YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!

[flyawave]

Government has to make money, Taxing alcohol and soft drinks isn't to "Punish evildoers" it's to make money because alcohol and soft drinks are bloody popular. Would you tax chocolate heavily if nobody wanted it? It's just good business sense tax popular shit to make more money; it juts so happens that things that are "bad for you" are in demand.

No, government has to live within their means - just like its citizens.

Hence why I'd cut the defense budget but look at all the hate that's getting

[occasional]

Extra taxes applied to things that are "bad for you" is social engineering and has little to do with upkeep of the sovereign state.

Problem is that sometimes those things end up costing the government a lot of money. Especially if the government takes over health care.


IMO it's possible to set a very low tax on such products, that will only really affect those who abuse them. So if you like to drink a glass of wine every day you won't notice any difference, if you like to drink a bottle of wine everyday, you end up shelling out some more cash. Same thing if you eat everyday at McDonalds (I mean 30% of Americans are obese, and it doesn't seem like people are getting the message. It can't be a pretty sight).
It creates some extra revenue and encourages people to live healthy lifestyles. Taxes don't necessarily have to be high or nothing.

And yes, I know that we have a much cheaper healthcare, and that we get a lot more from our government, but still, your taxes seem damn low, even with the increase. Sorry for talking so much about Norway, but, you know, it's the place I know most about.

Just got this off Wikipedia, and wow!

30% of the labour force are employed by the government, the highest in the OECD. 22% are on welfare and 13% are too disabled to work, the highest proportions in the world.

No wonder you like taxes so much. 
Though that mentality is very extreme for the US and (I believe) a good number of European countries.

[Gangster301]

Government has to make money, Taxing alcohol and soft drinks isn't to "Punish evildoers" it's to make money because alcohol and soft drinks are bloody popular. Would you tax chocolate heavily if nobody wanted it? It's just good business sense tax popular shit to make more money; it juts so happens that things that are "bad for you" are in demand.

It's not that it's bad for you! It's called luxury tax for a reason, and that's because you don't need it. Things like milk, fruit and bread have close to no tax, things like smokes, alcohol and chocolate have a very high tax. It's cheap to live, expensive to have something special.

[AceHigh]

It's not that it's bad for you! It's called luxury tax for a reason, and that's because you don't need it. Things like milk, fruit and bread have close to no tax, things like smokes, alcohol and chocolate have a very high tax. It's cheap to live, expensive to have something special.

The Norwegian luxury tax is the biggest load of shit our country came up with. First of all, milk, fruit and bread are all taxed with 24% as value added tax. The only commodity in Norway that has no tax is books, that is a fact. Also cars are a taxed as "luxury" when majority of people need cars to get to work. Not to mention that outside the capital, public transportation is so scarce, that it is often not a viable alternative to having a car.

If the motive would be "something special", then all commodities under that designation would have equally high tax. Alcohol and tobacco however are higher than everything else because it is deemed as "unhealthy", so you are literally fined for consuming things that are bad for you.

[Gangster301]

Also cars are a taxed as "luxury" when majority of people need cars to get to work. Not to mention that outside the capital, public transportation is so scarce, that it is often not a viable alternative to having a car.

If the motive would be "something special", then all commodities under that designation would have equally high tax. Alcohol and tobacco however are higher than everything else because it is deemed as "unhealthy", so you are literally fined for consuming things that are bad for you.

Only the most expensive cars have luxury tax, because you don't need an expensive car. It's true that Alcohol and tobacco are taxes more than other luxuries because they're bad for you, though, meaning you absolutely don't need them. But complaining about it just pathetic. Sure, you can talk about freedom and principles, but in reality it's more of a protection from overconsumption.

[AceHigh]

Only the most expensive cars have luxury tax, because you don't need an expensive car.

Lol, "Årsavgift" is a renamed "luksusskatt", as far as I know, ALL cars need to pay årsavgift.

[mgz]

Also cars are a taxed as "luxury" when majority of people need cars to get to work. Not to mention that outside the capital, public transportation is so scarce, that it is often not a viable alternative to having a car.

If the motive would be "something special", then all commodities under that designation would have equally high tax. Alcohol and tobacco however are higher than everything else because it is deemed as "unhealthy", so you are literally fined for consuming things that are bad for you.

Only the most expensive cars have luxury tax, because you don't need an expensive car. It's true that Alcohol and tobacco are taxes more than other luxuries because they're bad for you, though, meaning you absolutely don't need them. But complaining about it just pathetic. Sure, you can talk about freedom and principles, but in reality it's more of a protection from overconsumption.

no luxury tax is used quite liberally.

[Nikkoru]

Yet, this morning, all they could talk about was the nightmare about to fall upon our blessed city (Washington D.C.) as the possibility of the government shutting down tomorrow looms. With no government workers to come to the city for an unknown amount of time - the lack of trickle down cashflow from the rich that would usually spend their money to boost the city's economy could be devastating!

Imagine that. The poor fear even the thought of the rich not being there with their buckets of money.

What happens to Washington D.C. when the Government shuts down? I'm not entirely familiar with the American political system, but doesn't the Federal Government have jurisdiction over the area?

[sdedalus83]

Yet, this morning, all they could talk about was the nightmare about to fall upon our blessed city (Washington D.C.) as the possibility of the government shutting down tomorrow looms. With no government workers to come to the city for an unknown amount of time - the lack of trickle down cashflow from the rich that would usually spend their money to boost the city's economy could be devastating!

