You solve the budget

Both sides appear to be correct, it is going to take spending cuts and tax hikes to ever get this thing back under control. It would appear that everyone has gone a bit too far.

Man I did not know the fix was this easy. I worked through the activity and achieved a 23 billion surplus in 2015 and a 68 billion surplus in 2030. 83% from spending cuts and no new taxes except allowing the bush tax cuts to expire for those over 250,000 and extending payroll taxes above 106,000. I can even tolerate the Simpson-Bowles proposal which kicks in another 75 billion in 2015 and 175 billion in 2030. So at the 2015 rate I could reduce the debt by approximately 1.5 trillion dollars by 2030. Maybe I should run for congress.:sarc:

Where's the "eliminate the department of education" option? :lol: Oh right, this is on the NYT web site.

Where's the "eliminate the department of education" option? :lol: Oh right, this is on the NYT web site.

We can only ask for so much.😀 But we must start somewhere.

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

You always ask how a liberal would do it.

I find it interesting that one of the largest gains in the "raise taxes" area comes from letting the Bush tax cuts for the lower and middle classes expire.

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

You always ask how a liberal would do it.

Cripple the military, screw the seniors and send low income and the middle class households to bankruptcy. So the recession will turn to a depression and anyone who wants can whip us. But I have to give it to you, the deficit is ended and the national debt will be reduced.:clap:

Cripple the military, screw the seniors and send low income and the middle class households to bankruptcy. So the recession will turn to a depression and anyone who wants can whip us. But I have to give it to you, the deficit is ended and the national debt will be reduced.:clap:

I love how conservatives take the idea of scaling down our military as crippling it.

I haven't read the actual changes to the SS retirement age so I don't know if that's an immediate change and someone who planned on retiring at 62 in the next 5 years would now have to wait. As far as cutting SS benefits to millionaires, sorry I'm not gonna budge on that.

Everyone's going to have to suffer to get through this. Feel free to discuss it instead of running for ridiculously partisan scenario's and over the top talking points.

I love how conservatives take the idea of scaling down our military as crippling it.

I haven't read the actual changes to the SS retirement age so I don't know if that's an immediate change and someone who planned on retiring at 62 in the next 5 years would now have to wait. As far as cutting SS benefits to millionaires, sorry I'm not gonna budge on that.

Everyone's going to have to suffer to get through this. Feel free to discuss it instead of running for ridiculously partisan scenario's and over the top talking points.

Actually you shamed me into rethinking my solution to try and match your superior savings. I reworked mine and the results are:

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

Much bigger savings and still 76% of savings from spending cuts.

Actually you shamed me into rethinking my solution to try and match your superior savings. I reworked mine and the results are:

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

Much bigger savings and still 76% of savings from spending cuts.

I wasn't trying to shame you into anything.

I see that you don't like small business though, by saving $17 Billion you put at a minimum 250,000 people out of work. That's assuming that government contractors are individuals and not firms.

I agree with other cuts except for the National Parks and Smithsonian.

Won't cutting state aid simply raise taxes in those states? I know, I know the conventional wisdom is that they'll simply cut as well, but we know how that works and with people like Coley and Patronis keeping their "seats at the table" they'll vote however the higher ups direct them to.

I see you still love your millionaires by not taxing them over $1 million in income and heaven forbid someone like Paris Hilton pay when daddy dies right?

Easily fixed by cutting spending and reducing loopholes some tax breaks and the obverall tax rates (the Bowles-Simpson plan). The military should be gutted- we account for half the world's military spending. None of this will happen of course because no one in government is serious about any of this.

Also if by some travesty the payroll tax is increased above 106k per year I am leaving this country.

Easily fixed by cutting spending and reducing loopholes some tax breaks and the obverall tax rates (the Bowles-Simpson plan). The military should be gutted- we account for half the world's military spending. None of this will happen of course because no one in government is serious about any of this.

Also if by some travesty the payroll tax is increased above 106k per year I am leaving this country.

Raising the payroll tax ceiling is one thing that should be done even if we were not in a fiscal crisis. Talk about a regressive tax! Poor people pay on the first dollae earned, which is cool, but rich people do not pay anything on the bulk of their income.

