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

[Night Strike]

The federal government already collects 18 cents of every gallon in taxes (plus all the other taxes they add on to refineries and oil drilling), so they should be using that money on road.

Still not enough to pay for itself.

That's the problem with government spending: everything is always over budget. I could guarantee you a private company could take care of the roads on the exact same money the government is currently taking in for it.


And by the way, why are you making all your comparisons to Europe? You do realize that this is the United States, not Europe. We don't want their socialism. If you want socialism, go over there and join them. Quit trying to fundamentally transform our country into something that is completely antithetical to freedom and our Constitution.

[GreecePwns]

Like the freedom of speech part, Night Strike?

[PLAYER57832]

A lot of your proposals have very little effect when it comes to deficit reduction. I am trying to put together a plan that would save 4 trillion in 5 years. This way, somewhere down the line, we can afford to enact some of the more expensive policies you listed.

Not sure why you say expensive policies. They don't necessarily save as much money as we need to save (I admit that, but its only a partial list, too). However, they do save money.

The thing is we need to fix the root problems, not just the symptoms. The root problem is lack of responsibility and sustainability by companies. They are legally obligated to ignore most of the harm they do, except when forced. A CEO can be brought into court for a drop in stock prices more readily than for putting out toxic products (the company as a whole can be held liable, but usually not the CEO.. and the company has myriads of buffers protecting it besides). They basically cannot be touched for taking huge tax breaks and then turning around and closing or seriously shrinking plant sizes.

Right now, our entire economy is built on a few illusions that are coming to fail. I won't derail your thread going into those, but I still don't see why you say the things I suggest are adding to the deficit.

Some things I will add to the list:
-The full legalization of marijuana made retroactive, the applying of a federal tax on it and the closing down of jail cells whose capacity is equal to that of the number of inmates released as a result of its passage
-The closing of loopholes and reduction in rates detailed in the Bowles-Simpson Plan

I like these!

I do think we have to be careful about releasing people already convicted. People only convicted of marihuana should be released. Others will need evaluation.

[PLAYER57832]

And by the way, why are you making all your comparisons to Europe? You do realize that this is the United States, not Europe. We don't want their socialism. If you want socialism, go over there and join them. Quit trying to fundamentally transform our country into something that is completely antithetical to freedom and our Constitution.

How about some ideas about the budget. I think we have other threads to discuss how any ideas but your are 'attacks on the constitution"

[PLAYER57832]

Eliminate Farm Subsidies

Also, cut $30 billion of $35 billion in payments to farmers not to grow food (I'm leaving a few bil in there to account for disaster guarantees). The drawback, of course, is that the elimination of the artificial price floor would completely destroy the agricultural sectors of every country in the world other than Russia, Canada and Australia, once the U.S. started outputting food to its full capacity. If France finds that idea horrifying then I suppose they can either take over paying the subsidies or withdraw from the WTO and establish customs protections around their domestic agriculture.

LOL
Subsidies won't result in an immediate, massive surplus. It will result in more small farms selling out to large farms, heavy price fluctuations in the agriculture commodity markets. I agree that many subsidies should be eliminated or changed, but disagree on what will happen. If you want to see an example, just look at what happened to the dairy industry in the past few years.

Break-Up Amtrak

National rail doesn't work in Australia or Canada, it only works in little places like Japan and England. The U.S. is too geographically large with too clustered of a population for nation-wide rail to ever happen. The Northeast routes should all be turned over to the states they service. All the historic western routes like the Empire Builder and the California Zephyr are 2/3-empty and bleed money and should be shuttered if no one wants to buy them for tourism/novelty purposes. That's $1 billion/year in savings (Amtrak= $3.5 billion/cost vs. $2.5 billion/revenue).

I am quite surprised you are against Amtrak. The biggest problem with Amtrak is that considerations never put it on equal footing with roads. Every road we have is publically built. This amounts to a HUGE subsidy for every vehicle out there. By contrast, almost all rails are private. Amtrak itself is semi-public, but the infrastructure is not. I would have to do more research to dig up the data again, but a few years ago when this came up in CA, I saw figures that pretty well showed that Amtrak is deisigned to fail.. it never has quite the capacity that would ensure people could rely upon it, other issues.

