The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - No Mercy / No Malice: The Grown Up Tax Bill

Episode Date: June 28, 2025

As read by George Hahn. https://www.profgalloway.com/the-grown-up-tax-bill/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Enzo. No, not right now. Lots of us feel like we understand our dogs. But scientists who actually study dogs say we might be a bit overconfident. We're just not as smart as we think we are when it comes to understanding our dogs. This we can't explain it to me. Do we actually know what our dogs are feeling? Or are we just fooling ourselves?

New episodes every Sunday. Hey, this is Peter Kafka. I'm the host of Channels, a show about what happens when media and tech collide. And this week, I'm talking to Emily Sunberg, whose Feed Me newsletter is a thriving one-person business with mega fans and lots of subscribers. This is a story about a media company that's taking off.

A very wise person once told me, once you turn certain levers on, you can't turn them back off. And I don't need to right now. Like everything's working. I don't need to give more of my personal life. That's This Week on Channels, wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. I'm Scott Galloway, and this is No Mercy, No Malice. The big beautiful bill will explode the deficit. Democrats have pushed back, but haven't offered an alternative. The Grown-Up Tax Bill, as read by George Haunt. Next week, the Republican-led Congress plans to move President Trump's big, beautiful

bill one step closer to law. The most recent CBO analysis factoring in interest rates, inflation, and economic growth put the cost to $2.8 trillion. Democrats have criticized the bill but haven't offered alternatives, as they live up to their signature right but ineffective brand. Not offering a contrasting bill is a missed opportunity. So here's my plan to reduce the deficit gradually, increase investments in future generations, and maintain economic growth. Note, while health care and defense are ripe for cost-cutting, I've left them out of this analysis as those are posts for another

time. Economists frame the trade-off between defense spending and social welfare as guns vs. butter. As spending on guns increases, there's less money for butter. And vice versa. That's the theory, anyway. In practice, the GOP believes cutting taxes is the best strategy for growth. It isn't. And Democrats believe the government can fix social ills by throwing money at problems.

So, in the sole act of bipartisanship that endures, we cut taxes and increase spending, resulting in massive deficits that amount to deferred taxes on the young. The result? The federal budget's fastest-growing line item isn't defense or entitlements, but interest on our debt. So raise taxes or cut spending? The answer is yes. Yes. A budget involves three variables. Time, costs and opportunities left for future generations.

People, redistribution, and values. On my podcast, University of Michigan Economics and Public Policy professor Justin Wolfers told me the question isn't whether a budget increases or decreases the deficit, but what is the right level. Quote, the basic logic is we should stash away a bit of money when times are good so we can splash cash when times are rough. Unquote. Our current deficit to GDP ratio is 6.4%, meaning we're spending money as if we're

combating a pandemic or the Great Recession. Instead, we need to run moderate surpluses that don't stifle economic growth and or budget deficits that are below the forecast for GDP growth. Some back of the envelope math? To reduce our deficit to GDP to a 1% target over the next decade, we'd need spending cuts and revenue increases that net out to approximately $150 billion or less in annual deficits. The tax gap is the difference between the amount of taxes owed and the amount collected on time. According to the most recent IRS data the tax gap in 2022 was $696 billion dollars, meaning we'd make

significant progress on our deficit to GDP target simply by cracking down on tax avoidance. Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, IRA, put us on that path. According to an analysis from the Yale Budget Lab, its $80 billion increase in IRS funding over 10 years, since rescinded, would have netted $637 billion in revenue over that period. Another analysis by Larry Summers and Natasha Sarin estimated that restoring tax compliance efforts to historical levels could generate over $1 trillion

in the next decade. Neutering the IRS amounted to the most regressive tax in recent history. Lower and middle income tax returns are simple and easy to audit and enforce. However, the explosion in the tax code from 400 to 74,000 pages over the last century created an obstacle course that must be run at night. Wealthy households have experienced navigators, tax lawyers, advisors, etc. to guide them.

Reducing the agency staff is a conscious decision to not enforce the tax code for the wealthy. We're gutting the fire department during wildfire season to save water. It's not stupidity. It's another conscious decision to transfer wealth from poor to rich as the effective tax on the wealthy plummets. The lion's share of uncollected revenue, $381 billion, would come from individuals, unreported employment taxes, $111 billion, underpayments, $80 billion, and non-filings, $53 billion.

