Fiscal Responsibility: The Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit
Peter Peterson is out to get your Social Security and Medicare. For those who don't know him, Peterson has long been in the public limelight.
He was the Commerce Secretary in the Nixon administration. He then went on to make billions of dollars as one of the top executives at the Blackstone Group, a private equity fund. Mr. Peterson is known as one of the top beneficiaries of the fund managers tax break, through which he personally pocketed tens of millions of dollars.
Mr. Peterson has been using his Wall Street wealth to attack Social Security and Medicare for decades, but he recently stepped up his efforts. Last year he spent $1 billion to endow the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to further his efforts.
In politics it's not easy to counter the impact of $1 billion. In addition to its money, the Peterson crew enjoys the support of many important news outlets, most importantly the Washington Post which pushes his line on both its editorial and news pages.
In fact, the Post even went so far as to identify Peterson's foundation by its boilerplate, an organization that "advocates for federal fiscal responsibility" instead of telling readers of its political leanings, the normal mode of identification for such organizations. (The Center for Economic and Policy Research was established "to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives.")
While the Peterson crew may have the money and the support of the media, the rest of us can rely on logic and ridicule to counter the attack. In this spirit, we have the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. (Mr. Peterson is apparently fond of having things named after him. In addition to his new Peter G. Peterson Foundation he also has a think tank named after him, the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics.)
The Peterson tax credit would essentially take the Peterson crew at their word. They claim that they are worried that huge tax burdens will leave future generations worse off than the generations that preceded them.
This isn't true. There is no plausible scenario, short of war or environmental disaster, that would leave future generations worse off than their parents or grandparents. But we don't have to argue with the billionaire, let's just give future generations the option to trade places with their parents or grandparents who made out so well.
This is where the tax credit comes in. The tax credit would allow an individual to trade her after-tax income for the after-tax income that someone born 20 or 40 years sooner would have earned at the same age. For example, if someone born in 1990 believes in 2020 that their grandparents got a better deal, they would simply check off the year 1940, and they would have their taxes adjusted so that they would have the same after-tax income of a person born in 1940, when that person was also age thirty.
Of course, the young ones would end up big losers in this story. Real wages on average will be more than 50 percent higher in 2020 than they were in 1970. Even if tax rates were on average 5 percentage points higher, workers in 2020 will still have after-tax wages that are more than 40 percent higher than their counterparts in 1970.
This means that anyone who chose to take advantage of the inter-generational equity tax credit would end up as big losers. That is why it can help solve the deficit problem. If people check off the tax credit, they will pay more in taxes and therefore increase government revenue.
It might be hard to convince large numbers of people to voluntarily pay more in taxes. This is where the Peterson Foundation comes in. They are spending huge amounts of money trying to convince young people that they are being ripped off by their parents and grandparents. They are even promoting front groups of young people to advance this effort.
With his billion dollars, Peterson could convince a huge number of gullible young people to take advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit. Insofar as he successful in this effort, he can help to generate billions of dollars that can be used for items like health care, pre-school education and other pressing needs.
So, let's join efforts with Mr. Peterson and encourage his followers to take advantage of the Peter G. Peterson intergenerational fairness tax credit. There is a word for taking money from willfully ignorant young people who would deny their parents and grandparents the Social Security and Medicare benefits they need to survive: justice.














Peterson and Baker should be left to battle it out in the fens of accounting and financial gobbledygook.
I say tear up all those "special issue" securities sitting in the Trust Fund. Social security should always have been paygo; let's make it paygo, now.
The idea that long dead voters who under-taxed* themselves so they could buy McMansions and Hummers (not to mention Jimmy Choos) can dictate tax policy to the living is undemocratic.
Let's force a little bit of honesty on both sides.
* "Under-taxed" meaning they claim that they weren't actually paying taxes; no, they were actually saving their money and investing those "savings" in those "special issue" securities. Of course their government was spending those "savings" on whatever it usually spends "taxes" on as fast as it got its hands on them.
