This post is part of our forum on Michael Kinsley's October cover story exploring the legacy of the Baby Boomers and what they owe the country. Follow the debate here.
Many thanks to Maya MacGuineas for her contribution to this discussion, which I almost completely agree with. In fact, she goes a bit further than I would--for example, in her desire for thorough means testing of Social Security and Medicare. I would say either my suggestions (such as claiming some of the money back when a recipient dies) or means testing--but not both.
A brief reply to
Jamie Galbraith's reply to my reply to his reply to my piece. I asked: if deficits don't matter, why
have taxes at all? He says the purpose of taxes is not to collect
revenue to pay for government, but to allow for counter-cyclical
spending (and non-spending) for Keynesian purposes. Furthermore, he says
the purpose (to him) of the estate tax is not to raise money or even to
temper large disparities in wealth, but to encourage charitable
contributions because they are deductible. And he says the estate tax
performs this function brilliantly.
Perhaps I phrased my question
badly. I was not asking whether taxes had some purpose other than
paying for the government. I was asking whether Jamie believed the
government could function without collecting any taxes and financing its
entire budget through borrowing. As for the estate tax, it is not
performing brilliantly at the moment, since at the moment it doesn't exist. But I wonder why
Galbraith is so hostile to the notion of applying the estate tax to more
than just a tiny number of extremely wealthy people, so that it would
bring in some serious revenue AND have the effect he wants on more than
just those few.
Actually, I don't wonder all that much. Let's
call it quits, Jamie, and thanks for participating.
The debate continues here.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.