the past few years, and should try to pay for the things it spends money on."
Who believes this?
Not congress. Not the millennial PhDs in Economics.
Reason's new Statement of Purpose: "To make shiny the Biden shitball."
You know, I sometimes get accused of being unwilling to compromise with the Democrats. So, I’ll offer up a true compromise – a dollar-for-dollar matching for spending cuts and tax increases. Specifically, I’ll propose the following tax increases:
1. Remove the tax-exempt status for colleges and universities and their lucrative endowments, as well as non-profit foundations.
2. Restore the 20% post-WWII motion picture excise tax and extend it to social media, publishing, and recording.
3. A 95% “windfall gains” tax on all earnings in excess of double the national median for all public officials (post-employment) and their families (both post and during employment).
I know that cutting spending is a tough thing for Democrats to do. But, hopefully, they’ll match my willingness to make hard choices and not just stand on stodgy ideological grounds.
California cities would be wise, through fellow Democrats, to stop propping up NYC, Chicago, New Orleans, Portland, etc..
https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/FSOC-2023.pdf
Looking at that, NYC has gotten better. Chicago, on the other hand, has gotten much worse. A pleasant surprise is Detroit almost cutting their deficit in half since 2020.
"I want to make it clear," President Joe Biden said two weeks ago as he teased his forthcoming budget proposal. "I'm going to STEAL from you LIKE NOBODIES BUSINESS."
F'En lot of criminals.
That's what happens when criminals are treated like *special* people.
... because [OUR] Gun's make SLAVES!
Still the party of slavery.
The fact is that Americans are undertaxed for the services government provides. Cutting those services is an option but no one seriously want to do that so what left is to tax at a more appropriate level.
Agree or not President Biden does offer a solution in raising taxes. The question is will Republicans offer a real solution in cutting spending. If they do we can evaluate both. I am not holding my breath as Republican tend to be long on talk and short on plans.
But Biden’s proposal does not “tax at a more appropriate levels”. Biden’s proposal perpetuates the fiction that the US can have a European-style social welfare state and make “the rich” pay for it.
No, he does not. The only way to finance what the US has is to massively raise taxes on the US middle class. A flat 25% tax might do the trick. Right now, the bottom 50% pay an effective tax rate of 3.4% and people between 50-75% pay about 15%. That is neither acceptable nor sustainable.
Social Security should be transformed into a mandatory retirement savings plan, and Medicare should be privatized; those are still separate and on top of those taxes (their current contributions are more than adequate when reformed).
And we can only get away with a 25% flat tax rate because the US is still pretty wealthy. At European levels, the median income earner would have to pay around 40% income taxes (and on top of that still pay for retirement and healthcare separately!).
But even a flat tax will have to have deductions for union dues and contributions to "acceptable" charities. (but not those icky religious things).
Oh, and political contributions to democrats.
And public transportation fares.
And electric cars.
And windmills,
And solar panels.
Etc.
Etc.
Forget it Jake, it's DC.
I’m not advocating a flat tax per se, I’m simply saying how much it would take at a minimum.
If you keep all the exemptions and progressivity, everybody making more than $50000 in the US would have to pay about 40% in income tax, and on top of that about 15% for retirement and another 12% for healthcare (assuming those programs are privatized and efficiently run).
Exactly. The numbers do not lie but politicians refuse to face reality. I have been bitching about the tax rates for decades and I argue with people that believe the rich just need to be gouged. Government is just ignorance in motion.
Treasonous politicians learned in the late 18th Century that voters/people's GREED and SELFISHNESS would WIN over Liberty and Justice every-time.
And that is precisely why the USA is NOT a Democracy but instead a *CONSTITUTIONAL* (written principles) Union of *CONSTITUTIONAL* Republican States. Yes; Not even the State's were allowed to be principle-less Democracies.
There seems to be an obsession with flat taxes. I would argue the opposite and say we need more tax brackets. Every working American should pay taxes, even if only a small amount to give them a stake in the budget. Tax rate should then increase to higher and higher levels. If people are taxed for services they will think more about the value of the service and if it is truly needed.