I wasn't trying to shame you into anything.

I see that you don't like small business though, by saving $17 Billion you put at a minimum 250,000 people out of work. That's assuming that government contractors are individuals and not firms.

I agree with other cuts except for the National Parks and Smithsonian.

Won't cutting state aid simply raise taxes in those states? I know, I know the conventional wisdom is that they'll simply cut as well, but we know how that works and with people like Coley and Patronis keeping their "seats at the table" they'll vote however the higher ups direct them to.

I see you still love your millionaires by not taxing them over $1 million in income and heaven forbid someone like Paris Hilton pay when daddy dies right?

Cutting the contractors is not a must do for me. And the national parks and Smithsonian items are not cuts but user fees. I can live with that. As far as state aid, I am opposed to that completely. Every government entity should be required to raise every dollar they spend themselves so that spending cannot be hidden and the taxpayer knows the true cost of that government.

I don't love millionaires but I do not hate them either. I want them to pay their fair share, nothing more and nothing less. And death taxes are double taxation and patently unfair. People should have their income taxed once by the Federal government and that is enough.

death taxes are double taxation and patently unfair. People should have their income taxed once by the Federal government and that is enough.

Taxable estates do not necessarily include income that has been taxed in a prior life.

Life insurance proceeds, tax-deferred accounts, and unrealized capital gains come to mind.

One and done on taxes means little.

We pay income tax on salary but also pay sales, user, excise taxes afterwards.

There is no death tax, it is an estate tax. Last year, a married couple could exclude up to $7M.

Plus the surviving spouse has ZERO estate tax liability regardless of estate size.

The elimination of the "step-up" in basis and the increased IRS regulations on basis reporting will likely impact far more people than the repeal of the "death" tax.

Raising the payroll tax ceiling is one thing that should be done even if we were not in a fiscal crisis. Talk about a regressive tax! Poor people pay on the first dollae earned, which is cool, but rich people do not pay anything on the bulk of their income.

The ss payroll tax is already set up to be progressive. Benefits at the low end out strip contributions, and benefits at the high end are lower in value than contributions. Now there is talk of scaling back benefits at the high end even farther.

For people with lower than average earnings, the
ratio of the lifetime benefits they receive from Social
Security to the lifetime payroll taxes they pay for the
program is higher than it is for people with higher
average earnings. In that sense, the Social Security
system is progressive. For people in the bottom fifth of
the earnings distribution, the ratio of benefits to taxes
is almost three times as high as it is for those in the top
fifth.

The benefits paid to retired workers, which account
for about three-quarters of total benefits, are also
progressive, but less progressive than Social Security
benefits overall. The Social Security benefit formula is
designed to provide beneficiaries who had lower lifetime
earnings with monthly benefits that are higher, as
a percentage of their lifetime average earnings, than
those received by higher-earning beneficiaries. That
progressivity in the benefit formula is only partly offset
by the fact that higher-earning individuals tend to live
longer and thus collect benefits longer.

The benefits paid to disabled workers and to the dependents
and survivors of Social Security participants
are by their nature generally paid to individuals with
lower lifetime earnings. Disabled-worker and auxiliary
benefits together account for only about a quarter of
total benefits, but they account for most of the differences
in the benefit-to-tax ratio across the earnings distribution.
Therefore, analyses that consider the entire
Social Security system will generally find more overall
progressivity than studies that focus only on retired
workers. Disabled-worker benefits are still progressive,
but less so, when measured by a method that approximates
their insurance value to all workers rather than
one that considers only the benefits actually paid.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7705/12-15-Progressivity-SS.pdf

You get partial credit shopper.

Yes, the benefits are skewed toward workers with lower lifetime earnings.

But the limit (106K-2010) means it is not progressive.

The guy making 106K pays them same amount as the guy making 1.6M.

Modest adjustments for the upper 70% of recipients is prudent.

The option is raising taxes.

I love this!

Especially how it shows how much those tax cuts everyone is talking about hurt us.

38% in tax increases, 62% in spending cuts.

I cut back on military spending, reduced the federal workforce by 10%, raised the ages for Medicare and SS, and raised taxes.

Did not like the proposal to only have veterans who were injured in battle be covered - IMO if you serve you should get health care - especially with all of the mental health and later issues soldiers frequently have.

One thing I would like to see - make the mortgage interest credit only apply to primary residences and only after 25% of it has been paid off.

You get partial credit shopper.

Yes, the benefits are skewed toward workers with lower lifetime earnings.

But the limit (106K-2010) means it is not progressive.

The guy making 106K pays them same amount as the guy making 1.6M.

Modest adjustments for the upper 70% of recipients is prudent.

The option is raising taxes.

I don't see how you can claim that.

Jack pays A, gets B, Jill pays C, gets D, where A > C and D > B, that's a progressive tax.

I solved the issue. I raised taxes by a preponderance to cutting spending.......go figure. 😀

Did not like the proposal to only have veterans who were injured in battle be covered - IMO if you serve you should get health care - especially with all of the mental health and later issues soldiers frequently have.

Better yet Universal health care so it's a moot point.

One thing I would like to see - make the mortgage interest credit only apply to primary residences and only after 25% of it has been paid off.

Regardless of how you see the mortgage tax credit, those paying an interest only portion of their mortgage shouldn't be eligible. Of course I also feel that those types of loans should be illegal, if it's Guido then it's called usury.

Better yet Universal health care so it's a moot point.



Regardless of how you see the mortgage tax credit, those paying an interest only portion of their mortgage shouldn't be eligible. Of course I also feel that those types of loans should be illegal, if it's Guido then it's called usury.

I don't think Fannie, Freddie or FHA has interest only loans any longer.

I don't see how you can claim that.

Jack pays A, gets B, Jill pays C, gets D, where A > C and D > B, that's a progressive tax.

Easy-peasy.

A makes 106K per year and pays $6572 (6.2% of 106K)
B makes 1.6M per year and pays $6572. (6.2% of 106K but .41% of 1.6M)

A progessive tax increases as income rises.

The SS levy is not a progressive tax because it stays the same regardless of income.

We can debate, good,bad or indifferent but there is no doubt the SS levy in not progressive.

I gave you partial credit...don't be obtuse

I looked through SWGB's proposed plan, and while I have disagreements with him, I was struck by the points of agreement. Because SWGB is a self-professed liberal and I am a self-professed conservative one would think at first glance that we would not agree on much of anything. So I ran the NYT activity again counting only those things we agree on. On those items we agree in principle on but disagree on the extent, such as Social Security age requirements being raised to either 68 or 70, I figured in the lowest common denominator. When everything was computed, we AGREED on items that would represent reducing the deficit to 18 billion in 2015 and running a surplus of 184 billion in 2030. 71% came from spending cuts. Below are the results.

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

If SWGB and I can agree on this much maybe there is hope that dispite the rhetoric we are not as far apart as we think.

Easy-peasy.

A makes 106K per year and pays $6572 (6.2% of 106K)
B makes 1.6M per year and pays $6572. (6.2% of 106K but .41% of 1.6M)

A progessive tax increases as income rises.

The SS levy is not a progressive tax because it stays the same regardless of income.

We can debate, good,bad or indifferent but there is no doubt the SS levy in not progressive.

I gave you partial credit...don't be obtuse

One reason that Social Security is in trouble is that we have not adjusted the income and payments as time goes by to continue to reflect the parameters that the program was founded on.

I looked through SWGB's proposed plan, and while I have disagreements with him, I was struck by the points of agreement. Because SWGB is a self-professed liberal and I am a self-professed conservative one would think at first glance that we would not agree on much of anything. So I ran the NYT activity again counting only those things we agree on. On those items we agree in principle on but disagree on the extent, such as Social Security age requirements being raised to either 68 or 70, I figured in the lowest common denominator. When everything was computed, we AGREED on items that would represent reducing the deficit to 18 billion in 2015 and running a surplus of 184 billion in 2030. 71% came from spending cuts. Below are the results.

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

If SWGB and I can agree on this much maybe there is hope that dispite the rhetoric we are not as far apart as we think.

Perhaps we can compromise on certain things and not cut fully, but partially and get a surplus by 2015.