Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Regolith on November 26, 2012, 07:37:16 AM
-
So I had this idea to reduce the federal deficit. Basically, you find the percentage of federal spending that is deficit spending (basically, the stuff not covered by revenue and has to be borrowed), and you tax the income of the President and Congress at that rate, in addition to the regular tax rates. This would include both regular income and capital gains, and so long as the percentage of deficit spending is >0% they will not be able to take any deductions.
So, if the Feds spend $3.6 trillion, and they only bring in $2.4 trillion in taxes, they'd have to pay an additional 33% in taxes over the standard rates. That means that the tax rate for a member of Congress would be 66% for income and 48% for capital gains; for the President it would be 68% for income and again 48% for capital gains.
The beauty is that by adding it to the standard tax rate and disallowing any deductions, they will be loathe to simply increase taxes rather than decrease spending. The only trouble I can find with it is that it would be damn near impossible to get it passed.
Any thoughts?
-
<snip>it would be damn near impossible to get it passed.
FTFY.
-
If we are wishing, I would modify your rule to make it where their tax rate FOREVER is the average of what you calculated for their term in office, plus their normal rate. Basically, a surcharge forever.
-
They can start with a $5,000 surtax on every government employee just to make things "fair." That would raise $100 billion a year.
Now commence with across the board cuts of 10 per cent per year until you achieve balance.
-
They can start with a $5,000 surtax on every government employee just to make things "fair." That would raise $100 billion a year.
Now commence with across the board cuts of 10 per cent per year until you achieve balance.
Surtax? Raise taxes on people who's jobs aren't constitutionally justifiable, eh?
How about a 100% surtax on a number of those agencies?
-
Surtax? Raise taxes on people who's jobs aren't constitutionally justifiable, eh?
How about a 100% surtax on a number of those agencies?
Technically, all government jobs created with existing legislation are constitutionally justifiable, I think you mean to implement the above, but with a different version of "justifiable".
-
The only way to reduce the deficit is to reduce spending - preferably to the level of income (revenue).
Anybody with a lick of sense knows that you can't live beyond your means indefinitely ;/
-
Technically, all government jobs created with existing legislation are constitutionally justifiable, I think you mean to implement the above, but with a different version of "justifiable".
Good point.
God I could saw off a whole lot of the federal government happily if I was king.
-
Good point.
God I could saw off a whole lot of the federal government happily if I was king.
Well, if you were king, I'd assume most of the government/constitution would have already been sawn off...having a monarch and all :)
-
Were I president the budget I would send to Congress would have a lot of $0 line items. Whole departments....
-
I've played the "if I were President" game before. Came to the conclusion that Congress would descend on the White House with torches and pitchforks.
And the Secret Service would be buying Malox by the skidload
-
Strings, have you ever read Lawdog's "if I were president" post? It's great...
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2006/11/old-political-humour.html
-
Actually, many of his more serious ideas are what I'm thinking of...
-every bill must cite Constitutional Authority, or be immediately vetoed
-Any bill on my desk must contain one issue: no more riders
-Kelo the UN? Oh, HELL yeah
-explain to the White House Press Corps that questions about my religion, stance on currently dead issues, or personal life will result in blacklisting on the second offense. Same for asking a question I already answered
-Where other presidents golf, I would dedicate one day a week to an IPSC or 3-gun shoot with the Secret Service and 8th & I.
-
Whatever we do, however we do it, it is going to have to be dramatic. We all know that if we don't implement it ourselves, it will be implemented against our will by the market and by foreign interests. But the "drama" needs to have a moral center--and that's the tough part. If there is any point to this nation it has to be that you have rights to the fruits of your own labor and initiative. Without that guarantee of property as our grounding principle, the whole process is radically unjust and pointless.
-
God I could saw off a whole lot of the federal government happily if I was king.
It's good to be the king.
Brad
-
It's good to be the king.
Brad
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.ientry.com%2Fsites%2Fwebpronews%2Fpictures%2Fhailtotheking_baby_616.jpg&hash=35824ee85ade55a10482e95c742d61d79c374ba8)
-
"So, if the Feds spend $3.6 trillion, and they only bring in $2.4 trillion in taxes, they'd have to pay an additional 33% in taxes over the standard rates. That means that the tax rate for a member of Congress would be 66% for income and 48% for capital gains; for the President it would be 68% for income and again 48% for capital gains."
You mean 50 per cent, don't you? The shortfall is $1.2T against $2.4T.
-
So I had this idea to reduce the federal deficit. Basically, you find the percentage of federal spending that is deficit spending (basically, the stuff not covered by revenue and has to be borrowed), and you tax the income of the President and Congress at that rate, in addition to the regular tax rates. This would include both regular income and capital gains, and so long as the percentage of deficit spending is >0% they will not be able to take any deductions.
So, if the Feds spend $3.6 trillion, and they only bring in $2.4 trillion in taxes, they'd have to pay an additional 33% in taxes over the standard rates. That means that the tax rate for a member of Congress would be 66% for income and 48% for capital gains; for the President it would be 68% for income and again 48% for capital gains.
The beauty is that by adding it to the standard tax rate and disallowing any deductions, they will be loathe to simply increase taxes rather than decrease spending. The only trouble I can find with it is that it would be damn near impossible to get it passed.
Any thoughts?
I'd also add their "campaign contributions" to the income and capital gains, but at double that rate.
ETA: Should the tax rate cap at 100% for income/cap gains/campaign funds for the year or be allowed to exceed 100%? Also should there be an exception for subsistence and housing (at the military E-5 rates) so if you do have some good congresscritters in there, they don't starve because they aren't independently wealthy?
-
Any thoughts?
I think it would be much simpler for the .gov to just not spend more than than it takes in. A good place to start would be to stop ALL foreign aid. Another place to start would be to call all the un-repaid "loans" we gave out during and after WW2.
-
I think it would be much simpler for the .gov to just not spend more than than it takes in. A good place to start would be to stop ALL foreign aid. Another place to start would be to call all the un-repaid "loans" we gave out during and after WW2.
Thing is, the ".gov" is composed of people who don't exactly want to stop spending all that money. So the idea is to create negative incentives to induce them to change their ways.
If you put a bowl of someone else's candy in front of a child and tell them not to eat it all, and when they do anyways there are no consequences, do you think that child will just suddenly stop eating all the candy that doesn't belong to them?
-
I'd also add their "campaign contributions" to the income and capital gains, but at double that rate.
ETA: Should the tax rate cap at 100% for income/cap gains/campaign funds for the year or be allowed to exceed 100%? Also should there be an exception for subsistence and housing (at the military E-5 rates) so if you do have some good congresscritters in there, they don't starve because they aren't independently wealthy?
Good question. I kind of like the idea of it exceeding 100% and making no allowances, but yeah, there's no reason to punish congressman who are actually trying to get the budget under control. So I'm torn. Maybe make the allowances be the same as the poverty threshold. Or the same as an E1. >:D
And I agree with the campaign contributions part as well.
Thing is, the ".gov" is composed of people who don't exactly want to stop spending all that money. So the idea is to create negative incentives to induce them to change their ways.
Yup. You can't balance the budget just by taxing the crap out of congressman; there are too few of them. Hell, you could tax the wealthiest 5% of Americans at 100% and it'd be barely enough to cover the deficit, and that wouldn't last for long as the rich would go bankrupt or flee the country. What you can do is give them an incentive to get spending under control, and make it hurt personally when they try to lead us to financial ruin.