I want people to work and try to make more money, but also to offer resistance to the wealthiest and send a message to these people to say you have enough. Enjoy what you have and give another person an opportunity to also be wealthy.
"no one seriously" wants to stop ARMED-THEFT?
Yeah; That's exactly what is going on.
It doesn’t matter how much wasted time “planning” your tribe does to rob every bank account …… Until you criminals figure out how to motivate EARNING you’ll always live in an ever growing pit of despair of zero-sum (and diminishing) supplies. While propping up character traits of UNJUST criminals.
^^^ THAT is the STUPIDITY of the LEFT ^^^
And the stupidity of communist and socialistic minds.
Gov-Gangster-Gun’s DO NOT make sh*t.
Justice is about having to EARN/CREATE (Not Steal) things.
It's not a "problem" for Biden: he is paying off all the special interests (unions, teachers, academics, green companies, non-profits, foreign lobbyists, domestic lobbyists, banks, Wall St, single mothers, etc.) and he's getting his cut.
Dollars earning straightforward job to figure and earn on-line. begin now creating daily over $500 merely acting from home.~hn114~ Last month my earning from this are $16205 and that i gave this job solely two hours from my whole day. simplest way to earn additional financial gain online and it doesn’t desires any quite special experience. Move to this web site without delay andfollow details to induce
started right now……………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Don't fall into the "percent of GDP" trap. The government has a few legally defined functions. Those functions should become a smaller percent of GDP over time as the economy grows. The government shouldn't get a percentage of GDP and then figure out new ways to spend it.
And spending has gone up by 50% in just the past 5 years. One might ask why. The pandemic bailouts were supposed to be a one-time deal (even if ill-advised from the get-go). Why is the once-in-a-century pandemic crisis level spending the new baseline?
Cut spending back to 2018 levels and the budget would be balanced right now, with no new taxes. Last time I checked, the government wasn't woefully small in 2018, it was gargantuan.
Taxing the rich will not change their life style. It reduces their invested savings. It takes about $500,000 of someone's invested savings to support each average US job. Taking away $1billion of investment capital permanently kills 2000 jobs.
+1000000; Too many find it too easy to be ignorant and don't seem to realize that "Taxing the rich" who are suppliers are really just Taxing everyone. So long as those suppliers are supplying what people buy those taxes are just passed on by 3rd party.
And the Ponzi scheme crashes when Gov-Guns runs the suppliers out of business and the resources become a zero-sum game.
Far too many entertain the idea that Guns can make sh*t. Which is 100% idiocy that even 1st graders can comprehend. Big Gun ideology of Socialism and Communism indoctrination rooted in selfishness and greed is exactly the premise to their zero-sum resources... At least they are smart enough to realize Gun-Supplies are LIMITED by the mere fact that Guns don't make sh*t.
We should be running a $300B-$400B surplus at this point. Neither party has the ability or made a priority to curb total spending.
So Dems, how much do you need to raise taxes to balance the budget? Hint: government spends $1.40 for every $1.00 they take in as revenue (and will continue doing so following any tax increase - I can say with 98% confidence).
No shit! Who could have seen that coming? Not a Reason writer!
Will Reason support an octogenarian that is in cognitive decline and has been a disaster for the country, and has had his son peddle his influence to both our friends and enemies over any Republican in the next Presidential election? You can bet they will.
A couple of observations, made so far down in the comment section they are unlikely to ever be noticed:
Taxing unrecognized capital gains is an idea. We have to determine if it is a good or bad idea. Can it be legally avoided? And no one yet has suggested what to do with unrecognized capital losses with only one TV talking head that I've heard even mentioning this. The way government works, it's likely to be "You have an unrecognized gain - we want our share. But you over there behind the tree with the unrecognized capital loss - well, too bad for you. You can always sell and recognize your loss, and we'll let you deduct $3,000 of it. Oh, you have a larger loss than that? Like I said, 'Too bad for you.' "
I know history is inconvenient, and boring to some, but please look up how the 16th Amendment was sold to a gullible and covetous population with the promise that it would affect "only the rich".