How would you balance the budget?

[Moosakofsky]

Pull out of NATO, close all overseas bases, cut defense spending by 1/3, raise SS age to 85, allow people under 35 to opt out of paying into it (because we will never get that money back), end the War on Drugs, get rid of the DEA, ATF, and a bunch of other alphabet soup agencies, and a 25% cut to all federal administrative salaries.

And raise taxes, go back to medicaid before the ACA (it was just fine). Cause a recession. Make it hurt. We'll be better off in the long run.

 

[Nordberg]

Even a far righty like Reagan could figure this out.

SS is off the table.

 

[Oneuli]

More then it's bringing in now or do you disagree that it would bring in more money.

I don't know whether it would, or whether it would alienate enough productions that it would actually bring in less. How much more do you think it would bring in?

But shouldn't they be willing to pay the tax...

I suppose. But the practical question isn't what they should do but rather what they would do.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I hope you will. As you'll recall, though, I was looking for numbers. What savings do you project from the changes you're calling for.

Also, in the absence of those agencies, who will do that work? For example, when the FDA is gone, are you looking for us to return to something like the 19th century situation, where quacks could sell poisonous patent medicines based on false claims? Without the EPA, will we return to the point where people can dump whatever the hell they want into the nearest water supply? Without the Labor department, will we go back to having death trap factories with child workers and no overtime? If not, who will enforce?



What is "Socialist Insecirity"?



I couldn't parse this sentence.



The problem is is Congressional pay gets too low, you'll mostly just get independently wealthy people taking those jobs, and Congress will do even less to look out for the little people. If you want upper-middle-class professionals with student loans, you need to pay enough to cover those costs, and the costs of maintaining homes in DC and their districts.



What's a "gobblement"?

I am not your negro so I don’t feel the need to provide numbers.

My proposal would save trillions. We could keep tax rates at current levels until the debt is paid off then give taxpayers a huge tax cut

As for your hand wringing over eliminating these departments, they give you a false sense of security.

You won’t even consider that the FDA is part of the problem when it comes to drug prices and drug shortages. You would t possibly consider that because you think they are a cost free agency that makes sure you will never be harmed.

I have no interest in disabusing you of your notions. You asked what I would cut. I told you. End of story.

You won’t change your mind so any further discussion is pointless

 

[Oneuli]

I am talking in context to other wealthy nations. Provide an example of someone who you are referring to if you would.

I already did: Great Britain, Japan, Germany, and France -- you know, the other large, wealthy countries.

First, please show me where you see the 1% have an effective rate of 33.3%.

In the link I provided in the post to which you're replying. It's in the first table, the last column, under "average total federal tax rate."

So even if your numbers were correct, then put it at 35%.

In theory, you could bump it enough for the higher incomes to make it work in a rough way, but then what you're basically talking about is a two-bracket system, which is a pretty blunt instrument. Why not fine tune it with more brackets? Or, better yet, come up with a smooth-curve formula.

No, it wouldn't be. Not even close. Do the math.

Good plan, since I just eyeballed it. Let's do the actual math. Here's the distribution:

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/hinc-06/2018/hinc06.xls

The first $60k for the couple would be tax free (federal income tax wise).

OK. So, if the first $60k is tax free, then about 49% of households will pay no federal taxes (not just no federal income taxes). All the households earning less than $250k (95.6% of all the households) would, combined, pay $721.5 billion. That works out to a tax rate of about 10.5%, average. So, the problem isn't what I thought it was: that it would be a tax hike for some people in that group. Rather, the problem is that it would devastate revenues.

Who?

Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, etc.

First, no, you don't just take out the cap.

Why not? It's a simple and elegant fix, which is akin to what we already did with Medicare.

Why tax those under $500k more?

Because there aren't all that many people over $500k, so if you're looking to collect enough to keep in solvent, you really want people paying in between the current tax cap and $500k, which is a whole lot more people.

Second, no, you don't tax other income sources.

Why not?

SS is based on earned income.

It could be based on unearned income, too.

First, mine is a two tier bracket, not completely flat.

Technically, it's a three-tier bracket, in that it's 0% up to a level, then 20%, then an extra 10%. But the devil's in the details. By taking out most of the brackets, you've made it a clumsier instrument, which will make it hard to achieve decent revenue numbers without either soaking the poor, or creating a brutal cliff where suddenly you cross a particular threshold and tax rates are vastly higher. Why not go with a smoother change, rather than a fairly arbitrary sharp change at one particular dollar figure (or rather two). For example, if it makes sense for a couple that earns $70,000 to pay a bit more than one that earns $60,000, then why doesn't it make sense for a couple that earns $60,000 to pay a bit more than one that earns $50,000? And if it makes sense for the effective rate to be higher on someone who earns $550,000 than someone who earns $500,000, then why doesn't it make sense for the effective rate on someone who earns $500,000 to be that much higher than on someone who earns $450,000 (rather than both paying the same 20% on all income over the standard deduction). I'd rather have a consistent approach where the effective rate rises fairly smoothly from zero to a theoretical maximum of 100% at infinity, as you go up in income.

