How would you balance the US budget?

[Dinner]

Bonus points if your idea is politically feasible. What would you cut and by how much? Would you raise taxes and if so on what and by how much?

[Jon Miller]

Cut down on our overseas military commitments. Most of them are not necessary. I see our Army being minimal, our Air Force being reduced, and our Navy and Marines being roughly at current levels.

Simplify the personal income tax (I don't know enough about corporate taxes to know details there). Remove a lot of the deductions/etc that exist now. In fact, maybe remove them all?

Introduce the following scheme. These are for total income from all income sources.
0% tax on those that make under the federal average income (40k roughly).
30% tax on the next 100k. (40k-140k)
35% tax on everything above that. (140k+)

Increase federal subsidies to education at all levels. Introduce free health care for all under the age of 18.
Increase the retirement age to 70?

Correct the corporate income measures to make sure we get income from them. I would still let charities be not taxed though (just donations/etc wouldn't be tax deductible).

JM

[Darius871]

I'd institute a 90% tax on all individual inheritances over $200K (including extensive and draconian measures against evasion) (edit, just to get this out of the way: the statute would very explicitly exempt businesses), slash military spending by 50% with a commensurate decline in our overseas commitments, eliminate any earmarks that don't have very clear national importance, and keep income taxes exactly where they are until surpluses pay down the national debt to $0. After that point, I'd cut income taxes by whatever amount would keep the surplus around 0.05%, starting from the lowest brackets and moving up. I'm no economistician, but I can't think the consequences would be that catastrophic, at least in the very long term.

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, the large tax on individual inheritances is a good idea. That will make it so that most will donate to charities/etc when they die rather then to their kids.

I might make it a tax on inheritances (total, not per individual) over $1000k though. One million is still not a lot, for the very wealthy.

JM

[Space05us]

Why are people so against passing wealth on to future generations?

[Deity Dude]

No more family farms or family businesses with the death tax you propose.

Besides smart people would get around it. Put it in foreign bank accounts - gift amounts away before death etc etc.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
That will make it so that most will donate to charities/etc when they die rather then to their kids.

Well, that raises a serious problem: when faced with the choice of giving their entire net worth to big bad Uncle Sam or charities, the vast majority of the super rich (probably more than even 90%) would just give it away to charity, whether for genuine altruism, mere priority, or sheer spite. The result would be almost no significant change in revenue, so there would need to be strong measures against this. For instance, there's already a so-called "gift tax" designed to curtail deliberate evasion of the estate tax prior to death, so it could be expanded to charitable donations above a certain percentage or dollar threshold. As much as I'd hate to take one penny from charities and put it in government coffers, it would be necessary to make an inheritance tax accomplish anything. It sounds heartless at first, but let's keep in mind that that money never would have gone to the charity but for the tax in the first place.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
One million is still not a lot, for the very wealthy.

Hey, you hear that? It's the world's smallest violin playing for anyone who wouldn't jump for joy at getting $200K without having to lift a single goddamn finger for it. Cry me a river.

[LotC]

1) Invade a hapless Third World country and pillage its resources.
2) ???
3) Profit!

[Space05us]

Originally posted by Darius871


Well, that raises a serious problem: when faced with the choice of giving their entire net worth to big bad Uncle Sam or charities, the vast majority of the super rich (probably more than even 90%) would just give it away to charity, whether for genuine altruism, mere priority, or sheer spite. The result would be almost no significant change in revenue, so there would need to be strong measures against this. For instance, there's already a so-called "gift tax" designed to curtail deliberate evasion of the estate tax prior to death, so it could be expanded to charitable donations above a certain percentage or dollar threshold. As much as I'd hate to take one penny from charities and put it in government coffers, it would be necessary to make an inheritance tax accomplish anything. It sounds heartless at first, but let's keep in mind that that money never would have gone to the charity but for the tax in the first place.



Hey, you hear that? It's the world's smallest violin playing for anyone who wouldn't jump for joy at getting $200K without having to lift a single goddamn finger for it. Cry me a river.

I would sooner cash out my accounts and squirrel the money away.

Over a period of decades if necessary.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Darius871

Hey, you hear that? It's the world's smallest violin playing for anyone who wouldn't jump for joy at getting $200K without having to lift a single goddamn finger for it. Cry me a river.

One million is about the same as 200k for the very wealthy. But allows small farmers to pass the family farm onto their children without their child being in too much debt. Same with business.

Although arguing things in favor of small family farms sounds good, but such things aren't in much existence actually.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I consider giving money to charities to be as good as giving it in taxes. So I have nor problem if they want to give money away instead of give it to the government upon death.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by LotC
1) Invade a hapless Third World country and pillage its resources.
2) ???
3) Profit!

That hasn't worked for ages.

JM

[Deity Dude]

It always amazes me how easy it is for people to think the government has a right to a person's money (especially on his death).

Like I said before this would totally eliminate family farms and business. So that raises the next point. It always amazes me how easy it is for people to think the government can take $1mm and do better for society than a farmer or small businesman.

If you think forcing every family business to liquidate to pay the government upon death of the owner instead of passing the business along to a son, daughter or spouse, I guess you don't mind forcing all the people that work for the business to be unemployed. I guess you think the one-time cashout from the forced sale is better than the ongoing stream of taxes all the employess and the business owner would pay, not too mention all the expenditures avoided by the government from unemployment.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Space05us
Why are people so against passing wealth on to future generations?

1) How would reinvesting said wealth in A) public services and B) income tax relief not pass it on to future generations? I'd posit that it accomplishes that goal much more effectively than giving each spoiled kid enough to last multiple lifetimes.
2) Why are people so against equality of opportunity? I thought that's what this country's all about. In my view it's not about socialist redistribution, but equality of opportunity and individual responsibility. In fact, I view a huge inheritance tax, coupled with small government, as more consistent with libertarian ideals than socialist ones. There is nothing more inconsistent with equality of opportunity than a tax policy which perpetuates an old-money elite that has absolutely nothing to do with the sort of rugged individualist meritocracy that once defined this country. The status quo is also arguably anti-capitalist insofar as the most successful in the "free" market aren't necessarily the most capable, whereas a tax policy encouraging individual responsibility and meritocracy would promote market efficiency in the long run.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
No more family farms or family businesses with the death tax you propose.

1) Family businessess and especially family farms are already a dying breed as things stand, so the difference wouldn't be that huge.
2) The tax wouldn't affect corporate entities or who can be listed as the new principal for a corporation, only realty, chattels, and liquid assets.
3) Nobody said it wouldn't be possible to provide statutory exemptions for non-incorporated small family businesses. Perhaps ones meeting the right definition could have a much higher threshold than $200K, or none at all. I'd certainly be open to that.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Besides smart people would get around it. Put it in foreign bank accounts - gift amounts away before death etc etc.

Originally posted by Space05us
I would sooner cash out my accounts and squirrel the money away.

As I'd mentioned, there is already a so-called "gift tax" in existence for the specific purpose of curtailing estate tax evasion, and hoarding liquid assets overseas to avoid income taxes is already a criminal offense. The IRS already has an army of subpoena-wielding auditors ready to sniff out evasion, so it wouldn't be too difficult to move their crosshairs elsewhere, increase their manpower, and modernize their resources. All the same arguments about impracticable enforcement were raised against instituting the income tax a century ago, and yet here we are somehow collecting trillions of dollars a year.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
It always amazes me how easy it is for people to think the government has a right to a person's money

Funny, I seem to recall it being the Constitution that openly recognized that right. How is it that so many people make the argument about whether there's an underlying right to tax, when really you're only preferring some types of taxes over others (income/tariff/capital gains/corporate/etc. vs. inheritance)? Doesn't that seem a little inconsistent to you?

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Like I said before this would totally eliminate family farms and business. So that raises the next point. It always amazes me how easy it is for people to think the government can take $1mm and do better for society than a farmer or small businesman.

If you think forcing every family business to liquidate to pay the government upon death of the owner instead of passing the business along to a son, daughter or spouse, I guess you don't mind forcing all the people that work for the business to be unemployed. I guess you think the one-time cashout from the forced sale is better than the ongoing stream of taxes all the employess and the business owner would pay, not too mention all the expenditures avoided by the government from unemployment.

See my post above regarding small business exemption. I always have to laugh that whenever somebody whispers estate tax, the first thing people jump on is small businesses.

Suppose hypothetically that the tax is strictly limited to residential or recreational realty, chattels, and liquid assets, with an explicit exemption of anything reaching any reasonable definition of "small business," whether corporate or non-corporate. What would be your argument then?