If they even just added more car-rails, the services would be used a LOT more for long distance travel.

[saxitoxin]

Eliminate Farm Subsidies

Also, cut $30 billion of $35 billion in payments to farmers not to grow food (I'm leaving a few bil in there to account for disaster guarantees). The drawback, of course, is that the elimination of the artificial price floor would completely destroy the agricultural sectors of every country in the world other than Russia, Canada and Australia, once the U.S. started outputting food to its full capacity. If France finds that idea horrifying then I suppose they can either take over paying the subsidies or withdraw from the WTO and establish customs protections around their domestic agriculture.

LOL
Subsidies won't result in an immediate, massive surplus. It will result in more small farms selling out to large farms, heavy price fluctuations in the agriculture commodity markets. I agree that many subsidies should be eliminated or changed, but disagree on what will happen. If you want to see an example, just look at what happened to the dairy industry in the past few years.

1. Cutting $30 billion in subsidies would result in $30 billion in savings.

2. Ten-percent of farms receive 75% of subsidies. The bulk of subsidies go to factory farmers like Monsanto and Darigold, not family farmers.

3. I already noted there would be heavy price fluctuations after a cut in subsidies. Since the fluctuation would be the collapse of the price floor, I have no problem with that. I think it's good when food costs less for working families. Others - like the CFO of Cargill - may disagree.

Amtrak itself is semi-public

No it's not. Amtrak is a public corporation. The Board of Directors is appointed by the President. This is the very definition of a public corporation.

If they even just added more car-rails, the services would be used a LOT more for long distance travel.

No they wouldn't. Auto-Train currently accounts for less than 1% of Amtrak service and already runs severely under-capacity. Adding extra cars to empty trains is a Not-Smart(TM) action.

[thegreekdog]

Nice thread! I'll post my ideas at some point.

However, note under the Summary Tables the increase in corporate tax revenues from $196 billion in FY11 to $327 billion in FY12. I said to myself, "WHAT?"

[PLAYER57832]

Eliminate Farm Subsidies

Also, cut $30 billion of $35 billion in payments to farmers not to grow food (I'm leaving a few bil in there to account for disaster guarantees). The drawback, of course, is that the elimination of the artificial price floor would completely destroy the agricultural sectors of every country in the world other than Russia, Canada and Australia, once the U.S. started outputting food to its full capacity. If France finds that idea horrifying then I suppose they can either take over paying the subsidies or withdraw from the WTO and establish customs protections around their domestic agriculture.

LOL
Subsidies won't result in an immediate, massive surplus. It will result in more small farms selling out to large farms, heavy price fluctuations in the agriculture commodity markets. I agree that many subsidies should be eliminated or changed, but disagree on what will happen. If you want to see an example, just look at what happened to the dairy industry in the past few years.

1. Cutting $30 billion in subsidies would result in $30 billion in savings.

2. Ten-percent of farms receive 75% of subsidies. The bulk of subsidies go to factory farmers like Monsanto and Darigold, not family farmers.

3. I already noted there would be heavy price fluctuations after a cut in subsidies. Since the fluctuation would be the collapse of the price floor, I have no problem with that. I think it's good when food costs less for working families. Others - like the CFO of Cargill - may disagree.

OH, I agree. I would say that any subsidies that are kept should go only to sustainable agriculture and smaller farms, simply so they can actually compete with he "Monsanto" chemical factory farms. AND, they should be tied to limitations that will move them out when the "monsantos" are required to pay for the true costs of their operations.

If they even just added more car-rails, the services would be used a LOT more for long distance travel.

No they wouldn't. Auto-Train currently accounts for less than 1% of Amtrak service and already runs severely under-capacity. Adding extra cars to empty trains is a Not-Smart(TM) action.

Except, in transportation, availability matters a LOT. Right now, there are only a couple of auto train routes. Because they are so limited, only people who have a very limited goal can avail them. If I want to travel from Pittsburgh, say, it just doesn' t make sense. I would have to drive quite a ways to catch the autotrain. Then, my destinations are also very limited.

You see something similar with buses in Santa Barbara. I can remember trying to use them, but they were often so limited that they simply did not work for jobs, getting to classes, etc. We biked or drove instead. Luckily, SB/Goleta, etc do have fantastic bike routes. It might have changed, but that is how it was back "when".

I myself can say for sure that I would take the train out west, IF I could take my vehicle for a reasonable cost. Right now, we have to fly to LA or SF, then either get a commuter car, have relatives pick us up (and not have transport available), etc. Going many places in California is difficult without a vehicle. I kno w I am just one person, but I doubt I am the only one. When you add up the cost of renting a vehicle versus taking it on a train, then it can become very cost-effective to take a train, BUT.. only if the routes were extensive enough to make it work.

[thegreekdog]

This is what I have so far.

Revenue Increases
Return SS Rate for employees to 6.2 percent and remove the $106K cap: An increase of 3 percent of all currently taxable payroll. Social Security’s revenue is currently 12 percent of taxable payroll, which equals 677.1B. 15 percent would, by proportion, be about 846.4B, an increase in revenue of 169.3B. Source: Trustees Report 2011

Eliminate the Bush Tax Cuts for all incomes: An increase in revenue of 1,469B. Source: CBO-Produced Table found in a
Citizens for Tax Justice Report

Return Estate and Gift Taxes to 2001 Levels: An increase in revenue of 217B Source: CBO “Federal Estate and Gift Taxes

Remove Oil Industry Subsidies and Tax Provisions: An increase in revenue of 20B Source: CBO Report

Eliminated EITC and Child Credit Outlays: A total savings of $203.8B Source: CBO “EITC and Child Credit Outlays”

Spending Cuts
End funding of Overseas Contingency Operations (AKA the wars): This one does not have amounts for future years, so I will use the average of the last three years and multiply it by 5. This results in a savings of $764B. Source: Summary Tables of the Budget Table S-11

Move all Overseas Troops to domestic bases: A savings of 6.8 to 7.35B in 2004 dollars (I’ll use the middle), or 8.41B 2011 dollars. Source: CBO “Options for Changing the Army’s Overseas Basing

Cut Overall Defense Spending to 2000 Levels: A savings of around $250B Source: OMB – Annual Budget Documents Chart

EDIT: Just adding some stats below here

Total Revenue Increases: $2154.1B, or 67.8%
Total Spending Cuts: $1096.41B, or 32.2%
Total Deficit Reduction: $3251.51B

Average Yearly Surplus/Deficit 2012-2016 Before Changes: Deficit of $745.8B
Average Yearly Surplus/Deficit 2012-2016 After Changes: Deficit of $95.5B

I like Greecepwns's plan, except for the blanket removal of the Bush tax cuts. I would increase income tax rates on married couples earning more than $1 million only. I would also add to that some decreases called for by the Cato Institute (mostly related to subsidies for different industries). I would remove all industry-specific deductions and tax credits and lower the corporate income tax rate (to be in line with other countries' tax rates).

I also thought about whether it was a good idea to raise the tax rate on capital gains, but looking at some statistics, it appears that government revenues were higher when capital gains tax rates were lower. I'm not sure, therefore, that an increase in the capital gains tax rate is a good idea (to raise additional revenue).

[PLAYER57832]

One major addition I forgot is I would give the US government partial ownership in any and all patents originating from study on US properties. The charge should be low per unit.. something like a .25% rotalty. This money should be cycled back directly to maintain parks and other public lands.

[saxitoxin]

Eliminate Farm Subsidies

Also, cut $30 billion of $35 billion in payments to farmers not to grow food (I'm leaving a few bil in there to account for disaster guarantees). The drawback, of course, is that the elimination of the artificial price floor would completely destroy the agricultural sectors of every country in the world other than Russia, Canada and Australia, once the U.S. started outputting food to its full capacity. If France finds that idea horrifying then I suppose they can either take over paying the subsidies or withdraw from the WTO and establish customs protections around their domestic agriculture.

LOL
Subsidies won't result in an immediate, massive surplus. It will result in more small farms selling out to large farms, heavy price fluctuations in the agriculture commodity markets. I agree that many subsidies should be eliminated or changed, but disagree on what will happen. If you want to see an example, just look at what happened to the dairy industry in the past few years.

