Mess around with budget-fixing options that the deficit commission has proposed

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

I wound up with a 400 billion dollar surplus, but that was with 2/3 tax raises. I'd use the extra money to increase science and education funding, eliminate college tuition, and other things.

If I just balance the budget though it's like 70% spending cuts. That's without barely even touching the welfare state, or things that I consider populist nonsense like attacking government workers or getting rid of foreign aid.
 
Last edited:
I cut taxes and ended with a 2015 surplus of about 70 billion and a 2030 surplus of about 200 billion. I would put more into nuclear energy, throw NASA about 10 billion, and then just give it back to the people. 100,000,000,000 given back to the tax payers evenly across the board would do a lot for the economy in my mind.
 
Well realistically I wouldn't want to do any of this in the short term. I think budget balancing should be a 2011 or 2012 issue. I do think we should at least come up with a long term plan at this point in time, and hopefully it would be something that both parties would agree to stick to over the long term, because it can all be thrown off track when one faction with an agenda seizes control like they did in 2000.
 
It's actually easier than I had expected to balance the budget, even with these preset options and not having the ability to go in-depth.
 
Last edited:
Watermarx said:
It's actually easier than I had expected to balance the budget, even with these preset options and not having the ability to go in-depth.
Click to expand...

lol....yeah....much easier based on an essential game with assumptions about how much this or that cut or expense costs

i gave it a quick view, simplistic at best, but sort of fun
 
Voltaire said:
We think alike. :D
Click to expand...
For the most part. I disagree with your cutting a quarter million contractor, but only because it would increase unemployment. I also wouldn't cut our nuclear/space development, instead cutting other areas of the military. But for the most part yeah, we're on the same page.
 
Duplicity and Guile said:
For the most part. I disagree with your cutting a quarter million contractor, but only because it would increase unemployment. I also wouldn't cut our nuclear/space development, instead cutting other areas of the military. But for the most part yeah, we're on the same page.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with cutting the number of missiles, because there isn't a country or conceivable coalition of countries on Earth that could take a thousand nukes and still be functional afterwards anyway.

I'm a little surprised you chose to keep the Corporate tax rate at 35% though (without the loopholes which currently make up for that fact). I chose the 28% option.

I don't really know enough about the government workers or contractors to say one way or the other on that one, so I didn't pick it. If it just makes federal positions less competitive and results in a shittier workforce it's not in the national interest. They should be set to market rates. If there were pay cuts and layoffs I'd also expect them to be more targeted rather than across the board. Those options are mostly short term fixes anyway, and I have a 200 billion short term surplus with my latest tinkering.


EDIT: "and funding for nuclear research and development,"

Yeah, I'm not sure what this means, but if it means that we have less research towards developing nuclear power, that would definitely be something I'd have problems with. That option isn't all about nuclear missiles it looks like.
 
Last edited:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=dcyjr9r3

This one's majority "tax raises", but it is because I traded reducing the healthcare tax exemption (in a way, I realized, that would later cause it to become insignificant) for a bank tax and raising capital gains to 20% instead of 15%. For some reason reducing tax exemptions counts as "spending cuts".

EDIT: If I use a sales tax I can wind up with something that's a little bit more business friendly and doesn't hit seniors so hard:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=dcyj6lp7
 
Last edited:
Watermarx said:
I'm fine with cutting the number of missiles, because there isn't a country or conceivable coalition of countries on Earth that could take a thousand nukes and still be functional afterwards anyway.

I'm a little surprised you chose to keep the Corporate tax rate at 35% though (without the loopholes which currently make up for that fact). I chose the 28% option.
Click to expand...
Tax rates aren't my strongest area, and because we're in a bit of a pickle, nationally speaking, we need to keep or raise taxes. I'm not against a tax increase if it coincides with significant spending cuts. Taxes can change easier than spending can.

As for missiles, I'm not against cutting our nuclear arsenal, but a nuclear missile is a lot more cost effective than a naval fleet or other equivalent deterrence options. And more so is the tie to space research, since the option linked the two. Since I want to fund space programs MORE, I can't say I'd cut them if it also cuts nuclear research.
 
Duplicity and Guile said:
Tax rates aren't my strongest area, and because we're in a bit of a pickle, nationally speaking, we need to keep or raise taxes. I'm not against a tax increase if it coincides with significant spending cuts. Taxes can change easier than spending can.

As for missiles, I'm not against cutting our nuclear arsenal, but a nuclear missile is a lot more cost effective than a naval fleet or other equivalent deterrence options. And more so is the tie to space research, since the option linked the two. Since I want to fund space programs MORE, I can't say I'd cut them if it also cuts nuclear research.
Click to expand...
We are borrowing money to pay our way, it is a sad fact that needs to be faced.
 
corporate_tax_re.JPG


With corporate tax rates we have a little bit of fudge room before we become internationally uncompetitive. But I'm not sure if eliminating loopholes and keeping rates the same would push us out of that area.
 
Watermarx said:
corporate_tax_re.JPG


With corporate tax rates we have a little bit of fudge room before we become internationally uncompetitive. But I'm not sure if eliminating loopholes and keeping rates the same would push us out of that area.
Click to expand...

May your name be removed from any written history and the speaking of you be made a crime, punishable by death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top