ADVERTISEMENT

OT: How to deal with our skyrocketing deficit...

I have to be honest. The fact that we spend nearly $600 billion on the military with proposals to balloon it to the high $600's is the problem. We should not be the world police. Let's trim the defense spending by a lot. We spend like 35% of the total global expenditures on military spending. Either we get honest with everyone and say hey, we are raising taxes to balance the budget because we, the United States of America, feel the need to police the world, simultaneously rooting out terrorism and preventing world wars. Or we cut spending and tell France, Germany, and the UK to figure out Europe, while removing restrictions on Japan so they can figure out Asia (we can remain allies in crisis but not free bodyguards). I'm honestly tired of having gobs of military bases on every continent, policing the middle east, posturing in Europe to intimidate Russia and the same in Asia with China.
This is the single biggest issue to tackle and I think you nailed it. We need to put it plainly that if you want us to be world police, we are gonna be spending a ton on defense and will impose ourselves in other countries at any perceived wrong. Otherwise, we scale back and say to other countries call us when you have no other options.
 
Gotta cut spending and increase revenue.

Tax reform is not helping. Not hurting either (because it's mostly offset by increases in individual and small corp tax income).


No one wants to hear this, but we've got to increase taxes on everyone in order to break this cycle. We could potentially have a $1T deficit in fiscal year (which just started) '19.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1Clemzunfan
I have to be honest. The fact that we spend nearly $600 billion on the military with proposals to balloon it to the high $600's is the problem. We should not be the world police. Let's trim the defense spending by a lot. We spend like 35% of the total global expenditures on military spending. Either we get honest with everyone and say hey, we are raising taxes to balance the budget because we, the United States of America, feel the need to police the world, simultaneously rooting out terrorism and preventing world wars. Or we cut spending and tell France, Germany, and the UK to figure out Europe, while removing restrictions on Japan so they can figure out Asia (we can remain allies in crisis but not free bodyguards). I'm honestly tired of having gobs of military bases on every continent, policing the middle east, posturing in Europe to intimidate Russia and the same in Asia with China.
Or, how about this novel idea...if you want our help, PAY FOR IT! Trump is right when he says that other NATO countries need to pony up their fair share of $. If we're going into other countries to help them after they cry for it, why not make them pay for it? Of course some will say that they can't afford it. There are other ways of "paying" though. It just takes some creativity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
A balanced budget law had to be added, if only to stop the wasteful spending.

If we really want to pay off the debt, we need to shut all of the foreign military bases.

You raise tax by say 5 or 10 thousand on the middle class, it changes their life style.

I never thought about that with foreign bases, but why do we need bases in places like germany?

On the other point, we do need to adjust the tax brackets in order to raise taxes. Lumping people who make $500K per year with people who make $5MM per year is not fair. More taxes will affect our lifestyles, especially people who own more than one house.

I agree that taxes should not be raised on the lower and middle classes, we need them be out spending more money, more consumption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fcctiger12
Or, how about this novel idea...if you want our help, PAY FOR IT! Trump is right when he says that other NATO countries need to pony up their fair share of $. If we're going into other countries to help them after they cry for it, why not make them pay for it? Of course some will say that they can't afford it. There are other ways of "paying" though. It just takes some creativity.
Article 5 has only been invoked once in 60 years (9/11).

We don’t have bases in other countries to protect their interests; it’s to protect ours.
 
I can't imagine that we, on this message board, could or would be willing to do the research to come up with the answer to that in any meaningful way.
Give me this then, almost half Americans pay zero federal income tax. Just agree they should pay something?
 
This is the single biggest issue to tackle and I think you nailed it. We need to put it plainly that if you want us to be world police, we are gonna be spending a ton on defense and will impose ourselves in other countries at any perceived wrong. Otherwise, we scale back and say to other countries call us when you have no other options.

While certainly a big issue, it is not when it comes to the budget. Social security and health are 2/3 of the budget. You could eliminate all military spending and still not balance the budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCTexanTiger
Out of the four categories described, the biggest gains could come from defensive spending cuts, especially regarding civilian jobs.