1. Cutting $30 billion in subsidies would result in $30 billion in savings.

2. Ten-percent of farms receive 75% of subsidies. The bulk of subsidies go to factory farmers like Monsanto and Darigold, not family farmers.

3. I already noted there would be heavy price fluctuations after a cut in subsidies. Since the fluctuation would be the collapse of the price floor, I have no problem with that. I think it's good when food costs less for working families. Others - like the CFO of Cargill - may disagree.

OH, I agree. I would say that any subsidies that are kept should go only to sustainable agriculture and smaller farms, simply so they can actually compete with he "Monsanto" chemical factory farms. AND, they should be tied to limitations that will move them out when the "monsantos" are required to pay for the true costs of their operations.

That won't do anything to collapse the price floor. The cost of food will remain high and factory farms will just leave their own fields empty, even in the absence of incenti- oh, whatever, I already feel a headache coming on -

GreecePWNS, go ahead and credit me with the $30 billion

If they even just added more car-rails, the services would be used a LOT more for long distance travel.

No they wouldn't. Auto-Train currently accounts for less than 1% of Amtrak service and already runs severely under-capacity. Adding extra cars to empty trains is a Not-Smart(TM) action.

Except, in transportation, availability matters a LOT. Right now, there are only a couple of auto train routes. Because they are so limited, only people who have a very limited goal can avail them. If I want to travel from Pittsburgh, say, it just doesn' t make sense. I would have to drive quite a ways to catch the autotrain. Then, my destinations are also very limited.

You see something similar with buses in Santa Barbara. I can remember trying to use them, but they were often so limited that they simply did not work for jobs, getting to classes, etc. We biked or drove instead. Luckily, SB/Goleta, etc do have fantastic bike routes. It might have changed, but that is how it was back "when".

I myself can say for sure that I would take the train out west, IF I could take my vehicle for a reasonable cost. Right now, we have to fly to LA or SF, then either get a commuter car, have relatives pick us up (and not have transport available), etc. Going many places in California is difficult without a vehicle. I kno w I am just one person, but I doubt I am the only one. When you add up the cost of renting a vehicle versus taking it on a train, then it can become very cost-effective to take a train, BUT.. only if the routes were extensive enough to make it work.

My interest in subsidizing your romantic train holidays is about zero (nothing personal).

The Orient Express was an impractical route and was eliminated from European rail service, just like Amtrak's impractical routes - the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Coast Starlight, etc. - should be eliminated.

GreecePWNS - credit me with $1 billion

[john9blue]

i have yet to see a proposal which posits bigger benefits than aog's body exploding in rainbows of delight

[PLAYER57832]

A couple "micro" suggestions.

1. Give National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction over endangered species in the ocean. Let Fish and Wildlife keep jurisdiction over land and stream species. They will share jurisdiction over species that migrate into both environs, based on impact of resource. For example, NMFS would determine if ocean takes/populations of salmon are sufficient, if the environment is supporting the stocks well enough and if the fishery is taking too many at sea. Fish and Wildlife, in conjunction with state agencies, would make habitat determinations.

Increase sharing of biological data between states and feds. Many cases, due to varied jurisdictions you have state agencies, sometimes multiple state agencies collecting the same data, duplicated again by federal agencies with no difference or only very, very minor differences in testing regimes. I would put the feds in charge of basically verifying that state data and procedures are consistant, scientifically valid. States can collect data in different ways, but should use some basic standards that are universally accepted by the various fields. For example, Fish and wildlife would set standards for electroshock sampling and sein net sampling. States would use that for comparisons, but could use other methods that they may have used historically or just want to try.

SAVINGS: I will try to figure this out. Some of the savings will be at the state level. Right now, a LOT of information is duplicated or collected in ways that is not comparable (yep, both problems!)

2. Charge a higher fee for testing of food products from companies that have failures. Require more upfront testing. No testing regime can catch 100%, but a lot of the testing right now is voluntary. In some cases, companies can wait a long time to give out data on failures or use procedures that effectively gaurantee the product is sold before any problem is discovered.

