PDA

View Full Version : Economics The Direckshun Grand Bargain


Direckshun
12-08-2012, 04:28 PM
YAY: 2
NAY: 25
(Last time totaled up: 12:43am on December 10)

After perusing several different budget control plans, from Boehner's proposal to Obama's proposal, Simpson-Bowles and plans from various liberal, conservative, and independent think tanks, this is the plan I've cobbled together that I think would responsibly cut the deficit over the next decade and perhaps beyond.

What I want you to do: vote. But your vote must be on the totality of DGB -- any statement where you say you'll vote on this "except for" this part or that part will be considered a "no" vote.

You are welcome, as always, to pick it apart and do your thing, but your post will be construed as a yes or a no vote based on my interpreation, and added to the vote totals accumulated in the vote totals at the top of the OP.

"DGB" will be the abbreviation for the Direckshun Grand Bargain from here on out.

THE DIRECKSHUN GRAND BARGAIN (6 trillion)
Should reduce our debt by 60% by 2040. Will raise the debt limit an appropriate amount, but will otherwise not change how the debt limit is handled. All estimates are for 2013-2022, but DGB auto-renews every decade unless Congress acts. All these savings will result in $850 billion saved in interest that won't have to be paid. Would make the "fiscal year" two calendar years. Does assume some costs of already existing cuts and new taxes.
Mandatory Spending Cuts (over 300 billion):
Reduce farm subsidies. (20 billion) Savings on government (& military) pensions, largely by saying you can vest sooner but must collect later, reforming COLA payments and making federal workers pay more into the pension. (70 billion) Increase spending on integrity programs for programs with improper payment problems (Medicare & disability). (should save 30 billion eventually) Miscellaneous cuts (150 billion) Measure inflation better. (50 billion)
Discretionary Spending Cuts (2.2 trillion):
Reduce defense spending by 1.3 trillion (closing 1/3 military bases, cut down on contractors as well as their compensation). All of the cuts from the Budget Conrol Act of 2011 will be enforced. (900 billion)
Revenue Increases (2.5 trillion):
Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. (1.1 trillion) Tax reform: repeal AMT, capital gains and dividends are taxed as normal income, repeal state and local taxes, cafeteria plans, and many kinds of itemized deductions, and drastically reduce deductions on charity. No more mortgage deduction for 2nd homes, homes worth more than 500k, or HELOCs. Reduce income tax exclusion for employer healthcare. Three tax rates: 15%, 25%, and 39%, raising taxes on the rich while broadening the base, and simplifies the code. These pieces of tax reform, put together, will add up to 1.25 trillion. Raise the gas tax $0.15 in 2013. (150 billion) Adjust how the government measures inflation to a more accurate measure. (90 billion)
Healthcare & Social Security (850 billion):
Obamacare's shifting payment schemes that compensate doctors less, improve efficiency, and shift the healthcare system to a system that compensates on quality, not quantity. Tort reform, including paying lawyers less. Close the Medicare donut hole. Improve Medicare's cost sharing. Identify additional $200 billion in federal healthcare spending by 2020. Improve some social security benefits, in particular minimum payments for people with lifetime minimum wage jobs and helping out the oldest retirees. (This will actually cost around 50 billion.) Raise social security age to 67. Increase the maximum at which you can tax somebody for social security (200+ billion). Measure inflation better for social security (150 billion).
Do your worst. Poll forthcoming.

A Salt Weapon
12-08-2012, 05:25 PM
Nope, eliminate every federal agency except for military, eliminate every dollar of federal spending outside of military. Reduce tax rates to .001% of income.
Everything else is reserved to the states.
Problem solved.
Posted via Mobile Device

Brainiac
12-08-2012, 05:40 PM
I voted no because your plan is pure fantasy.

By putting numbers on each individual line item, you are implying a level of precision that simply isn't there.

I'm still trying to figure out how repealing state and local taxes increases revenue. And 200 of your 300 billion in mandatory spending cuts consists of "miscellaneous cuts" and "measure inflation better".

Um, OK.

BigRedChief
12-08-2012, 05:40 PM
Nope, eliminate every federal agency except for military, eliminate every dollar of federal spending outside of military. Reduce tax rates to .001% of income.
Everything else is reserved to the states.
Problem solved.
Posted via Mobile DeviceROFL Nice fantasy you painted for yourself there.