One paper estimated the top 1% of earners are responsible for nearly 30% of unpaid taxes, as high earners incur greater tax liabilities and their income tends to flow from opaque sources that aren't subject to third-party reporting. According to Summers and Sarin, every dollar invested in audits returns $7 in revenue. But since 1960, the audit rate has fallen from 3% to 0.36%. To paraphrase the bank robber Willie Sutton, audits are where the money is. According to a GAO report, AI could help the IRS deploy its

limited resources to identify suspect returns, understand complex audits, and free up staff to improve customer service. One of the most offensive provisions in Trump's big beautiful bill is a permanent increase in the estate tax exemption to an inflation-indexed $15 million per person letting couples pass $30 million to their heirs tax- free while slashing food stamps. We're opting for dynasties over decency. Good governance is implementing taxes that are the least taxing. That's the basis for a progressive tax system.

I can more easily endure a high tax rate than a special needs teacher making 40K. They can more easily endure a high tax rate than a special needs teacher making 40k. Vastly reducing the inheritance exemption is likely the least taxing tax that could raise substantial revenue. Your kid inheriting $7 million versus $9 million won't hurt. I know a lot of rich kids. The very rich are no happier than the rich. There are diminishing returns to happiness above a $200,000 annual in income. My proposal? Drop the exemption to 1 million dollars and

tax inheritances above that threshold at 40% without loopholes. That would raise an estimated above that threshold at 40% without loopholes. That would raise an estimated $118 billion in annual revenue or more than $1 trillion over a decade. In 1969, Congress learned that 155 taxpayers with incomes exceeding $200,000, nearly $2 million today, had paid no federal income tax in 1966.

Representatives received more constituent letters about these 155 taxpayers than about the Vietnam War. In response to that outrage, Congress created an early version of the alternative minimum tax. Over the following decades, Congress tinkered with the AMT, but the basic idea was to compare an individual's income before and after they claimed certain deductions and dove into the torrent of loopholes inserted by lobbyists. After a portion of their income is exempted, the taxpayer must pay tax on whichever amount

is greater. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act didn't eliminate the AMT, but it limited its scope, dropping the number of taxpayers affected by the tax from 5.2 million to 200,000. We should bring back the individual AMT with a $1 million threshold taxed at 40% and a $10 million threshold taxed at 60%. If 60% sounds high, historically it isn't. This would raise $540 billion in revenue per year while only affecting the top 0.2%

of filers or about 275,000 taxpayers, according to my back-of-the-envelope calculation. We could also do nothing, as the TCJA's assault on the AMT is set to expire this year if Congress doesn't act. Lower long-term capital gains rates and mortgage interest deductions are nothing but a transfer of wealth from young to old, poor to rich. Who owns stocks and homes? A. The old and rich. Who rents and makes their money from a salary?

A. The young and poor. Eliminating the capital gains tax deduction, taxing windfalls at the same rate as ordinary income, and the mortgage interest deduction would add $117 billion per annum to revenue. How many lobbyists does it take to change a lightbulb? A. None, as they prefer to keep everything in the dark. In 2024, U.S. businesses spent $4.4 billion on lobbying. It may be the greatest ROI in economic history. One study found that lobbying connected to a 2004 law that created a one-time tax holiday for repatriated profits, delivered

a 22,000% return. You can't ban lobbying, but you can make it less profitable by turning on the lights. In 2017, the TCJA did away with the corporate AMT, which had raised only $13 billion over the previous decade. The 2022 IRA brought back the corporate AMT, but it was so poorly executed that it fell far short of its projected $222 billion in revenue. Here's my idea. Lower the threshold to $500 million, double the rate to 30%, and take a machete to the tax code.

By limiting accelerated depreciation, restricting R&D and clean energy credits, capping deductions for net operating losses, and limiting foreign tax credits, we can design a corporate AMT that raises an estimated $300 billion in revenue over a decade while affecting approximately 400 corporations, or fewer than 0.1% of all U.S. businesses. Since 1957, the share of Americans who are 65 and older has nearly doubled from 9% to 17%. At $1.5 trillion, Social Security is the largest expenditure in the federal budget. U.S. seniors are the wealthiest cohort in

history and the recipients of the largest redistribution in history. The program, which currently serves 69 million Americans, is due to run out of money in eight years. Three trends are driving insolvency. More people reaching retirement age, good. People living longer into retirement, also good. And a decline in workforce participation, not good. If or when social security becomes insolvent, America's grandparents will likely put their retirement on their grandkids'

credit cards. The fix is straightforward but politically fraught. Means test benefits and raise the retirement age, exempting people in physically demanding professions. According to a CBO analysis, increasing the full retirement age by two months per birth year until it reaches age 70 for Americans born in 1978 or later would decrease total federal outlays by $122 billion through 2032. phasing out benefits for those with more than $150,000 of non-social security income would save an estimated $600 billion to $700 billion over a decade.