Which is why I stated to eliminate them all. I think on this we agree, other than perhaps the number of brackets.

Agreed. I just don't think the brackets are the source of much complexity. Even with the much more extensive bracketing systems of the 1950s and 1960s, you could easily print the whole thing on a postcard. And with tax software, you can calculate your tax pretty much the same speed whether you have one bracket or a million. So, I don't see value in removing brackets.

 

[Mason Michaels]

So spend more money on nonsense social welfare programs for which the Constitution grants no authority but cut spending on one of the few things for which the federal government has the authority to do?

I'll take building a stronger military over feeding a freeloader.

How many nukes do we need?

 

[Oneuli]

I am not your negro

What does your race have to do with anything?

I don’t feel the need to provide numbers.

The issue, as you know, is that you lack any facility with numbers, so you couldn't provide them if you wanted to. If you care to improve your skills, though, give it a try. You'll learn something.

 

[Mason Michaels]

America will never balance the budget.
Next!

 

[TTQ64]

Trump's budget proposal is out and he is proposing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Since conservatives used to pretend they cared about deficits, I'm wondering what conservatives here would do to remedy that.

From a liberal perspective, achieving a balanced budget isn't that hard, since we don't treat our radically low taxes as a given, nor do we put our largest area of discretionary spending off-limits.

For example, using 2018 data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, consider the proposal of reducing our military budget to "only" 50% more than the combined spending of our two top potential opponents, Russia and China. That would be a huge budget in its own right, but it would save us about $300 billion per year.

Now consider taxes. The average tax revenues for a developed nation are 34.19% of GDP. So, say we wanted to be taxed less than a normal amount, but not radically less -- let's say 10% less than if we were at the developed-nation average. Based on a GDP of $20.9 trillion, that would bring in about $760 billion extra per year. So, right there, with $760 billion in extra revenues and $300 billion in lower spending, we've gone from a deficit to a surplus -- from about a $984 billion FY 2019 deficit, to a $76 billion surplus.

Note, were not talking about any hard sacrifices there. We'd remain a significantly "under-taxed" country, by the standards of developed nations, making us more attractive to business than our peers. And we'd continue to have a military budget about twice as large as the next-closest country's. So, as I said, this isn't a terribly difficult math problem for liberals. But how do you get there as a conservative? When you insist on radically low taxes and absurdly high military-industrial pork, where can you find enough savings to reach balance?

That's the problem Trump was tackling with his budget. Yet, despite his willingness to betray his campaign promises (and the nation's promise to its elderly) by slashing Medicare and Social Security, he couldn't even move the numbers in the right direction. So, if you could dictate the budget, could you reach balance? How, would you do it, in terms of specific numbers and programs?

Or we tax the wealthy and red states.

I'm sick of paying for racist pigs to continue spewing their lies and hate. Time to pay the piper.

Then we tax religion.

I'm sick of them having a say in our politics.

 

[Truth Detector]

Trump's budget proposal is out and he is proposing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Since conservatives used to pretend they cared about deficits, I'm wondering what conservatives here would do to remedy that.

I am amused by liberal claims that they suddenly care about deficits. During Obamunism, you dishonest dunces proclaimed them necessary. Now, suddenly, they are all unnecessary? How did you arrive at such a moronic conclusion? That's almost as dishonest as their newfound morality over Trumps presumed philandering after desperately defending Clinton's philandering.

Your premise is moronic in that there have only been four balanced budgets produced, BY a REPUBLICAN controlled Congress, since 1960.

From a liberal perspective, achieving a balanced budget isn't that hard, since we don't treat our radically low taxes as a given, nor do we put our largest area of discretionary spending off-limits.

That's a fascinating claim since liberals have shown they are incapable of balancing anything. How are our taxes radically low? Do you make up your bullshit as you go?

Our largest area of budget imbalance isn't in the discretionary side snowflake. It is on the mandatory spending side. Therefore, anything that you propose after this is moot and stupid.

For example, using 2018 data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, consider the proposal of reducing our military budget to "only" 50% more than the combined spending of our two top potential opponents, Russia and China. That would be a huge budget in its own right, but it would save us about $300 billion per year.