LiveSteam
12-08-2012, 05:50 PM
LETS ALL

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0palqzuHx1r0lf1ho1_500.jpg

mnchiefsguy
12-08-2012, 05:55 PM
Sorry, had to vote no. Way too many tax increases, plus you are counting on Obamacare to be contributing to reducing the debt, when everyone knows it is a black hole of spending.

Trivers
12-08-2012, 06:02 PM
Appreciate your effort and thought; but everyone needs to feel the pain of reform. Why just the 2% when 51% don't pay income tax?

No real entitlement cuts.

Fair flat tax.

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 06:14 PM
I voted no because your plan is pure fantasy.

Probably.

By putting numbers on each individual line item, you are implying a level of precision that simply isn't there.

I largely copied the dollar amounts from experts from CAP to Heritage, who've provided the items I cherry picked.

This is how absolutely any deal that gets made is going to look. This is what Obama did when he turned in his proposal, it's what Boehner did when he turned in his. This is how the process works.

To shoot down a $6 trillion dollar deal because it might be off a few billion is silly.

I'm still trying to figure out how repealing state and local taxes increases revenue. And 200 of your 300 billion in mandatory spending cuts consists of "miscellaneous cuts" and "measure inflation better".

Oh come now. I only used the phrase "miscellaneous" once, and it was $150 billion. Surely you're not going to say $150 billion is going to stand in the way of a $6 trillion plan.

As for the measure inflation better, it comes down to CPI. The federal government measures CPI too aggressively, assuming for too much inflation and spending on that miscalculation. There's support from both the right and the left to adjust CPI to a more manageable, accurate number. That alone will save billions.

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 06:16 PM
Appreciate your effort and thought; but everyone needs to feel the pain of reform. Why just the 2% when 51% don't pay income tax?

No real entitlement cuts.

Fair flat tax.

I don't know what counts as entitlement cuts, but there are some in there.

I advocated broadening the base, by the way.

Chocolate Hog
12-08-2012, 06:17 PM
In the words of Dane McCloud

"Fuck off"

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 06:18 PM
So far, everybody who's posted has a vote on the record, so the poll's vote total stands.

Yay: 1
Nay: 9

Edit: Just saw Billay's post. Make that 10.

Taco John
12-08-2012, 06:21 PM
This plan would choke the economy. Getting rid of things like mortgage deductions and income tax exclusion for employer healthcare are great ways to slow housing and job recovery. Also, a 40 percent tax rate is ridiculous. No one should owe the federal government 40% of what they earn. Nor should they owe 15% or 25% of what they earn for that matter.

I think that we've got to go off this "cliff" and let it roll. I think this is a better "grand" "bargain" than any plan I've seen yet.

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 06:23 PM
This plan would choke the economy. Getting rid of things like mortgage deductions and income tax exclusion for employer healthcare are great ways to slow housing and job recovery. Also, a 40 percent tax rate is ridiculous. No one should owe the federal government 40% of what they earn. Nor should they owe 15% or 25% of what they earn for that matter.

I think that we've got to go off this "cliff" and let it roll. I think this is a better "grand" "bargain" than any plan I've seen yet.

This plan would choke the economy!

So... let's go off the cliff, which will choke the economy!

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 06:24 PM
For the record, TJ, going off the cliff gives you more revenue and less cuts than what I've suggested.

Taco John
12-08-2012, 06:28 PM
This plan would choke the economy!

So... let's go off the cliff, which will choke the economy!

Here's what the CBO says about the fiscal cliff:

Substantial changes to tax and spending policies are scheduled to take effect in January 2013, significantly reducing the federal budget deficit. According to CBO’s projections, if all of that fiscal tightening occurs, real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) will drop by 0.5 percent in 2013 (as measured by the change from the fourth quarter of 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013)—reflecting a decline in the first half of the year and renewed growth at a modest pace later in the year. That contraction of the economy will cause employment to decline and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013. After next year, by the agency’s estimates, economic growth will pick up, and the labor market will strengthen, returning output to its potential level (reflecting a high rate of use of labor and capital) and shrinking the unemployment rate to 5.5 percent by 2018.