We now spend $5 on seniors for every $1 on children. Enough already. Seniors who need social security should get it, but it shouldn't mean an upgrade from Carnival to Crystal Cruises for Nana and Pop Pop. At current rates within a decade, we'll spend half our federal budget on programs for seniors, see above the wealthiest generation in history. Last year I gave a TED Talk that asked whether we love our children. Spoiler alert, we don't.

Our policy choices rob from the young and poor and give to the old and wealthy. The big beautiful bill is no exception, but it does contain one concept of a plan worth mentioning. Trump accounts would give each child $1,000 in a tax-deferred savings account. Parents would be able to add up to $5,000 annually. The problem isn't the $3.6 billion annual price tag, but the authoritarian branding gimmick. The tell? Only children born during Trump's second term receive the benefit. The rest of America's children are shit out of luck.

But there are other interesting baby bond proposals. Senator Cory Booker's American Opportunity Accounts Act would grant every American $1,000 at birth plus an annual supplement of up to $2,000 scaled by family income. The funds scaled by family income. The funds become available when the recipient turns 18 and can be used for education, home ownership, or retirement contributions. Financier Bill Ackman's birthright proposal would grant every American $6,750 at birth

at an estimated annual cost of $26 billion. The money would be invested in index funds at birth at an estimated annual cost of $26 billion. The money would be invested in index funds until the recipient turns 65. At an 8% rate of return, the bond would be worth $1 million at maturity. Giving young people seed capital can grease the skids toward upward mobility, erode stark racial and

regional wealth disparities, and renew the American dream. If our leaders do their jobs and think long term, we'll adopt an Ackman-like plan and in 30 years see an end to Social Security. In another 30 years, we'd likely register a decline in interest rates and our largest line item, interest on our debt. As an old Greek proverb says, a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit under.

To combat high youth unemployment and stem the tide of young people leaving the country, Portugal announced a tax holiday for workers younger than 35. Under the plan, young people earning up to 28,000 euros a year receive a 100% tax exemption in their first year of work and reduced tax rates over the subsequent decade. U.S. youth unemployment is lower than in Portugal, and brain drain isn't an issue unless you're a scientist or talented immigrant. Nevertheless, a tax holiday would benefit young Americans

as many of their challenges, education and housing affordability, stagnant wages, loneliness, declines in sex and dating, and a mental health crisis, reverse engineer to income. My proposal, a federal tax holiday for workers under 35 earning less than $75,000 per year. Note, these workers would still pay withholding taxes. This would cost $110 billion annually, according to my Back of the envelope calculation. However, the extra cash anywhere between $4,500 and $11,500 would be a lifeline to struggling young

people and, just as important, a rare sign that America actually loves its children. children. The first rule of holes is simple. Stop digging. For too long, Washington has been in a bipartisan shovel brigade. Somewhere on the horizon is a fiscal cliff. We don't have to turn on a dime as we didn't get here overnight, but the moment we reverse course and signal that we're grown-ups, the bond markets will notice, and interest rates will likely come

down. Or, we can continue to fuck around and find out. For every percentage point increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio, the interest on treasuries increases two basis points, according to a CBO analysis. That's not much. But as Michigan's Wolfers told me, we're on track to raise the debt-to-GDP ratio by 25% to 50% in the coming years, resulting in a 1% increase on the interest we pay to borrow money. That translates to an additional $400 billion per year in interest costs.

The more we spend servicing our debt, the more our creditors will worry about repayment. Or our creditors will worry about repayment. That means interest rates will continue to rise, and there won't be any fiscal room left to keep seniors out of poverty, lift up young people, pay for health care, and provide for the common defense. Even without modeling for behavioral changes, my rough calculations illustrate a stark directional choice. Continue our march toward that fiscal cliff or find real savings and invest in our future over the next decade.

Just as big tech weaponizes the illusion of complexity to convince us they just can't figure out how to fact check, stop Nazi content from going viral, or age gate their platform. Spoiler alert, they're lying. Lobbyists will fear monger and claim these are complex issues with unintended consequences. The solutions are simple, but they're also hard, requiring us to resume the adult conversation that ended when George W. Bush told Americans we could prosecute a war and cut taxes at the same time. And we believed him.

I've come to realize I'm not my son's friend, but their father. Our difficult conversations instill a set of values which will serve them well in the future, I hope. We've been told we can have chocolate cake for dinner and not go to school if we don't feel like it. At some point, let's hope or trust an adult shows up. Life is so rich.