Let's Balance the Budget (GP Plan: Annual $100B+ Surplus)

[InkL0sed]

Democrats actually just wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire -- that would have eliminated all of them.

And the estate tax has been discussed. You will recall that there was some debate about it when it was about to expire.

[thegreekdog]

Democrats actually just wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire -- that would have eliminated all of them.

And the estate tax has been discussed. You will recall that there was some debate about it when it was about to expire.

Do you have a link to those (seriously)?

Apart from that I don't recall the Democrats proposing to eliminate all tax cuts in any serious way (i.e. they caved to political pressures) and I certainly don't recall the Democrats trying to reinstitute and raise the estate tax rates.

[jbrettlip]

This is so easy...

1) Make minimum wage equivalent to a million dollars a year.
2) Unionize all industries, so that they force industry to hire more people at the new minimum wage.
3) Tax millionaires to fund the government benefits
4) Give benefits to all, including citizens of other countries.

Now seriously, how could this NOT work?

[Neoteny]

lol ur so cleaver

[Baron Von PWN]

PhatScotty says that this compromise stuff is bullshit that cannot work!

You saw a lot of Congress discussing these issues, did you? You must be reading different news stories than me (and my news consumption crosses political spectrums, so that would be hard).

EDIT - Also, I'm not in favor of repealing the Bush-era tax cuts. I'm not compromising on that one (except that Greecepwns can repeal those cuts for those couples making over $1 million and can increase taxes on those couples as well - so perhaps that is the compromise).

Some additional revenue-generators (for which I cannot find revenue numbers):

- Increase the estate tax rate, make it graduated for those with estates valued at over $1 million, provide exemptions for non-liquid assets. This should raise significant revenue.
- Remove all deductions and credits related to any particular business or industry (I believe Greecepwns only includes the oil industry... I think we need to include all of them).

Related aside - I listed three things: (1) increasing tax rates on those making over $1 million; (2) increasing the estate tax rate; and (3) removing deductions and credits related to any particular business or industry. How many of those things have been proposed or discussed by either party? Zero. Why? Because both parties are pro-establishment and pro-wealthy/big business.

Why are you so opposed to the Bush Era tax cuts being rolled back? weren't they supposed to be temporary anyways ? Is this basically NIMBYSM but for taxes?

Because I think taxes for couples making less than $1 million are too high (let's call those people the "non-rich"). Because I think the non-rich shouldn't have to pay more taxes. Because I think that the rich (those couples making over $1 million) should pay more taxes.

I'm not sure I'm opposed to the Bush era tax cuts being rolled back. I'm opposed to all of the Bush era tax cuts being rolled back.

Yes, it's partially Not in My Back Yardism, but not entirely. Also, I believe the Bush era tax cuts applied to all individuals (regardless of income), so the taxes would be increased on all Americans*

* This is not something proposed by either party - the Democrats just want to roll back the taxes for anyone making over $250,000). I suspect this is because actual rich people (the ones that actually own private jets) will take advantage of credits, deductions, and tax planning to get out of paying any substantial tax increase, while the people that don't have tax advisors will pay more income taxes.

Hmm funny I thought the US fed had a massive deficit that almost caused the government to default. Since that isn't the case a tax increase of 2% (on almost all tax brackets) is indeed unreasonable.

Given the current situation in the US a tax increase of 2% seems pretty modest.

How do you feel about leaving tax rates as they are but cutting loopholes and deductibles?

The economist ran an article in their latest issue decrying the gutlessness of american and European legislators. That the US government is terrified to ask for even a 2% tax increase when it has the deficit it has is just pathetic. Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without tax increases and present voters with reality.

[jbrettlip]

I would welcome a tax increase on individuals coupled with massive spending decreases. Revenue is not the problem. It is the spending.

[saxitoxin]

Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without tax increases and present voters with reality.