$300 billion in military cuts will do NOTHING to reign in out of control Federal spending. It will do a LOT to encourage the enemies of democracy and scare the hell out of our allies, most of whom spend nearly nothing on defense relying on US might to enforce UN resolutions.

Now consider taxes. The average tax revenues for a developed nation are 34.19% of GDP. So, say we wanted to be taxed less than a normal amount, but not radically less -- let's say 10% less than if we were at the developed-nation average. Based on a GDP of $20.9 trillion, that would bring in about $760 billion extra per year. So, right there, with $760 billion in extra revenues and $300 billion in lower spending, we've gone from a deficit to a surplus -- from about a $984 billion FY 2019 deficit, to a $76 billion surplus.

Your math is laughably moronic. First and foremost, we do not have a REVENUE problem. We have a SPENDING problem. Tax hikes stifle spending and investment which then leads to an economic downturn, fewer people employed and less revenue coming in.

I would think that liberal morons could learn from the third world Shit Holes they constantly wish to emulate.

Note, were not talking about any hard sacrifices there. We'd remain a significantly "under-taxed" country, by the standards of developed nations, making us more attractive to business than our peers. And we'd continue to have a military budget about twice as large as the next-closest country's. So, as I said, this isn't a terribly difficult math problem for liberals. But how do you get there as a conservative? When you insist on radically low taxes and absurdly high military-industrial pork, where can you find enough savings to reach balance?

Life is simple when you are a liberal. Sadly, the REAL world does not work they way simple minded liberals like to pretend it does.

So what happens if Democrats take over the Government and implement their costly green initiatives that will further stifle economic growth and costly free healthcare and college platforms?

That's the problem Trump was tackling with his budget. Yet, despite his willingness to betray his campaign promises (and the nation's promise to its elderly) by slashing Medicare and Social Security, he couldn't even move the numbers in the right direction. So, if you could dictate the budget, could you reach balance? How, would you do it, in terms of specific numbers and programs?

How is Trump slashing Midicare and SS snowflake? Show us specifically where that is in the massive $4.7 trillion budget he has proposed.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I don't know whether it would, or whether it would alienate enough productions that it would actually bring in less. How much more do you think it would bring in?



I suppose. But the practical question isn't what they should do but rather what they would do.

How can you not know it would bring in more, if they were taxed at 90%??

Since when was the left concerned about what anyone WOULD do, as opposed to what they SHOULD do??

 

[Oneuli]

Or we tax the wealthy and red states.

I'm sick of paying for racist pigs to continue spewing their lies and hate. Time to pay the piper.

Then we tax religion.

I'm sick of them having a say in our politics.

I don't think it would bring in a ton of money, but I would favor taxing religion in the same way as other organizations. That is to say, a religion's charitable activities should be tax deductible for the donors that finance those activities, but it should have to account for its non-charitable activities (proselytizing, worship, etc.) separate from the charitable ones, and donations that finance those things should not be tax deductible. They should be treated more like the way political contributions or social club dues are treated.

 

[Oneuli]

How can you not know it would bring in more, if they were taxed at 90%??

Because I don't know how much of the tax base it would alienate. If you have $100 billion in economic activity taxed at 20%, then you raise the tax to 90% and $80 billion of that goes abroad, that would mean you go from collecting $20 billion to collecting $18 billion.

Since when was the left concerned about what anyone WOULD do, as opposed to what they SHOULD do??

Always. Were you not aware of that?

 

[Truth Detector]

From a high level view very few people actually care about balancing the budget otherwise politicians would feel pressure to address it. It's basically become an instrument to bludgeon political opponents with.

If we want to address the deficit and national debt we have to start where the most spending goes and that's entitlements and the military.

It isn't the military. Spending on defense is trivial compared to the massive entitlement spending spree Democrats have gone on.

 

[TTQ64]

I don't think it would bring in a ton of money, but I would favor taxing religion in the same way as other organizations. That is to say, a religion's charitable activities should be tax deductible for the donors that finance those activities, but it should have to account for its non-charitable activities (proselytizing, worship, etc.) separate from the charitable ones, and donations that finance those things should not be tax deductible. They should be treated more like the way political contributions or social club dues are treated.

religion needs to be taxed like any other business. It's a business.

If we tax the wealthy and red states we can get back to tax rates before reagan.

We can also tax for profit prisons since yall want to keep them around.

We can tax trading on wall street.

We can tax big business and corporations.


We started going in the toilet when racist white men started lying about tax cuts and how they would help the economy.