Output would be greater and unemployment lower in the next few years if some or all of the fiscal tightening scheduled under current law—sometimes called the fiscal cliff—was removed. However, CBO expects that even if all of the fiscal tightening was eliminated, the economy would remain below its potential and the unemployment rate would remain higher than usual for some time. Moreover, if the fiscal tightening was removed and the policies that are currently in effect were kept in place indefinitely, a continued surge in federal debt during the rest of this decade and beyond would raise the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which the government would lose the ability to borrow money at affordable interest rates) and would eventually reduce the nation’s output and income below what would occur if the fiscal tightening was allowed to take place as currently set by law.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43694

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 06:30 PM
Here's what the CBO says about the fiscal cliff:

Substantial changes to tax and spending policies are scheduled to take effect in January 2013, significantly reducing the federal budget deficit. According to CBO’s projections, if all of that fiscal tightening occurs, real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) will drop by 0.5 percent in 2013 (as measured by the change from the fourth quarter of 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013)—reflecting a decline in the first half of the year and renewed growth at a modest pace later in the year. That contraction of the economy will cause employment to decline and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013. After next year, by the agency’s estimates, economic growth will pick up, and the labor market will strengthen, returning output to its potential level (reflecting a high rate of use of labor and capital) and shrinking the unemployment rate to 5.5 percent by 2018.

Output would be greater and unemployment lower in the next few years if some or all of the fiscal tightening scheduled under current law—sometimes called the fiscal cliff—was removed. However, CBO expects that even if all of the fiscal tightening was eliminated, the economy would remain below its potential and the unemployment rate would remain higher than usual for some time. Moreover, if the fiscal tightening was removed and the policies that are currently in effect were kept in place indefinitely, a continued surge in federal debt during the rest of this decade and beyond would raise the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which the government would lose the ability to borrow money at affordable interest rates) and would eventually reduce the nation’s output and income below what would occur if the fiscal tightening was allowed to take place as currently set by law.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43694

My favorite part was the very next sentence.

Taco John
12-08-2012, 06:30 PM
For the record, TJ, going off the cliff gives you more revenue and less cuts than what I've suggested.

Yes, I know. I have my reasons. My goal is to shrink government, not fund it.

Taco John
12-08-2012, 06:31 PM
My favorite part was the very next sentence.

And what about the next one - and the one after that?

Short term pain, long term gain.

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 06:32 PM
And what about the next one - and the one after that?

Short term pain, long term gain.

That's, like, the official tagline of the Direckshun Grand Bargain.

Taco John
12-08-2012, 06:48 PM
That's, like, the official tagline of the Direckshun Grand Bargain.

I suppose I don't see it. I see a proposal that would choke housing and job recovery both short and long term.

WoodDraw
12-08-2012, 10:06 PM
I don't have near the expertise to say yes or no.

I support raising the gas tax, but that has to be slowly phased in over a longer period of time.

I worry about the mortgage deduction thing, especially because it encourages urban flight and sprawl under what you proposed.

I'd like to decrease military spending, and expand the tax base.

J Diddy
12-08-2012, 10:18 PM
Cut the taxes for the rich, close the loop holes, add a 5% federal internet sales tax add a sales tax of 5% federal sales tax until the debt gets cleared up.

A Salt Weapon
12-08-2012, 10:24 PM
Cut the taxes for the rich, close the loop holes, add a 5% federal internet sales tax add a sales tax of 5% federal sales tax until the debt gets cleared up.

If you could enter realville for a moment you might realize it's not a revenue issue we have as a country it's a spending problem.

Raising taxes without cutting spending will not clear the debt, no matter how long it's in effect.
Posted via Mobile Device

J Diddy
12-08-2012, 10:29 PM
If you could enter realville for a moment you might realize it's not a revenue issue we have as a country it's a spending problem.

Raising taxes without cutting spending will not clear the debt, no matter how long it's in effect.
Posted via Mobile Device

Please talk to me about realville Mr. close down the government except for the military?

that being said, I agree. That is why I also advocate going over the fiscal cliff

A Salt Weapon
12-08-2012, 10:39 PM
Please talk to me about realville Mr. close down the government except for the military?


Good point.
Posted via Mobile Device

Direckshun
12-09-2012, 10:37 AM
13 votes in the poll, plus disagreements with the plan from J Diddy and Woodraw.

Yay: 1
Nay: 15

Trivers
12-09-2012, 11:36 AM
13 votes in the poll, plus disagreements with the plan from J Diddy and Woodraw.

Yay: 1
Nay: 15

See how hard it is to reach an agreement?

Everyone else wants the other side to pay for their standard of living. And they vote in senators and reps who only care about staying in office.

All the talking heads this AM on TV were blaming the other side.

patteeu
12-09-2012, 11:47 AM
Add me to the "nays". Your defense cuts are way too deep. Your tax increases on investment income are way too big and your top marginal tax rate is way too high. It's not clear to me whether you've included much in the way of preventing health care cost increases (beyond tort reform), but that's essential for medicare reform.

