[toast0]

In the proposed system, I would imagine Social Security and Medicare should generally operate separately from income taxes, but if the revenue from their specific taxes isn't enough for their spending, taxes would be adjusted up by default. Congressional action could adjust benefits down or transfer money from the general fund.

Welfare, tax credits, and healthcare (outside of Medicare) is all spending, paid for by the general fund. The proposal is to automatically adjust taxes to match.

[KhanMahGretsch]

How does this not create a voting blocs among those who pay income taxes (incentivised for less spending), and those who rely on public-welfare (incentivised for more spending)?

There is much evidence to suggest that it is, under current circumstances, extremely difficult for those on welfare to move back into gainful employment, especially across inter-generational timescales.

Without ever-increasing growth in the economy (a requirement much-derided by detractors of the free-market system), the liabilities would grow more expensive over time; as would taxes; as would the population reliant on said-entitlements. And with less people having disposable income, that would lead to even-less growth, right?

I understand that such analysis is, in general, anathema to the HN audience, but I'd love to hear some solutions to that riddle.

[toast0]

Don't we already have that conflict? Automating the revenue portion shouldn't change the overall dynamics that much; there just might be less deficit spending. Although, unless it's an amendment, Congress is going to break the rules at times, that's what they do.