[PLAYER57832]

My interest in subsidizing your romantic train holidays is about zero (nothing personal).

The Orient Express was an impractical route and was eliminated from European rail service, just like Amtrak's impractical routes - the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Coast Starlight, etc. - should be eliminated.

GreecePWNS - credit me with $1 billion

These are offset by cuts to air transport. Right now, we highly subsidize roads and air far more than we do trains..a nd that is the point.

But, until train service is expanded, it just won't be practical for most people to use. Its ridiculous that I have to as far to catch a plane as I do to catch a train.

[GreecePwns]

An updated list of GP's policy with contributions from Saxitoxin:

Revenue Increases
Return SS Rate for employees to 6.2 percent and remove the $106K cap: An increase of 3 percent of all currently taxable payroll. Social Security’s revenue is currently 12 percent of taxable payroll, which equals 677.1B. 15 percent would, by proportion, be about 846.4B, an increase in revenue of 169.3B.
Source: Trustees Report 2011

Eliminate the Bush Tax Cuts for all incomes: An increase in revenue of 1,469B.
Source: CBO-Produced Table found in a
Citizens for Tax Justice Report

Return Estate and Gift Taxes to 2001 Levels: An increase in revenue of 217B
Source: CBO

Remove Oil Industry Subsidies and Tax Provisions: An increase in revenue of 20B
Source: CBO

Eliminated EITC and Child Credit Outlays: A total savings of $203.8B
Source: CBO

Allow for a year of Tax Amnesty (Essentially, the government will give a person a year to make up any missed taxes before legally pursuing them): An increase in revenue of "$800B to $1T over a decade" or about $450B over 5 years
Source: The Laffer Curve for Tax Amnesty

Eliminate Payments to Not Grow Food: A Savings of $30B (using hte low end, the restcan go to disaster funds)
Source: Ask Saxi

Eliminate Farm Subsidies: A Savings of $25B
Source: Reuters

Closing of Loopholes and Lowering of Corporate Tax Rates As Described in the Simpson-Bowles Plan: An increase in revenue of $75B
Source: The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

Sin Tax equal to cigarettes placed on legally sold marijuana: A revenue increase of $44.9B
Source: Cato Institute

Spending Cuts
End funding of Overseas Contingency Operations (AKA the wars): This one does not have amounts for future years, so I will use the average of the last three years and multiply it by 5. This results in a savings of $764B. Source: Summary Tables of the Budget Table S-11

Eliminate All Block Grants: A savings of $400 billion Source: Ask Saxi

Close all Overseas Bases and Demobilize 120,000 Troops: A savings of $60 billion Source: Ask Saxi

Cut Overall Defense Spending to 2000 Levels: A savings of around $250B Source: OMB – Annual Budget Documents Chart

Reduced prison spending as a result of legalization of marijuana: A savings of $78B
Source: Cato Institute

Total Revenue Increases: $2.704 trillion, or 63.5%
Total Spending Cuts: $1.552 trillion, or 36.5%
Total Deficit Reduction: $4.256 trillion

Average Yearly Surplus/Deficit 2012-2016 Before Changes: Deficit of $745.8 billion
Average Yearly Surplus/Deficit 2012-2016 After Changes: Surplus of $105.4 billion

[GreecePwns]

Some additional numbers stretching to 2021:

The total deficit from 2012-2021 is estimated at $7,205B
The total deficit reduction the GP Plan for 2012-2021 is estimated at $8,512B

The average yearly deficit for 2012-2021 before changes is $720.5B
The average yearly surplus for 2012-2021 after changes is $130.7B

In other words, the future would look even better.

[saxitoxin]

But, until train service is expanded, it just won't be practical for most people to use. Its ridiculous that I have to as far to catch a plane as I do to catch a train.

Some 19th century technologies - like trains and typewriters - don't become practical just by sinking more money into them. No company would send their employee on a 6-day railroad business trip from Chicago to San Diego and back when it could be accomplished in 6-hours. Trains work in the UK and Japan. Trains don't work in Australia and Canada. The geography/demography of the U.S. is more like the latter than the former.