You would be surprised of how many business, corporations etc. DONT PAY TAXES.

In other words, we need to reverse any policy we enacted from the racist right....

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Because I don't know how much of the tax base it would alienate. If you have $100 billion in economic activity taxed at 20%, then you raise the tax to 90% and $80 billion of that goes abroad, that would mean you go from collecting $20 billion to collecting $18 billion.



Always. Were you not aware of that?

But the left have never worried about alienation and it's always been about the rich paying more, so why not expect it from the movie industry and stars?

As to collections, you can refer back to AOJ, New York, and Amazon.

Then why is the left so enamored about MAKING others do what the left FEEL the SHOULD do?

 

[Truth Detector]

Or, we talk about how much revenue was reduced by tax cuts.

Remember, last year revenues were 2% below the year before, and the deficit expanded as a result.

We didn't cut spending back from 1998-2001 when we had surpluses, we had higher tax rates that were eventually cut.

How many times do we have to cut taxes before you admit that doing so widens deficits and decreases revenues?

How many times do you have to be proven a liar before you stop making these moronic claims. Since the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, the Clinton Tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts, revenues have risen by (1965 = 116.8 billion; 2017 = 3,316.2 billion) 2,839%. How did tax cuts reduce revenue?

Spending during the same time period has risen by 3,369%. I would submit that if spending is rising faster than revenue, SPENDING is the problem and NOT revenues. Dumb fuck.

I am also tired of you lying about the effect of tax cuts:

The United States Revenue Act of 1964 signed into law on February 26, 1964. Revenue in 1964 was 112.6 Billion. Revenue in 1965 was 116.8 billion. 116.8 is greater than 112.6. In 1966 it was 130.8 billion. 130.8 is greater than 116.8. By 1969 revenues had increased to 186.9 billion. That is an increase of 166%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was signed into law August 13, 1981. Revenue in 1981 was 599.3 billion. Revenue in 1982 was 617.8 billion. 617.8 is greater than 599.3.
By 1985 revenues had increased to 734 billion. That is an increase of 122.5%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) was signed into law on October 22, 1986. Revenue that year was 769.2 billion. Revenue in 1987 was 854.3 billion. 854.3 is greater than 769.2. In 1988 it was 909.2 billion. 909.2 is greater than 769.2. By 1990 revenue had grown to 1,032 billion. That is an increase of 134%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was enacted August 5, 1997. Revenue that year was 1,579.2 billion. Revenue in 1998 was 1,721.7 billion. 1,721.7 is greater than 1,579.2. In 1999 revenue was 1,827.5 billion. 1,827.5 is greater than 1,721.7. By 2000 revenue had grown to 2,025.2 billion. That is an increase of 128%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was signed into law 7 June 2001. Revenue that year was 1,991.1 billion.
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was signed into law May 28, 2003. Revenue that year was 1,782.3 billion. Revenue in 2004 was 1,880.1 billion. Revenue in 2005 was 2,153.6 billion. 2,153.6 is greater than 1,991.1. Revenue by 2007 had grown to 2,568.0 billion. 2,568.0 is greater than 1,991.1. That is an increase of 129%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

Do everyone a favor and just STFU.

 

[CFM]

How many nukes do we need?

Who mentioned nukes?

If the military had only one weapon, that would be one more than anything provided to freeloaders that refuse to do for themselves.

 

[CFM]

religion needs to be taxed like any other business. It's a business.

If we tax the wealthy and red states we can get back to tax rates before reagan.

We can also tax for profit prisons since yall want to keep them around.

We can tax trading on wall street.

We can tax big business and corporations.


We started going in the toilet when racist white men started lying about tax cuts and how they would help the economy.

You would be surprised of how many business, corporations etc. DONT PAY TAXES.

In other words, we need to reverse any policy we enacted from the racist right....

There you go wanting someone else's money spent so you can claim credit for supporting it being done.

 

[Truth Detector]

The problem is that conservative policies typically result in debt rising faster than GDP. Although we had debt fall as a share of GDP almost every year from the end of WWII to the start of the Reagan administration, it then started to rise as a share of GDP -- at least until after the Clinton tax hike, which caused things to improve for a bit. But then we got Bush's upper-class tax cut and things went to hell in a hand-basket again.

Since the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, the Clinton Tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts, revenues have risen by (1965 = 116.8 billion; 2017 = 3,316.2 billion) 2,839%. How did tax cuts reduce revenue?

Spending during the same time period has risen by 3,369%. I would submit that if spending is rising faster than revenue, SPENDING is the problem and NOT revenues. Dumb fuck.