FD
12-09-2012, 11:49 AM
13 votes in the poll, plus disagreements with the plan from J Diddy and Woodraw.

Yay: 1
Nay: 15

Nobody is going to vote yes on an internet board. As is clear from the debates on here, there is no incentive to ever give an inch.

FWIW, I voted no because there were too many cuts to discretionary spending, not enough cuts to Medicare, and because it raised taxes too much on capital gains and dividends. Capital should be taxed less not more.

Direckshun
12-09-2012, 02:42 PM
18 Nays, 1 Yay

Dallas Chief
12-09-2012, 02:44 PM
Shows what heshe doesn't know. Home prices in all of the liberal bastions are well north of that $500k mark i.e. CA, MN, NY, IL, NJ, MA etc. He/she wants to clip the mortgage dedution for those folks altogether. Like buying a $500k house in those areas makes you wealthy. On top that he wantes to eliminate the mortgage deduction on second homes which are likely rental homes, which are likely homes for lower income families. Go for it, alienate your base dummy. That is a "No"

Direckshun
12-09-2012, 02:45 PM
19 Nays

VAChief
12-09-2012, 02:46 PM
Appreciate your effort and thought; but everyone needs to feel the pain of reform. Why just the 2% when 51% don't pay income tax?

No real entitlement cuts.

Fair flat tax.

The 2% don't pay the same percentage of payroll taxes that support social security and medicare either, should we even up the playing field there too?

patteeu
12-09-2012, 02:53 PM
The 2% don't pay the same percentage of payroll taxes that support social security and medicare either, should we even up the playing field there too?

No. Those aren't supposed to be welfare programs.

Shaid
12-09-2012, 06:50 PM
You have to phase in defense cuts. I would start by closing a lot of oversees bases. We have a ridiculous amount and it's unnecessary. Probably expand certain oversees bases for better staging areas and others in better quick strike positions but close a lot of the unnecessary ones. I was in Korea at 5 separate bases, also Italy at a few. There are definitely some bases to close.


You want to keep a lot of the military spending on building new tech, etc. to keep the jobs in America there but slowly phase out unnecessary ones.

CoMoChief
12-09-2012, 09:54 PM
Another useless poll when we all know what the outcome will be.

Anyone with half a brain would be stupid to ever agree with Direkshun on anything in this forum.

Direckshun
12-09-2012, 11:19 PM
20 Nay

go bowe
12-10-2012, 01:11 AM
your plan would appear to be an example of what a compromise should be in that nobody will like it in the end...

my main objection is to immediate and severe spending cuts that might drive us into recession again...

i'd rather not give up the bush tax cuts and payroll tax holiday or other middle class breaks either...

and i worry about the impact on the poor, particularly the working poor...

there are other things i could quibble about, but overall it seems to be a good plan and at the very least should be a good framework for negotiations...

Pawnmower
12-10-2012, 03:06 AM
We need to abolish income based taxes and move toward consumption taxes for the bulk of the taxes at some point.

Big greedy business with yachts and planes? Pay fat taxes on all that consumption...

Small lean business with thrift store furniture and low consumption...pay very little.


Income taxes are inherently unfair and counter productive....not only that , for business it is a disincentive.

Close all loopholes and have a pure consumption based system.

Want an xbox and an iphone for your brats even though you are on welfare?....Pay taxes...Want to tinker with an old sega genesis from a thrift store and show your family the value of a dollar? Pay zero.

Easy.

patteeu
12-10-2012, 07:41 AM
We need to abolish income based taxes and move toward consumption taxes for the bulk of the taxes at some point.

Big greedy business with yachts and planes? Pay fat taxes on all that consumption...

Small lean business with thrift store furniture and low consumption...pay very little.


Income taxes are inherently unfair and counter productive....not only that , for business it is a disincentive.

Close all loopholes and have a pure consumption based system.

Want an xbox and an iphone for your brats even though you are on welfare?....Pay taxes...Want to tinker with an old sega genesis from a thrift store and show your family the value of a dollar? Pay zero.

Easy.

This is a proposal I could vote "yay" on.

Direckshun
12-10-2012, 09:07 AM
I'm counting go bowe as a very tepid yay.

Yay: 2
Nay: 23

vailpass
12-10-2012, 11:05 AM
What's more batshit crazy: the OP or the fact that Dave Loon voted in favor of it?

whoman69
12-10-2012, 12:39 PM
Appreciate your effort and thought; but everyone needs to feel the pain of reform. Why just the 2% when 51% don't pay income tax?