I worked for the Department of Defense as a civilian for 5+ years and I can tell you that hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted every year just in the relatively small software department I worked in. And it's not just happening in South Carolina. I traveled a decent amount and can say with certainty that 90%+ of civilian DoD projects are failures and a complete waste of time and money.
 
Also, I'm not usually in support of higher taxes because I think current tax money should just be used more effectively, but I would be in support of a carbon and/or pollution tax.
 
On the revenue side of the ledger - three words - Value Added Tax. That is, far and away, the most efficient way to raise revenue. Would replace the income tax and function as a national sales tax. You would never have to do your taxes again.

On the expenditure said - I would favor a constitutional amendment that would allow spending to go up 1% less than our economic growth. So if we hit 3% GDP growth government spending would allowed to increase 2%.

The trick is to change the trend line with as little pain as possible as well as being able to demonstrate that what pain there is will be shared by all.
 
This is not meant to be a partisan thread, just a discussion on a shared problem that both political parties have contributed to over the years along with indifference and ignorance from the voting public. The latest numbers show that annual deficit spending increased 17% just in the last year, in spite of a booming economy. Its expected to increase at an even greater percentage over the next year. Deficit spending is now the highest it has been since the tail end of the last recession. That is startling considering that we are running recession era deficits in a thriving economy. Bottom line, the tax cuts have boosted the economy, but as has always happened in the past, the economic gains from these tax cuts are not sufficient to offset the lost tax revenue given the way they were targeted.

That said, we must do something to stem the bleeding. What are your proposals? As FYI, there are only 4 areas that materially impact the deficit. They are spending cuts in one of 3 areas: 1) Defense spending 2) Medicare/Medicaid 3) Social Security. The fourth area is increasing revenue by raising taxes. I believe reform in all 4 areas is needed.

What are your proposals for reforming the 4 areas above (Defense, Medicare, Social Security, & Taxes) to reign in the deficit? Again, things like food stamps and the like aren't material for this discussion. That is peanuts. It will have to be reform in all of the 4 categories above to chip away at the $1 Trillion annual deficit we are headed for in next years budget year alone.

By the way, here is a good article summarizing the latest deficit spending numbers and the impacts on the average American. Here is a startling factoid... the last time we enjoyed an economy with unemployment under 4% (year 2000) we were running a budget SURPLUS of almost $300 billion. And now a scary thought... what happens to these deficits when the next economic downturn happens and how limited will we be in stemming it with stimulus spending as we have in the past? We wont be able to use stimulus packages to carry us through as we always have in the past. It's a scary thought.

Interested in a good discussion...
Jeebus no way I’m wading through all those long posts. The solution is quite simple but both parties aren’t there to solve problems. That is just a fact. We’ve all seen how easily a few changes can ignite our economy. Only reason these got done is we don’t have a politician in The White House. There’s no other explanation. Anyway you only have to do one thing and that’s slow the growth of the Fed budget by tying it to GDP. Force the budget to grow slower than the economy. The real problem is base line budgeting. The Fed increases its budget x amount regardless of what our economy is doing. Slow the growth to allow the economy to outpace the Fed budget to the point where you’d actually have more taxes coming in than being spent. This way you could also pay down the debt but again if you think most politicians give a rats ass then I’ve got some swamp land to sell you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
Or we could not piss away money on everything and anything. I’m anti increasing anything if we can’t figure out how to budget like any other business.

The only party that cares about spending is the party that doesn’t control the money. Dollar will collapse one day, government replaces it with a new currency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCTexanTiger
While certainly a big issue, it is not when it comes to the budget. Social security and health are 2/3 of the budget. You could eliminate all military spending and still not balance the budget.
I meant politically. Correct on money, but in terms of getting the ball rolling you have to start with military IMO.
 
Give me this then, almost half Americans pay zero federal income tax. Just agree they should pay something?
I've said on this board before that if I got to rewrite the tax code it would be like 2 pages long and yes probably everyone with income would pay some amount as long as it wasn't a redundancy in the tax system.
 
Theres no way this thread wont turn into a partisan pissing match but I'll say my peace and leave the thread.

The tax cuts are why the economy is booming right now. Took off day one when Trump was elected because the corporations see money and investors see profits. Take them away, and you throttle it way back. The individual tax cuts for middle/low income earners are a help to a lot of folks. The deduction restructuring means it'll wash out for many others, including myself, but that its simpler does make it better.

The corporate rates were too high and a lot of companies were moving to Ireland or Luxembourg wherever to maximize their cash. Can't fault them, thats what a company is supposed to do.

In my mind the problem is in the spending and then the cost of health care that drives the deficits up.

Doctors pay insane insurance rates and pay off their education for many years. They shouldnt have to pay 1/2 their gross in insurance, but they have to pay so much out that they charge the folks outrageous numbers too. I believe if you get f'd up in a surgery you should sue them, but there should be a reasonable limit to that number. That reform will help bring down the insurance, as would an open insurance market, and more doctors should bring down the costs to the patients. Maybe there should also be directed govt research grants towards medical graduate schools to train more students in medicine. I could get on board with that wayyyy before you try to tell me college should be free for everyone. There actually a lot of govt directed science research in other fields like my own, through NSF and NASA, so that I didn't have to take $$$ loans out in grad school, there is just a lot less people in mine than medicine and law (take any and all govt help from law, we don't need more of the f'ers).

As far as a single CT scan costing $3000, I dont know why that is or why the 10 minutes I spent in the machine was worth 3K, but if I didnt have insurance I'd be paying off this year's medical expenses for 3-4 more. The prices they charged out before insurance were nuts for ultrasounds, CT scans, etc.

I'd raise FICA limits so those who make more, pay more into SS. I hate that they subsidize everyone else personally, but it should go up with salary commensurately without a hard limit. I'd also raise retirement age a couple years. Nothing drastic, but we live much longer now and I don't think .gov should be on the hook for 25 years. I am not ready to take the step of limiting how much you can draw based on how much you put into your 401k/IRA over the years, probably no need for you to take SS if you have $1M in the mutual funds, but I could see it coming.

As I work with Defense, there are cuts that need to be made with a scalpel in most cases. Good contractors should get awarded. The do-nothings like Booz Allen or Aerospace wouldn't. The big primes can cut their profit margin and find cost savings when they have to, but no one really pushes them to cut that margin (Trump did, on AF1, which shocked me). The acquisitions process is a boondoggle and more money gets lost there than anywhere else. Theres also a lot of red tape that takes time that doesn't need to be eaten up by me filling out 2 forms, waiting on some Colonel to sign it before i can start, then waiting on the forms to get through our people, get signed in triplicate, then get blessed to actually start work. This would speed up our innovation so we can stay ahead, because they are catching us (mostly due to them hacking and stealing specs so they don't spend nearly as much on R&D).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cleopatrick2001
Tax Capital Gains as normal income after $465,000 (I forget the exact amount, but its somewhere close to this) in total income, and you probably won't have to raise the marginal tax rates at all.
Slow the growth of the budget it grows too fast and our bloated wasteful corrupt government does NOT need more every year
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
Tax Capital Gains as normal income after $465,000 (I forget the exact amount, but its somewhere close to this) in total income, and you probably won't have to raise the marginal tax rates at all.

I am a Conservative who agrees with this. Capital Gains after a certain amount should be taxed as Income with the exception of reducing the Tax Liability based on the number of years involved in the investment.

I also would not tax the first X amount (i.e. 50K) of Interest Income. This kills Seniors buying power as they are more likely to be in Fixed Income investments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1Clemson
Jeebus no way I’m wading through all those long posts. The solution is quite simple but both parties aren’t there to solve problems. That is just a fact. We’ve all seen how easily a few changes can ignite our economy. Only reason these got done is we don’t have a politician in The White House. There’s no other explanation. Anyway you only have to do one thing and that’s slow the growth of the Fed budget by tying it to GDP. Force the budget to grow slower than the economy. The real problem is base line budgeting. The Fed increases its budget x amount regardless of what our economy is doing. Slow the growth to allow the economy to outpace the Fed budget to the point where you’d actually have more taxes coming in than being spent. This way you could also pay down the debt but again if you think most politicians give a rats ass then I’ve got some swamp land to sell you.
No doubt tax cuts have ignited the economy but we now have evidence that it is doing so at the expense of significant deficits. They are part of the problem. This means economic stimulus will be short lived as interest rates start to rise with these growing deficits. There needs to be a balance. Consider reading the article that was linked. It gives a good summary of the impact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: broncosrb26
Tax Capital Gains as normal income after $465,000 (I forget the exact amount, but its somewhere close to this) in total income, and you probably won't have to raise the marginal tax rates at all.
Absolutely agree. This alone would not solve our tax revenue problem but it definitely would be a start. It's a no brainer. Income is income. It doesnt matter how you make it. The same marginal tax rates should apply to all income. This is is how you have billionaire hedge fund managers paying a significantly lower effective tax rates (single digits) than a middle class blue collar wage earner pays.

Protect a reasonable amount of capital gains with a capital gains tax and then tax the capital gains above that threshold at normal rates.
 
No doubt tax cuts have ignited the economy but we now have evidence that it is doing so at the expense of significant deficits. They are part of the problem. This means economic stimulus will be short lived as interest rates start to rise with these growing deficits. There needs to be a balance. Consider reading the article that was linked. It gives a good summary of the impact.

What evidence? Total taxes collected by the Federal Government estimated for 2018 and 2019 are all-time records:

Federal Tax Receipts:




Our Government has a Spending Problem, not a Tax Receipt problem.
 
No doubt tax cuts have ignited the economy but we now have evidence that it is doing so at the expense of significant deficits. They are part of the problem. This means economic stimulus will be short lived as interest rates start to rise with these growing deficits. There needs to be a balance. Consider reading the article that was linked. It gives a good summary of the impact.

Where has it proven that rising deficits increase interest rates? Take a look at Japan an Europe where debts are higher and interest rates are significantly lower. This only happens if your debt is not in your own currency. Rates will rise if the demand for money increases, thus the price of money (interest rates) increases which implies stronger growth. So if the tax cuts lead to higher rates it is because of stronger nominal growth, not the the deficit.

The tax cuts have initially slowed the rate of growth of government income, but with expenses up 17% we would have had a significant deficit even if we had raised taxes. The issue is with spending in social security and health care and until people are willing to accept lower government benefits even if it means the potential for an improved overall system of safety nets the deficit will continue to increase infidelity regardless of tax rates.
 
This is not meant to be a partisan thread, just a discussion on a shared problem that both political parties have contributed to over the years along with indifference and ignorance from the voting public. The latest numbers show that annual deficit spending increased 17% just in the last year, in spite of a booming economy. Its expected to increase at an even greater percentage over the next year. Deficit spending is now the highest it has been since the tail end of the last recession. That is startling considering that we are running recession era deficits in a thriving economy. Bottom line, the tax cuts have boosted the economy, but as has always happened in the past, the economic gains from these tax cuts are not sufficient to offset the lost tax revenue given the way they were targeted.

That said, we must do something to stem the bleeding. What are your proposals? As FYI, there are only 4 areas that materially impact the deficit. They are spending cuts in one of 3 areas: 1) Defense spending 2) Medicare/Medicaid 3) Social Security. The fourth area is increasing revenue by raising taxes. I believe reform in all 4 areas is needed.

What are your proposals for reforming the 4 areas above (Defense, Medicare, Social Security, & Taxes) to reign in the deficit? Again, things like food stamps and the like aren't material for this discussion. That is peanuts. It will have to be reform in all of the 4 categories above to chip away at the $1 Trillion annual deficit we are headed for in next years budget year alone.

By the way, here is a good article summarizing the latest deficit spending numbers and the impacts on the average American. Here is a startling factoid... the last time we enjoyed an economy with unemployment under 4% (year 2000) we were running a budget SURPLUS of almost $300 billion. And now a scary thought... what happens to these deficits when the next economic downturn happens and how limited will we be in stemming it with stimulus spending as we have in the past? We wont be able to use stimulus packages to carry us through as we always have in the past. It's a scary thought.

Interested in a good discussion...
Let's begin by getting the House to present & approve a bipartisan balanced budget that we live by. When was the last time this happened? It has been years since such a budget was presented & approved. Instead there are stop gap budgets every few months that add pork, pork and more pork to the debt by both sides. Once this has been done, there needs to be bi partisan work done to reign in & reform those major areas presented above.
 
Let's begin by getting the House to present & approve a bipartisan balanced budget that we live by. When was the last time this happened? It has been years since such a budget was presented & approved. Instead there are stop gap budgets every few months that add pork, pork and more pork to the debt by both sides. Once this has been done, there needs to be bi partisan work done to reign in & reform those major areas presented above.

While this is a great idea, unfortunately it has been tried and failed. A few years ago they did the Bowles-Simpson Commission which was a bipartisan group that made long run recommendations to stabilize the fiscal picture for the US and neither side had the balls to enact it because it would have inflicted political pain on both sides.

"Pork" is not the problem. The vast majority of spending is non-discretionary so there is no way to change it other than completely re-writing the entitlement programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MBRO
Here are some suggestions...

1) Slowly increase the ages for both SS and Medicare eligibility ( this was done before and makes sense).
2) Means Test SS so that those of means get less but always some fixed percentage (say 60%) of the benefit. This was proposed in the mid 1980's.
3) Raise the gas tax by making it flexible ( more when gas is low / less when it is high) , but damn well it use it to fix bridges and potholes / roads not fund other crap.
4) Decrease the federal payroll by 1% a year for a decade ( not including military) .
5) Capping government pensions at a reasonable amount (X% of their average earnings not just the last years)
6) Eliminate Medicare payments for things like plastic surgery, that is disguised as " necessary", sex reassignment and ED pills... so much waste.
7) Limit government pay increases to that matching the private sector.
8) Repeal the 17th amendment and have Senators appointed by the States (if you track our fiscal problems this is where they started).
9) Defund Obamacare and open the private market back up.
10) Raise the cap on SS to at least match SS benefit increases.
11) Downsize the Department of Education to be only a data collection source
12) Privatize the Student Loan market
13) Close Fannie and Freddie along with the FHA as government guarantee lenders in any form
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCTexanTiger
Problems with budgets are mostly spending problems. For those that think raising tax rates is the answer, how do you explain the U.S. Monthly Treasury Statement that was released just today?

(CNS NEWS) — The federal government collected a record $1,683,537,000,000 in individual income taxes in fiscal 2018 (October 2017 through September 2018), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

However, the federal government also ran a deficit of $778,996,000,000 during the fiscal year, according to the statement.


Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/feds-collect-record-income-taxes-in-2018/#rLLhL0WhztfUqRJo.99
 
Problems with budgets are mostly spending problems. For those that think raising tax rates is the answer, how do you explain the U.S. Monthly Treasury Statement that was released just today?

(CNS NEWS) — The federal government collected a record $1,683,537,000,000 in individual income taxes in fiscal 2018 (October 2017 through September 2018), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

However, the federal government also ran a deficit of $778,996,000,000 during the fiscal year, according to the statement.


Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/feds-collect-record-income-taxes-in-2018/#rLLhL0WhztfUqRJo.99

Revenue;
1. Pre tax cut
2. Tax revenue growth less than simple inflation

Spending:
1. Republican Party controlled government spending like drunken sailors or Democrats.

Taken together, disaster.

In order of priority, we have:
1. Governance problem
2. Spending problem
3. Morality/ethics problem
4. Revenue problem.

Not seeing either party capable of addressing a single issue, let alone all of the problems.
 
Where has it proven that rising deficits increase interest rates? Take a look at Japan an Europe where debts are higher and interest rates are significantly lower. This only happens if your debt is not in your own currency. Rates will rise if the demand for money increases, thus the price of money (interest rates) increases which implies stronger growth. So if the tax cuts lead to higher rates it is because of stronger nominal growth, not the the deficit.

The tax cuts have initially slowed the rate of growth of government income, but with expenses up 17% we would have had a significant deficit even if we had raised taxes. The issue is with spending in social security and health care and until people are willing to accept lower government benefits even if it means the potential for an improved overall system of safety nets the deficit will continue to increase infidelity regardless of tax rates.
Without getting technical but using a real world scenario....

If two guys walk into the bank and both have a salary of $50k but one has debt of $100k and the other has debt of $150k, do they leave paying the same rate on a loan? No. As our debt as a percentage of our GDP or tax revenues grows, so does the cost of borrowing money. Its basic economics.

In the future is China going to loan the U.S. money at the same rate they did last year when our balance sheet weakens as our debt grows? No. They are no different than a bank loaning to an individual. They will still loan you money, but the cost goes up as your financial position weakens.
 
I have to be honest. The fact that we spend nearly $600 billion on the military with proposals to balloon it to the high $600's is the problem. We should not be the world police. Let's trim the defense spending by a lot. We spend like 35% of the total global expenditures on military spending.

Military Industrial Complex... Eisenhower warned us of all of this in his fairwell speech. We have to drastically cut military expenses, or drastically raise taxes. I’m conservative, but it’s crazy what we budget towards military.

We also need to bump up the Medicare FICA percentage, plus take the income cap off of that tax. I don’t believe the Social Security retirement benefit is as big of an issue as Medicare.

Medicad and Medicare both need some work. Ultimately, I think a low-level single payer system is where we end up, with added private benefits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLaw47
Idea for Social Security. Life expectancy wasn't nearly as high as it is today. I think it should be available for the average last 7 years of life, so here is how I would do it.

At age 50, the gov't declares this year group is expected to live to XX (example 80), so this year group will start getting paid at 73. Some will get it and some will die before then. At least you know at 50 how long you need to work while planning out your retirement. If you want to retire before 73, then plan and save appropriately. If you can't, then work until 73.

Bones
 
Idea for Social Security. Life expectancy wasn't nearly as high as it is today. I think it should be available for the average last 7 years of life, so here is how I would do it.

At age 50, the gov't declares this year group is expected to live to XX (example 80), so this year group will start getting paid at 73. Some will get it and some will die before then. At least you know at 50 how long you need to work while planning out your retirement. If you want to retire before 73, then plan and save appropriately. If you can't, then work until 73.

Bones

It's an interesting idea but then it weirdly becomes a benefit for the wealthy. The wealthiest people live roughly 10 years longer than the poorest people.
 
Without getting technical but using a real world scenario....

If two guys walk into the bank and both have a salary of $50k but one has debt of $100k and the other has debt of $150k, do they leave paying the same rate on a loan? No. As our debt as a percentage of our GDP or tax revenues grows, so does the cost of borrowing money. Its basic economics.

In the future is China going to loan the U.S. money at the same rate they did last year when our balance sheet weakens as our debt grows? No. They are no different than a bank loaning to an individual. They will still loan you money, but the cost goes up as your financial position weakens.

There is actually very little correlation between debt/GDP ratios and relative interest rates. If so Japan and Italy would be paying astronomical rates, yet Japan’s rates have been negative for most of this decade.
 
First we have to look at the problem:

We have to address the one thing that is certain to destroy us and doesn't care about our race, gender, age, place of birth, immigration status or anything else that we can think of.

We took in a record amount of revenue last year at $3.33T. YAY right? No!!!

The problem is we spent over $4.1T which is absurd. People say cut spending and that won't get it done at all. Here's why... we spent $1.12T on Medicare and Medicaid. We paid out $1.040T in SS benefits. We paid $522B in interest on our debt (with rising rates, this is a burgeoning crisis of epic proportions which I have been screaming about for years. We hid this cost with low rates from the recession but now it's home to roost)

Even if we cut the department of defense from existence, we still run a nearly $200b deficit annually.

So what if we dissolve the following:

Dept of Agriculture
Dept of Commerce
Dept of Education
Dept of Energy
Dept of Homeland Sec.
Dept of Housing/Uban Dev.
Dept of Interior
Dept of Justice
State Dept
Dept of Transportation
Dept of Treasury
Corps of Engineers
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA
National Science Foundation
Small Business Admin

If we do ALL that we're still $180B in the hole and rising each year.

65% of our total spending is on Medicare, Medicaid, SS and interest on our debt. These have nothing to do with which party is in power. These are systemic costs that are unavoidable without serious reform.

All the departmental spending in our entire government save for Defense and Veteran's Affairs is $618B. There are problems there for sure and I think some shouldn't exist but ultimately, that isn't where our problems lie.

Next year, it's estimated the government will spend $4.4T driven primarily by increases in Medicare, Medicaid, SS and interest on the debt.

So why not raise taxes? Well we just lowered them and took in an all time record amount of revenue. Guess what happens when we raise taxes? We don't see the same % revenue and that is proven over time without exception.

We can't cut our way out of this. We can't tax our way out of this. We can only look at he drivers of the debt and reform these programs to resolve our problems. Our government does too much. Half our population pays almost nothing in income taxes. We can't keep going this way and expect better results. Unfortunately, the partisan warfare we have in this county prevents us from doing anything. The first candidate to mention what must be done will be destroyed with that information. That's our reality and until we change it, we'll continue suffer tremendously.

Now the solutions in my view:

My own opinion is raising retirement age to 70 or 72 and scale it up to perhaps 75 for people under 30. Immediately individualize Social Security accounts and work on a percentage that goes to the individual account and the rest to the general fund. Increase tax paid into SS to 7%. Earners over $300k pay an extra 1%. Increase Medicare tax to 1.7%. The only exception is all surviving members of Congress and former Presidents should have to pay a special 15% surtax for their theft and idiotic management of our nations fiscal resources. Designate all Congressional pension payments 100% to SS to cover the mess these immoral jackasses have made.

The hard part is long term, we need to get away from our current health system and have an individually funded health system that puts patients and doctors back in the forefront with the government largely out of the equation. Government provided care is not the answer. We can do a lot better and keep costs low by going at this from another angle.

We should audit every department of the government and get their budgets streamlined and modernized. In this process, we could phase out about 50% of the federal workforce as they retired and reconfigure departments in a way that works. Our food supply is a mess and it is controlled by major food companies. This needs to end.

Totally dissolve the Dept. of Education.

We have to fix our Veteran's Affairs issues. That is the only budget I would increase because they deserve our best and they are getting crap instead.

I have lots of other ideas that most people wouldn't consider but are necessary.

Lastly, when we have a balanced budget (no amendment because debt isn't always bad...especially for a government), we need a temporary sales tax (and I mean ironclad temporary) to pay down our debt since this is our screw up and our kids shouldn't have to pay for it. Some debt is OK but running an $800b deficit with a roaring economy is just unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
Idea for Social Security. Life expectancy wasn't nearly as high as it is today. I think it should be available for the average last 7 years of life, so here is how I would do it.

At age 50, the gov't declares this year group is expected to live to XX (example 80), so this year group will start getting paid at 73. Some will get it and some will die before then. At least you know at 50 how long you need to work while planning out your retirement. If you want to retire before 73, then plan and save appropriately. If you can't, then work until 73.

Bones
Companies don’t like older workers. They cost more for salary and health benefits. Even if they wanted to work or forced to work I don’t think the opportunity will be there to 73.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT