A few points pro- and con- this chestnut: a. Increasingly the interest goes to foreigners, whom one might not classify as "ourselves" b. While bond ownership is maldistributed, income tax liability is also concentrated on the upper income portions (top 20% pay vast bulk of it). c. Future taxpayers will on average be richer than today's, if ordinary historical precedent holds, hence better able to carry any given amount of debt d. More payments today rather than borrowing has some impact on future wealth, since those who pay now have less to pass on
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Lear Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Pen-l] Vulnerable logic in Dean Baker's argument? Dean Baker writes the following, in his "The Bankrupt Debate Over Bankrupting Our Children" (2009-5-11 from Truthout): At some point, everyone alive today will be dead. At that point the government bonds that constitute the debt will be owned by our children or grandchildren. In other words, our children and grandchildren will be paying the interest burden to themselves. If future generations both receive and pay the interest on the debt then how can it be on net a burden to them? Isn't it true that "our children and grandchildren" will be paying the interest burden mostly to wealthy bondholders (the "Wall Street crew" that Baker decries) since bond ownership is presumably quite unequally distributed? Bill _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