No real entitlement cuts.

Fair flat tax.

There is no such thing as a fair flat tax. Any flat tax will greatly reduce rates being charged to the highest earners while charging the poor money they cannot give up. Its a fairy tale that people don't pay taxes, even the poor. There is sales tax, social security and medicare taxes for the poor, property tax on the middle class. Most states will have people paying income taxes even when they are paying zero federal.

Direckshun
12-10-2012, 12:43 PM
25 Nay

patteeu
12-10-2012, 12:55 PM
There is no such thing as a fair flat tax. Any flat tax will greatly reduce rates being charged to the highest earners while charging the poor money they cannot give up. Its a fairy tale that people don't pay taxes, even the poor. There is sales tax, social security and medicare taxes for the poor, property tax on the middle class. Most states will have people paying income taxes even when they are paying zero federal.

Greatly reducing rates on people who pay way more than their fair share and charging people more who pay far less than their fair share is fair. It's a fairy tale that low income people in the US can't afford to pay more in taxes. Arguing about what is fair is pretty silly since opinions about what it means vary so dramatically.

Whether you agree or not, a broad-based, flat tax would be (a) more transparent, (b) more efficient at generating revenue, (c) less economically distorting and (d) better at focusing political will on the real budget problems facing our country.

Direckshun
12-10-2012, 01:38 PM
Patteeu: advocating lower taxes for the wealthy and higher taxes on the 98% since 2002.

Calcountry
12-10-2012, 02:53 PM
This plan would choke the economy. Getting rid of things like mortgage deductions and income tax exclusion for employer healthcare are great ways to slow housing and job recovery. Also, a 40 percent tax rate is ridiculous. No one should owe the federal government 40% of what they earn. Nor should they owe 15% or 25% of what they earn for that matter.

I think that we've got to go off this "cliff" and let it roll. I think this is a better "grand" "bargain" than any plan I've seen yet.I am so going to enjoy the Rose Bowl this year. Knowing that we have already went off the so called "cliff". They will still play the game. I will still have a good time watching it.

Oh, some poor bastards will lose their jobs but hey, what can I say? Keynesian socialism doesn't work, never has, never will. Good luck explaining that to a tard that will vote for "hope and change".

vailpass
12-10-2012, 03:07 PM
Patteeu: advocating lower taxes for the wealthy and higher taxes on the 98% since 2002.

Inciting class warfare based on imaginary dividing lines like "98%" is fun!!

BucEyedPea
12-10-2012, 03:12 PM
What's more batshit crazy: the OP or the fact that Dave Loon voted in favor of it?

This. Yet, he calls out others as "batshit crazy" says all.

Pawnmower
12-10-2012, 05:28 PM
There is no such thing as a fair flat tax.

Sure there is.

How about 0% and go to a completely consumption based system that has exemptions ONLY for:

1)Basic Staple Foods, produced in the USA - bread / rice / milk / whole chickens / veggies etc...

2)Used / Thrift Store items (used clothing, used books, etc...from 2nd hand stores or charity stores)

3)****Manufacturing/Distribution process steps (ACME buys a widget from X-CORP and Sells it to JOHNSON & JOHNSON).....only tax is paid on the consumption profit...like this:

xcorp bought raw materials for $5.00, pays a %consumption tax on 5.00, makes widget

Acme bought the widget from xcorp for $20.00, so pays a %tax on $15.00 consumption

Acme then packages them , labels them and sells them to customers for $27.50 each, and pays a %consumption tax on $7.50


If the consumption tax was 20%, it would be $1.00, $3.00, and $1.50 at the corresponding steps.

No income taxes to figure out....

**** Just an example of a VAT type of system, there are other systems also.



Want to spend mad loot on your business/office furniture and gear? Pay consumption tax on all of it...

Want to run a home office with second hand gear or a small business with a few employees and some second hand/ used gear? Pay no consumption tax. (or perhaps a vastly lowered amount on used items...)

If you are poor /working class and buy staple foods and conserve your money and buy second hand items you will pay virtually no taxes. If you want to waste money on the latest IPAD or other new trendy device, youll have to pay taxes.

Rich peoiple with mansions, yachts, nice clothes, top end furniture will be paying most of the bills and getting hit with more consumption tax...unless of course they choose to live more frugally and consume less.


These are just examples of how simple and powerful a consumption based system could be.