Yes, you can make a strong argument that the ballooning U.S. national debt—now over $37 trillion—is in large part a consequence of decades of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, combined with increased spending. The key elements of this argument are:
1. Tax Cuts for the Rich and Corporations (Since the 1970s)
- Reaganomics (1980s): The Reagan administration slashed the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28% and corporate taxes were significantly reduced.
- Bush Tax Cuts (2001, 2003): George W. Bush reduced taxes further, including cuts to capital gains and estate taxes, benefiting the wealthiest households.
- Trump’s Tax Cuts (2017): The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) cut corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, significantly reducing federal revenue.
These policies resulted in trillions in lost tax revenue, exacerbating deficits and increasing reliance on debt.
2. Rising Wealth Inequality & Tax Avoidance
- Declining Corporate Tax Contributions: In the 1950s, corporate taxes made up 30% of federal revenue; today, it’s closer to 7%.
- Wealth Hoarding & Loopholes: Billionaires and corporations use offshore tax havens, shell companies, and stock buybacks to avoid taxation.
- Wage Stagnation vs. Capital Gains Boom: Wealth has shifted towards capital (stocks, real estate), which is taxed at lower rates than wages.
If the ultra-wealthy and corporations had been taxed more equitably over the past decades, federal revenues would have been much higher.
3. Unfunded Spending & Military Budgets
- Tax cuts were not matched with spending cuts. Instead, the government borrowed to cover budget shortfalls.
- The U.S. has spent $8 trillion on post-9/11 wars, mostly funded through debt.
- COVID-19 relief, infrastructure bills, and rising healthcare costs further expanded the deficit.
4. Counterarguments
- Some argue that government overspending (rather than tax cuts) is the main issue.
- Others claim that tax cuts stimulated economic growth, though this is debated.
If the U.S. had maintained pre-1980s tax rates (particularly on the wealthy and corporations) while keeping spending at the same levels, it is likely that the national debt would be significantly lower—or possibly non-existent. Let’s break this down:
Estimating the “Lost” Revenue
Economists and policy analysts have estimated that decades of tax cuts for the rich and corporations have cost the U.S. government at least $50–$60 trillion in lost revenue. Here’s how:
-
Reagan Tax Cuts (1981, 1986)
- Reduced top marginal income tax rates from 70% to 28%.
- Resulted in trillions of lost revenue over the following decades.
-
Bush Tax Cuts (2001, 2003)
- Lowered top tax rates and cut estate taxes.
- Lost revenue: $10–$15 trillion over time.
-
Trump Tax Cuts (2017)
- Corporate tax rate cut from 35% to 21%.
- Lost revenue: $2–$3 trillion in a decade.
-
Corporate Tax Evasion & Offshore Havens
- Corporate tax rates in the 1950s made up 30% of federal revenue, but today it’s only 7%.
- Companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google shift profits offshore, avoiding taxes.
- Estimated loss: $1–$2 trillion per decade.
Total “Lost” Revenue Since 1980s: $50–$60 Trillion
- If these revenues had been collected and used to offset deficits, the U.S. would likely have a budget surplus instead of debt.
What Would the Debt Look Like?
- Current Debt: $37 Trillion
- If the U.S. had collected the estimated lost revenue, it would have a surplus of $15–$25 trillion instead of debt.
- The U.S. could have fully funded infrastructure, education, healthcare, and even universal basic income programs without borrowing.
What If the U.S. Used a More Progressive Tax Model?
Countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark collect much higher taxes on the wealthy and have very low debt-to-GDP ratios. If the U.S. had followed a Nordic-style progressive tax system, it could have:
- A balanced budget or even budget surpluses.
- A national wealth fund (like Norway’s $1.4 trillion oil fund).
- No need for austerity or debt-limit fights.
Conclusion
- The U.S. would likely have zero national debt, or even a surplus of trillions, if tax policies from the pre-1980s had remained in place.
- The “debt crisis” is not a spending problem but a tax fairness problem.
- The richest Americans and corporations paid much higher taxes in the 1950s–1970s, and the economy thrived without the massive deficits we see today.
This suggests that today’s debt is an artificial crisis, created by decades of wealthy tax cuts and corporate loopholes, rather than unavoidable economic forces.