Eliminate Payments to Not Grow Food: A Savings of $30B (using hte low end, the restcan go to disaster funds)
Source: Ask Saxi

Eliminate Farm Subsidies: A Savings of $25B
Source: Reuters

These are the same, you can nix mine; I'm satisfied with the $25B.

Eliminate All Block Grants: A savings of $400 billion Source: Ask Saxi

http://maloney.house.gov/documents/govr ... d10263.pdf

(actually $335 billion if we're being accurate )

Close all Overseas Bases and Demobilize 120,000 Troops: A savings of $60 billion Source: Ask Saxi

http://www.alternet.org/world/102187/th ... 2_in_iraq/

[GreecePwns]

Some other things:

Fully publicly funded elections for 4 years would cost less than a half of a percent of a 4 year surplus, even at Obama 2012 level campaign spending.

The surplus + Medicare budget + Medicaid budget = 73 percent of the money needed to fund a fully public healthcare system. Medicare taxes are 1.45 percent of taxable wages.

[Woodruff]

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

[Baron Von PWN]

Increasing government revenue? Outrageous, it is far better to destroy government.

More seriously great work GP, email the president/ your member of congress.

[thegreekdog]

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.

[PLAYER57832]

NOTE... got interrupted looking up data. Will supply later.
When it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, no fix will be possible as long as we are willing to spend millions on one person , while denying basic coverage to thousands of others.
NO ONE wants to talk about limits.. except the insurance companies that are more than happy to impose them for reasons that are NOT necessarily tied to life benefits (that is, letting people just die by delaying tests is as "logical" a business move as curing, sometimes more "logical"... and permissable morally when a company insulates those making those decisions from the impact).

HOWEVER, if moral and caring people cannot sit down and make these decisions based on data, then people without any morals will make the decisions in a far, far worse way. OR, the system will simply collapse and leave no one but the elite few with real healthcare coverage.

Limits MUST happen, but as long as healthcare is considered an "option", we can never truly can call ourselves a moral or civilized society.

AND... if we look seriously at these limits in an honest way, the savings will be there.

(however, I know this discussion can spin off into nether land, so... details for this should go in another thread).

In the meantime, we need to increase employee Medicaid/care contributions, by at least 1%.

I dislike the healthcare reform penalties, but would instead force insurance companies to stop giving preferential discounts to certain groups. The reason is because those not fitting into the groups are FAR more likely to wind up on government roles. This means that those group savings are paid for by everyone else... smaller groups, individuals who pay themselves and those who rely fully or partially on government programs. THEN, once the group "favoring" is eliminated, I would tax companies not supplying medical insurance a percentage roughly equal to the cost of converting those employees to new taxpayer supplemented plans.

As noted above, I would also gradually eliminate the deduction companies recieve for providing insurance. Many companies are already dropping insurance as not cost-effective. This would just make the calculation more "honest". In return, I would allow individuals to deduct the full cost of their insurance (no limits). I am changing what I said earlier about allowing individuals to deduct all medical care. We want to encourage people to buy insurance, (whether government or private), NOT to use medical care they migt not need. (not even subtle encouragement). We should keep a high, catastrophic deduction for those who wind up with bills close to or exceeding their income. However, that should be for extreme cases.

A panel should look at other issues. For example, just like insurance companies pay companies for wellness plans, it might prove beneficial (particularly as more people move into government plans) to offer tax deductions and such for certain "wellness" things. Sure, I can hear the jokes coming about offering deductions for gym memberships, BUT if it proves cost-effective, that is, if it reduces future medical care and/or productivity (and thus taxes) of people, then getting hung up on "this is a fun thing we are providing" is stupid. And, of course, there would have to be limits. I mean, allowing people to deduct a Y membership (or roughly that amount) is probably OK, but maybe not the full price of some elite clubs (just as an example). Again, those details can be sorted out, the point is that NO such deduction would be allowed unless it were truly cost-effective, and it would be limited to a level that is cost-effective.

[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?

[PLAYER57832]

A nice chart
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed ... 9_014.html

I don't know enough to know if these figures are valid, but the above chart seems to have handy tools for seperating out various government expense categories from 1999-2016, so I thought I would post it here for others to use if they wish.

[thegreekdog]

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.