I don't comprehend the fantastical portion of this. In August the US will intake $175 billion in non-debt revenue (and have debt service of $30 billion). Just spend $175 billion in August instead of $250 billion and the budget has been instantly balanced sans tax increases.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm funny I thought the US fed had a massive deficit that almost caused the government to default. Since that isn't the case a tax increase of 2% (on almost all tax brackets) is indeed unreasonable.

What? I don't understand your sarcasm. I guess it's because I didn't suggest that the massive deficit that almost caused the government to default (but didn't because the government would never have let itself default) was caused by anything other than not having enough loot.

Given the current situation in the US a tax increase of 2% seems pretty modest.

What current situation specifically? The almost, but not quite, US default (Oh noes! We almost defaulted!)? The struggling economy? The idea that we might not be able to prosecute three simultaneous wars?

How do you feel about leaving tax rates as they are but cutting loopholes and deductibles?

I'm in favor of eliminating some deductions and all credits, especially those related to specific industries (i.e. excluding other industries). I'm fine with leaving tax rates as they are, but I would also like an increase of the tax rate for the rich (over $1 million) as I've indicated before. If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet want to pay more, go ahead and make them pay more.

The economist ran an article in their latest issue decrying the gutlessness of american and European legislators. That the US government is terrified to ask for even a 2% decrease in spending then it has the deficit it has is just pathetic. Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without cutting spending and present voters with reality.

Changed slightly.

The question I will ask you, in light of this thread, where Greecepwns, a person without conservative tendencies has eliminated a number of spending items without touching most domestic spending - Why do we have to raise taxes? Why can't we cut spending? If it's a matter of "political fairness" (i.e. we don't want one side giving up something without the other side giving up something), we can balance out the "war cuts" with domestic cuts and the "business cuts" with more domestic cuts.

QUICK EDIT - I am basing all this on the false premise that the budget bill cut spending. It didn't. It cut future increases to spending.

[Baron Von PWN]

Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without tax increases and present voters with reality.

I don't comprehend the fantastical portion of this. In August the US will intake $175 billion in non-debt revenue (and have debt service of $30 billion). Just spend $175 billion in August instead of $250 billion and the budget has been instantly balanced sans tax increases.

Cutting out that much money from the economy would have some pretty serious consequences. A mixture of cuts and revenue increases are needed to minimize the effect of less government spending.

[saxitoxin]

Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without tax increases and present voters with reality.

I don't comprehend the fantastical portion of this. In August the US will intake $175 billion in non-debt revenue (and have debt service of $30 billion). Just spend $175 billion in August instead of $250 billion and the budget has been instantly balanced sans tax increases.

Cutting out that much money from the economy would have some pretty serious consequences.

cutting money from government budget

does not equal

cutting money from the economy

[Baron Von PWN]

Hmm funny I thought the US fed had a massive deficit that almost caused the government to default. Since that isn't the case a tax increase of 2% (on almost all tax brackets) is indeed unreasonable.

1.What? I don't understand your sarcasm. I guess it's because I didn't suggest that the massive deficit that almost caused the government to default (but didn't because the government would never have let itself default) was caused by anything other than not having enough loot.

Given the current situation in the US a tax increase of 2% seems pretty modest.

What current situation specifically? The almost, but not quite, US default (Oh noes! We almost defaulted!)? The struggling economy? The idea that we might not be able to prosecute three simultaneous wars?

1. When your government has such a large deficit, it seems strange to me to get up in arms over a 2% tax increase.
2. your large deficit spending and politicians who are unwilling to deal with it (on either side)

The economist ran an article in their latest issue decrying the gutlessness of american and European legislators. That the US government is terrified to ask for even a 2% decrease in spending then it has the deficit it has is just pathetic. Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without cutting spending and present voters with reality.

Changed slightly.

The question I will ask you, in light of this thread, where Greecepwns, a person without conservative tendencies has eliminated a number of spending items without touching most domestic spending - Why do we have to raise taxes? Why can't we cut spending? If it's a matter of "political fairness" (i.e. we don't want one side giving up something without the other side giving up something), we can balance out the "war cuts" with domestic cuts and the "business cuts" with more domestic cuts.

You will notice Greece's plan includes a number of revenue increases as well. That is a reasonable plan, one which involves both spending cuts and increases in revenue. trying to solve the problem purely through cuts or purely through increased revenue will cause all sorts of problems. Cut too much and you destabalise the economy, tax too much and you destabilise the economy. This is why a mixture of cuts and increased revenue is needed,

[thegreekdog]

1. When your government has such a large deficit, it seems strange to me to get up in arms over a 2% tax increase.

Why is it strange? If I do not support a large majority of the spending of the federal government (and no, it's not because I'm a selfish person), why should I agree to pony up an additional 2% of my salary?

2. your large deficit spending and politicians who are unwilling to deal with it (on either side)

Ah... I see.

You will notice Greece's plan includes a number of revenue increases as well. That is a reasonable plan, one which involves both spending cuts and increases in revenue. trying to solve the problem purely through cuts or purely through increased revenue will cause all sorts of problems. Cut too much and you destabalise the economy, tax too much and you destabilise the economy. This is why a mixture of cuts and increased revenue is needed,

I agree! I just think that instead of removing all Bush era tax cuts, we merely raise taxes above pre-Bush era levels on those making over $1 million, eliminate deductions and credits that are industry-specific, and raise the estate tax rates.

[jbrettlip]

I haven't understood why both sides think the existing brackets have to be adjusted, instead of simply making a new one that starts at a million.

Same goes for SS payments. One of the few things Obama campaigned on that made sense: everyone pays up to 6k, company pays up to 6k per year (that is on the first 102k in pay). But then at 250k, reinstate the tax on the employee only (not the company) at say 3%. DO NOT adjust the payouts that people earn. These people will not need SS when they retire, so we don't need higher payouts. Then start winding down SS, as a program it is ill advised and poorly run.

[saxitoxin]

A child rapist and a serial killer live on our street.

The left has said all we can do is send children to the rapist in exchange for him monitoring the killer.

The right has said all we can do is let the serial killer run amok in exchange for him monitoring the rapist.

This false choice is the centrifuge of the fake Left-Right dichotomy. Being forced to choose from a set of predefined options (taxes / spending cuts / taxes & spending cuts) is not rational choice, it is a system of control; stage-managed democracy.

There is a third position that calls on the neighborhood to band together and execute both the killer (corporations) and the rapist (government). I wouldn't support a .0001% increase in taxes on trillionaires to save kittens from a glue factory. Not because I like trillionaires or dislike kittens, but because I hate the government and realize that money - regardless of its source - solidifies their power.

The USG can eliminate its deficit without raising taxes. If AA+, A, BBB credit ratings are what it takes to accomplish that, that's just the price of progress. No pain, no gain.

[InkL0sed]

Democrats actually just wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire -- that would have eliminated all of them.

And the estate tax has been discussed. You will recall that there was some debate about it when it was about to expire.

Do you have a link to those (seriously)?

Apart from that I don't recall the Democrats proposing to eliminate all tax cuts in any serious way (i.e. they caved to political pressures) and I certainly don't recall the Democrats trying to reinstitute and raise the estate tax rates.

At risk of sounding snarky, I'm not going to waste my time burrowing for past articles that would satisfy you just because my memory happens to be superior.

[thegreekdog]

Democrats actually just wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire -- that would have eliminated all of them.

And the estate tax has been discussed. You will recall that there was some debate about it when it was about to expire.

Do you have a link to those (seriously)?

Apart from that I don't recall the Democrats proposing to eliminate all tax cuts in any serious way (i.e. they caved to political pressures) and I certainly don't recall the Democrats trying to reinstitute and raise the estate tax rates.

At risk of sounding snarky, I'm not going to waste my time burrowing for past articles that would satisfy you just because my memory happens to be superior.

Fine, I win.

[Night Strike]

1. When your government has such a large deficit, it seems strange to me to get up in arms over a 2% tax increase.

Because they increased the spending WAY faster than the increase in revenues. So why should we be forced to pay for the spending under the guise of "it's too important to take away the spending"? If we let them drastically increase spending and then pay their higher taxes afterwards, what's to stop them from doing it again? It just feeds their desire to spend money endlessly. That's why people like myself want to cut the budget back to where it matches tax revenues BEFORE raising any new taxes. Washington needs to prove they will live within their means, and once that's accomplished, ALL people will pay a little more to retire this $14.5 trillion debt.

[PLAYER57832]

If we let them drastically increase spending and then pay their higher taxes afterwards, what's to stop them from doing it again? .

US. We elect them.

[GreecePwns]

A child rapist and a serial killer live on our street.

The left has said all we can do is send children to the rapist in exchange for him monitoring the killer.

The right has said all we can do is let the serial killer run amok in exchange for him monitoring the rapist.

This false choice is the centrifuge of the fake Left-Right dichotomy. Being forced to choose from a set of predefined options (taxes / spending cuts / taxes & spending cuts) is not rational choice, it is a system of control; stage-managed democracy.

There is a third position that calls on the neighborhood to band together and execute both the killer (corporations) and the rapist (government). I wouldn't support a .0001% increase in taxes on trillionaires to save kittens from a glue factory. Not because I like trillionaires or dislike kittens, but because I hate the government and realize that money - regardless of its source - solidifies their power.

The USG can eliminate its deficit without raising taxes. If AA+, A, BBB credit ratings are what it takes to accomplish that, that's just the price of progress. No pain, no gain.

Then, Saxi, let's see how far you can take this stance. Try to balance the budget without raising taxes.

[Woodruff]

Democrats actually just wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire -- that would have eliminated all of them.

And the estate tax has been discussed. You will recall that there was some debate about it when it was about to expire.

Do you have a link to those (seriously)?

Apart from that I don't recall the Democrats proposing to eliminate all tax cuts in any serious way (i.e. they caved to political pressures) and I certainly don't recall the Democrats trying to reinstitute and raise the estate tax rates.

At risk of sounding snarky, I'm not going to waste my time burrowing for past articles that would satisfy you just because my memory happens to be superior.

Fine, I win.

Thanks, john9blue.

[saxitoxin]

A child rapist and a serial killer live on our street.

The left has said all we can do is send children to the rapist in exchange for him monitoring the killer.

The right has said all we can do is let the serial killer run amok in exchange for him monitoring the rapist.

This false choice is the centrifuge of the fake Left-Right dichotomy. Being forced to choose from a set of predefined options (taxes / spending cuts / taxes & spending cuts) is not rational choice, it is a system of control; stage-managed democracy.

There is a third position that calls on the neighborhood to band together and execute both the killer (corporations) and the rapist (government). I wouldn't support a .0001% increase in taxes on trillionaires to save kittens from a glue factory. Not because I like trillionaires or dislike kittens, but because I hate the government and realize that money - regardless of its source - solidifies their power.

The USG can eliminate its deficit without raising taxes. If AA+, A, BBB credit ratings are what it takes to accomplish that, that's just the price of progress. No pain, no gain.

Then, Saxi, let's see how far you can take this stance. Try to balance the budget without raising taxes.

What are we looking at again? Is it an $800 billion deficit? Here's a quick and easy $800 billion in cuts -

1. cut 100% of block grants - $386 billion
http://maloney.house.gov/documents/govr ... d10263.pdf

2. cut 100% of farm subsidies to the Monsantos, Cargills and Darigolds of the world (which will also lower the price of food for working families by collapsing the price floor); a public spending/corporate welfare programme even Canada doesn't have - $25 billion
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... 1820110308

3. privatize the FAA, like Canada did with Nav-Canada 20 years ago - $6 billion
(link above somewhere)

4. enact Preble/Frieman reforms for more modest, Canada-level defence spending - $150 billion
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA667.pdf

5. follow the lead of the great European social democracies like Ireland, Spain, Greece and Italy and impose an universal cut of federal civilian workforce pay by 5% - $15 billion
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

6. spend $12 per capita on NASA (same per capita amount Canada spends on the CSA), NASA budget drops from $18 billion to $4 billion - $14 billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

7. break-up the Army Corps of Engineers into state and regionally managed civilian public works agencies, similar to Canada (US and DPRK are only 2 countries I know of that have militarized public works agencies) - $10 billion
http://heartland.org/sites/default/file ... /18372.pdf

8. price-index social security benefits like Canada does - $40 billion
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... g-else.php

9. withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, like Canada - $150 billion
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/07/m ... es-072511/

LMK if it's more, I can cut another half-a-tril, no problem. I can cut everything except buying toilet paper for the White House.

Cutting government budgets is super-easy. It's like circumcision. For 20 minutes it's the worst pain you'll ever experience, but eventually you forget you even had it.

[saxitoxin]

Per Capita, Federal Spending by U.S. in 2011: $10,000
Per Capita, Federal Spending by Canada in 2011: $8,500

Those who suggest U.S. taxes need to be raised by even $1 argue that the average American has needs far in excess of the average Canadian, a belief which is incompatible with the friendship principles of Pan-Americanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-americanism), which is itself the world's oldest and greatest movement for peace and international unity. In other words, people who support tax increases hate peace.

[Baron Von PWN]

Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without tax increases and present voters with reality.

I don't comprehend the fantastical portion of this. In August the US will intake $175 billion in non-debt revenue (and have debt service of $30 billion). Just spend $175 billion in August instead of $250 billion and the budget has been instantly balanced sans tax increases.

Cutting out that much money from the economy would have some pretty serious consequences.

cutting money from government budget

does not equal

cutting money from the economy

hmm where does every dollar the government spends go? into the nether somewhere? Government spending is a source of allot of economic activity. Maybe the spending is inefficient maybe it causes economic distortions. Regardless that spending is still important to many jobs, pulling the rug out from under that spending similarly pulls the rug out from the government's suppliers, and anyone who might sell something to a government employee.

I'm not saying don't cut government spending. It needs to be cut, just don't go crazy with the cuts as they could have more serious economic impacts than the spending does. This is why it is a good idea to mix both, as you will suffer only the moderate consequences of both actions rather than the sever consequences of one or the other.

As an example take the extreme case of Russia, following the massive cuts in 91, they suffered 8 solid years in recession and didn't fully recover until 13 years had passed.

[Night Strike]

I'm not saying don't cut government spending. It needs to be cut, just don't go crazy with the cuts as they could have more serious economic impacts than the spending does. This is why it is a good idea to mix both, as you will suffer only the moderate consequences of both actions rather than the sever consequences of one or the other.

So it's ok to massively increase spending way above the amount of income taken in, but it's not ok to massively cut the spending to return to levels that are simply paid for by the income taken in?

Alright, good to know the absurdity of your position.

[Baron Von PWN]

I'm not saying don't cut government spending. It needs to be cut, just don't go crazy with the cuts as they could have more serious economic impacts than the spending does. This is why it is a good idea to mix both, as you will suffer only the moderate consequences of both actions rather than the sever consequences of one or the other.

So it's ok to massively increase spending way above the amount of income taken in, but it's not ok to massively cut the spending to return to levels that are simply paid for by the income taken in?

Alright, good to know the absurdity of your position.

Apparently to you "we need to makes cuts= it's a good idea to spend like a drunken sailor"

Where exactly did you see me say that? Where have I said it was ok to allow the US government to get to where it is?