"I saved it; no, you spent it." Let's call the whole thing off.
February 23, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should? Is that a personal value, an economic truism, or what?
February 23, 2009 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
A personal value -- the only kind that counts for anything.
February 23, 2009 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reply.
I'm seldom tempted to challenge your facts or logic.
Obviously personal values are , well personal. Mine differ.
February 23, 2009 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you mind, Ellen, explaining me why you believe ss should have been and be paygo?
I would like to understand more.
Thanks
February 23, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why doesn't Mr. Peterson voluntary return his Social Security income to the Treasury? Maybe, he does already. That will help a little bit :)
February 23, 2009 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, did Dean Baker just admit that real wages have risen over the past 40 years? Can't wait to quote him on it.
February 23, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
'ellen': 'ss should have always been pay-go'
translation: 'ss should never have been'
-----
'ellen': 'my personal values are the only thing that counts'
translation: 'my economics are worth nothing'
February 23, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man oh man. I agree with almost everything Dean Baker always says, and he's one of my Top 5 favorite commentators these days (Love when he brings the logic with attitude!!).
But then again, I agreed with everything in I.O.U.S.A. and on PGP's website. What is a laughing donkey to do?!?
There was a quote by some Harvard guy this weekend in the Times (I think). They asked him: "Which is worse? The Stimulus/deficit or the national debt?" Harvard guy, being clever, answered "YES."
TIE BREAKER: The fact that Baker's on TPM, and PGP is smoking big cigars on Park Ave. right now.
WINNER: Baker (by a hair).
February 23, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There is no plausible scenario, short of war or environmental disaster, that would leave future generations worse off than their parents or grandparents."
What planet do you live on?
Between 1977 and 2005, the median income for men working full time fell by 9% in real terms. Increases in median family income over the past 30-40 years are due entirely to more women working. That imposes increased costs, such as child care, more packaged/convenience foods and dining out, a need for a second car, etc., so it is not entirely clear to me that financially families are actually better off even though they may be earning more. Of course, we have also lost the benefit to children of stay-at-home parents (which benefits, in terms of PTAs, scout leaders, etc., also extend to children both of whose parents work). I know of no almost no one, other than people whose level of education or employment exceeds their parents, who lives better than their parents.
February 23, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE download of entire $25.95 book]
Here’s an accounting joke—based in truth—that hits the nail on the head:
“The GOP’s balance sheet for America has two sides, with liabilities on the left, and assets on the right. The problem is that on the left, there’s nothing right, while on the right, there’s nothing left.”
Thank you, Ronald Reagan and 30 years of Reaganomics.
Just to be certain, let's put that last dagger in Social Security.
Thank you, Peter Peterson and Government Goldman Sachs.
Are we nuts?
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
“The Bush League of Nations”
www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE download of entire $25.95 book]
February 24, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately the mobs with torches and pitchforks are being led once again astray...
Mr. Peterson is not just a 'greedy capitalist"...
he is quite intelligent and does know how to leverage other peoples money for his pals and his evident(TO THOSE WHO DO SOME RESEARCH)agenda of furthering the regimentation of America and the imposition of socialist and BIPARTISAN New World Order.
His CHAIRMANSHIP in the 80's of the Rockefeller OneWorld coterie Council on Foriegn Relations and his Hegelian "market" RHETORIC should wake up Americans to his "message" which is being pushed by "conservatives" and opposed FOR THE WRONG REASONS by the "liberals".
The hollowing of the American economy and the BIPARTISAN installing of a surveillance state by Peterson and his ilk is lamentable...but the continued obliviousness to the goal and continuing to advocate MORE laws and MORE regimentation and MORE internationalization of laws is even more sad and predictable.
PS Peterson's wife is a founder and leader of the multicultural indoctrination on Childrens Television Workshop..on government TV...sponsored by CFR bankrollers Carnegie and Ford Foundations...to futher THEIR agenda
February 24, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink