Can YOU balance the national budget?

southsiderosie

The NY Times had a cool interactive feature that allows you to try to balance the federal budget in the US for 2013 and 2030. I'm a little suspicious of some of the options, because I felt like it was harder to do California's than it was for the US government, but interesting nonetheless.

I managed to balance the budget, but it's hard to see how a lot of what I picked would be politically feasible:

Domestic: eliminate farm subsidies and earmarks, cut pay by 5%

Military: reduce size of military, air force/navy fleets, non-combat overhead, Afghanistan troop levels

Health Care: malpractice reform, increase Medicare age to 68, cap Medicare growth in 2013

Social Security: raise retirement to 68, tighten eligibility

Taxes: return estate tax to Clinton-era levels, allow Bush tax cuts to expire for those making over $250,000, change payroll tax, eliminate loopholes but reduce overall rates

Anyway, it's an interesting interactive exercise, and worth giving a whirl, but sadly the biggest chunk of change is through Medicare reform, which is also probably the most difficult thing to do politically.

Lockstep

I raised $483bn/,$1,355bn.

Allowing Bush tax cuts to expire, carbon tax, cutting federal employee pay, raising the retirement age and so on.

Manic Moran

I'm fine for 2015, about $300bn short for the 2035 option.

Outside of what I think is a reasonable 60,000 troops-in-OIF/OEF option, I didn't touch the military. It was already far too small pre-Iraq, part of the reason we've been in those places so long.

NTM

Victor

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm fine for 2015, about $300bn short for the 2035 option.

Outside of what I think is a reasonable 60,000 troops-in-OIF/OEF option, I didn't touch the military. It was already far too small pre-Iraq, part of the reason we've been in those places so long.

NTM

I've not done the exercise, but I would be of the opinion that the Air Force and Navy haven't pulled their weight in a long time.

kaiser sauze

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=1mbtq2pb

€56Bn surplus in 2015, 246Bn in 2030; 38% taxes, 62% cuts.

I found it very straightforward, shows the lack of any consensus in The US if fairly simple choices like this are politically impossible.

I did not pick any of the estate tax choices: Lincoln-Kyl: the exemption is too high; Obama's rate is too high; and Clinton's were just ridiculous (although he probably inherited them). If they would lower their exemption to around $3Mn, and Obama lowered his rate to about 30% that would be workable.

The NST is tempting, but the lack of detail as to what happen with each State that has an existing sales tax in place meant I skipped that one also. If it were clear that each State would rescind their sales tax, then I would select it and reverse my decision to cut State aid by 5%.

Overheal

Victor wrote: »

I've not done the exercise, but I would be of the opinion that the Air Force and Navy haven't pulled their weight in a long time.

And yet where would we be without them. I sleep better when I see the lads on patrol over charleston.

southsiderosie

kaiser sauze wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=1mbtq2pb

€56Bn surplus in 2015, 246Bn in 2030; 38% taxes, 62% cuts.

I found it very straightforward, shows the lack of any consensus in The US if fairly simple choices like this are politically impossible.

I did not pick any of the estate tax choices: Lincoln-Kyl: the exemption is too high; Obama's rate is too high; and Clinton's were just ridiculous (although he probably inherited them). If they would lower their exemption to around $3Mn, and Obama lowered his rate to about 30% that would be workable.

The NST is tempting, but the lack of detail as to what happen with each State that has an existing sales tax in place meant I skipped that one also. If it were clear that each State would rescind their sales tax, then I would select it and reverse my decision to cut State aid by 5%.

Making changes to Medicare is a politically fraught process, because politicians are afraid of elderly voters. And when people try to have an honest conversation about the wisdom of spending a half-million dollars to keep an 88-year old alive for four extra months, they are accused of trying to kill grandma.

Agricultural commodities, and in particular corn subsidies are absurd, and the fact that we are paying for overproduction of corn and byproducts like high fructose corn syrup at the same time as we are paying for anti-obesity programs highlights how ridiculous the political process is.

Denerick

Its easy. Make deep cuts in military spending, raise taxes, introduce a VAT, raise retirement age and end sectional perks such as farm subsidies. Resulting in huge surpluses, no national debt, huge pool of resources to invest in infrastructure etc. What we have at the moment is a jingoistic public who want a gigantic army but don't want to pay for it.

ChocolateSauce

Well I started from the bottom, and just by taxing the wealthy, lapsing tax cuts, taxing the banks and closing loopholes I closed the 2015 gap and knocked a trillion dollars off the 2030 gap.

I didn't enact the estate tax, as even for the wealthy I don't think it is fair to tax death. Generally, taxes should be levied once, on what you earn, not on what you already have.

Regarding cuts, I enacted malpractice reform (I'd do that even if the budget were in the black), I didn't reduce Afghanistan troop numbers, but I slashed the size of the military in every other field. I didn't reduce compensation for personal.

I cut aid, eliminated farm subsidies, and cut earmarks, and the budget for 2030 is balanced. With the exception of the military, which should be cut anyway (50% of the world's military spending for 5% of its population is 10 times out of proportion if you ask me, especially when 18 out of the next 20 most powerful militaries are NATO allies), I made almost no cuts, and no cuts at all to social programmes. Simply by taxing incomes over 100,000 dollars, taxing banks, and closing tax loopholes, I raised a trillion dollars.

Overall: 81% taxes, 19% cuts, with 50% of cuts being to the military.

kaiser sauze

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well I started from the bottom, and just by taxing the wealthy, lapsing tax cuts, taxing the banks and closing loopholes I closed the 2015 gap and knocked a trillion dollars off the 2030 gap.

I didn't enact the estate tax, as even for the wealthy I don't think it is fair to tax death. Generally, taxes should be levied once, on what you earn, not on what you already have.

Regarding cuts, I enacted malpractice reform I'd do that even if the budget were in the black), I didn't reduce Afghanistan troop numbers, but I slashed the size of the military in ever other field. I didn't reduce compensation for personal.

I cut aid (it is ineffective, and there is nothing noble about giving away other peoples money), eliminated farm subsidies, and cut earmarks, and the budget for 2030 is balanced. With the exception of the military, which should be cut anyway (50% of the world's military spending for 5% of its population is 10 times out of proportion if you ask me, especially when 18 out of the next 20 most powerful militaries are NATO allies), I made almost no cuts, and no cuts at all to social programmes. Simply by taxing incomes over 100,000 dollars, taxing banks, and closing tax loopholes, I raised a trillion dollars.

Overall: 81% taxes, 19% cuts, with 50% of cuts being to the military.

Nice outcome.