The battle over the US deficit is not over yet

Obama puts tax rises back on the table - but will his words be matched with action?

 

In the aftermath of a last-minute deal to raise the US debt ceiling, Barack Obama has hinted that tax rises may be back on the agenda.

The immediate crisis of the US potentially defaulting on its debt was averted with a last minute deal, but politicians on both sides of the debate are still unhappy. Much of the attention has been focused on the intransigent Tea Party faction of the Republican Party, but it would be wrong to under-estimate the anger among Democrats.

Many feel that Obama capitulated far too much ground, agreeing to huge scale cuts in public spending.

While Republicans have insisted that the deal does not include tax rises, Obama said in a short statement that the national debt could only be reduced through a combination of spending cuts and tax rises, particularly for big corporations and the very wealthy. In a return to the rhetoric he entered the debt battle using, he said:

Everyone is going to have to chip in. That is only fair. That's the principle I'll be fighting for during the next phase of this process.

And fight he will have to, if he wants to get tax rises through. His attempt to end the Bush-era tax cuts last year triggered outrage and - once again - he relented, agreeing to extend them until 2012. Ending these enormous tax cuts is the obvious way to reduce the deficit (you can see here how much they contributed to the country's huge debt), but Obama may yet decide it is too risky so close to an election.

Putting tax rises back on the table in as serious way will reignite the ideological battle that brought America to the brink of default this week.
Indeed, many Republicans remain dissatisfied with the current deal, arguing that its spending cuts do not go far enough. Many Tea Party activists still oppose it, even though that their representatives successfully pushed the entire debate far to the right despite controlling less than half of one House ("I hate the deal," said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire)..

Obama has already eloquently argued that those most able to pay should do their bit for deficit reduction, at the start of this battle. There is a clear ideological case to be made at the next election: that tax cuts for corporations and the super-rich should not be maintained at the cost of healthcare for pensioners. However, if his words are not matched by confident, decisive action, there is no point in reopening the debate. He has a lot of work to do if he is to shore up support among his own support-base, let alone the country at large.

 

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

In your 30s? You missed out on £26,000 and you're not even protesting

The 1980s kids seem resigned to their fate - for now. 

Imagine you’re in your thirties, and you’re renting in a shared house, on roughly the same pay you earned five years ago. Now imagine you have a friend, also in their thirties. This friend owns their own home, gets pay rises every year and has a more generous pension to beat. In fact, they are twice as rich as you. 

When you try to talk about how worried you are about your financial situation, the friend shrugs and says: “I was in that situation too.”

Un-friend, right? But this is, in fact, reality. A study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that Brits in their early thirties have a median wealth of £27,000. But ten years ago, a thirty something had £53,000. In other words, that unbearable friend is just someone exactly the same as you, who is now in their forties. 

Not only do Brits born in the early 1980s have half the wealth they would have had if they were born in the 1970s, but they are the first generation to be in this position since World War II.  According to the IFS study, each cohort has got progressively richer. But then, just as the 1980s kids were reaching adulthood, a couple of things happened at once.

House prices raced ahead of wages. Employers made pensions less generous. And, at the crucial point that the 1980s kids were finding their feet in the jobs market, the recession struck. The 1980s kids didn’t manage to buy homes in time to take advantage of low mortgage rates. Instead, they are stuck paying increasing amounts of rent. 

If the wealth distribution between someone in their 30s and someone in their 40s is stark, this is only the starting point in intergenerational inequality. The IFS expects pensioners’ incomes to race ahead of workers in the coming decade. 

So why, given this unprecedented reversal in fortunes, are Brits in their early thirties not marching in the streets? Why are they not burning tyres outside the Treasury while shouting: “Give us out £26k back?” 

The obvious fact that no one is going to be protesting their granny’s good fortune aside, it seems one reason for the 1980s kids’ resignation is they are still in denial. One thirty something wrote to The Staggers that the idea of being able to buy a house had become too abstract to worry about. Instead:

“You just try and get through this month and then worry about next month, which is probably self-defeating, but I think it's quite tough to get in the mindset that you're going to put something by so maybe in 10 years you can buy a shoebox a two-hour train ride from where you actually want to be.”

Another reflected that “people keep saying ‘something will turn up’”.

The Staggers turned to our resident thirty something, Yo Zushi, for his thoughts. He agreed with the IFS analysis that the recession mattered:

"We were spoiled by an artificially inflated balloon of cheap credit and growing up was something you did… later. Then the crash came in 2007-2008, and it became something we couldn’t afford to do. 

I would have got round to becoming comfortably off, I tell myself, had I been given another ten years of amoral capitalist boom to do so. Many of those who were born in the early 1970s drifted along, took a nap and woke up in possession of a house, all mod cons and a decent-paying job. But we slightly younger Gen X-ers followed in their slipstream and somehow fell off the edge. Oh well. "

Will the inertia of the1980s kids last? Perhaps – but Zushi sees in the support for Jeremy Corbyn, a swell of feeling at last. “Our lack of access to the life we were promised in our teens has woken many of us up to why things suck. That’s a good thing. 

“And now we have Corbyn to help sort it all out. That’s not meant sarcastically – I really think he’ll do it.”