Imagine that. The poor fear even the thought of the rich not being there with their buckets of money.

What happens to Washington D.C. when the Government shuts down? I'm not entirely familiar with the American political system, but doesn't the Federal Government have jurisdiction over the area?

Technically, yes, but they tend to ignore it.  DC was never meant to be a city for people to reside in, so there's no real political structure.  We really need to assign the city to Maryland or Virginia and establish a local government.  Only the federal component of the city should be administered at the federal level.  It's incredibly embarrassing for the center of American politics to be the shittiest town in the country.

[Nikkoru]

Yet, this morning, all they could talk about was the nightmare about to fall upon our blessed city (Washington D.C.) as the possibility of the government shutting down tomorrow looms. With no government workers to come to the city for an unknown amount of time - the lack of trickle down cashflow from the rich that would usually spend their money to boost the city's economy could be devastating!

Imagine that. The poor fear even the thought of the rich not being there with their buckets of money.

What happens to Washington D.C. when the Government shuts down? I'm not entirely familiar with the American political system, but doesn't the Federal Government have jurisdiction over the area?

Technically, yes, but they tend to ignore it.  DC was never meant to be a city for people to reside in, so there's no real political structure.  We really need to assign the city to Maryland or Virginia and establish a local government.  Only the federal component of the city should be administered at the federal level.  It's incredibly embarrassing for the center of American politics to be the shittiest town in the country.

More shitty than Detroit?

[sdedalus83]

Yet, this morning, all they could talk about was the nightmare about to fall upon our blessed city (Washington D.C.) as the possibility of the government shutting down tomorrow looms. With no government workers to come to the city for an unknown amount of time - the lack of trickle down cashflow from the rich that would usually spend their money to boost the city's economy could be devastating!

Imagine that. The poor fear even the thought of the rich not being there with their buckets of money.

What happens to Washington D.C. when the Government shuts down? I'm not entirely familiar with the American political system, but doesn't the Federal Government have jurisdiction over the area?

Technically, yes, but they tend to ignore it.  DC was never meant to be a city for people to reside in, so there's no real political structure.  We really need to assign the city to Maryland or Virginia and establish a local government.  Only the federal component of the city should be administered at the federal level.  It's incredibly embarrassing for the center of American politics to be the shittiest town in the country.

More shitty than Detroit?

That was hyperbole, but about 15 years ago it was true.  Detroit and New Orleans are certainly worse now.

[Gangster301]

Only the most expensive cars have luxury tax, because you don't need an expensive car.

Lol, "Årsavgift" is a renamed "luksusskatt", as far as I know, ALL cars need to pay årsavgift.

"Årsavgift" is to cover the damages you do when you use the car, "luksusskatt"(only on the expensive cars) is because it's unnecessary.

[vicious796]

Yet, this morning, all they could talk about was the nightmare about to fall upon our blessed city (Washington D.C.) as the possibility of the government shutting down tomorrow looms. With no government workers to come to the city for an unknown amount of time - the lack of trickle down cashflow from the rich that would usually spend their money to boost the city's economy could be devastating!

Imagine that. The poor fear even the thought of the rich not being there with their buckets of money.

What happens to Washington D.C. when the Government shuts down? I'm not entirely familiar with the American political system, but doesn't the Federal Government have jurisdiction over the area?

Non-essential services will be shut down, which won't be so bad in itself. I plan on parking right next to the cherry blossoms on Monday if they are shut down - as the D.C. Parking Authority will be furloughed. A lovely picnic - a shame the museums won't be open.

The larger issue is that the 800,000+ workers that will be furloughed won't be purchasing lunches or anything else from the shops in the city or the surrounding area. If it happens and continues on for any extended period of time - well, those shops will go out of business. Rent is f'ing expensive here because of all the rich and those shopkeeps probably won't be able to pay it.

[jaybug]

Can anyone imagine what it must have been like to operate a federal government, when all there was for taxes to fund everything was tariffs and excise taxes? We fought a Civil War, and later kicked Spain's butt with that kind of money. We did have the income tax for WWI, right?

Of course we didn't have EPA, Dept. of Energy, I don't think we had the Department of Education. No Social Security, which was a Ponzi scheme to bring in much wanted revenue to fund all the new depression era programs. No NASA, no Pentagon, no CIA.

 NO foreign bases. The military was bare bones, just enough to be able to train new recruits for any upcoming wars basically. A navy that could project force around the world eventually, but not like it was loaded with Battleships or Carriers. What's a carrier back then anyway. One with pigeons? What's an airplane?

Do we really need everything that we have today? And just because something exists, does that mean we are getting the best use of the money from it? AS an example, does the Department of Education ensure our kids are educated? Does it certify a set standard that all kids must be able to accomplish? Does it do more than throw regulations and money at states?

Or NASA, is it a basic research operation until private concerns can take up the load and explore, and make a profit? Or is it the only way we will ever get off this mudball, forever?

Numbers don't mean anything without context. Cuts, increases, so what? Is this the best we can do? We have to stop thinking we are like Italians, and government spending is like all those old Italian buildings that cannot be torn down, when you need a new building.

I doubt a shut down will last all that long. Just long enough to eat profits, not force businesses into bankruptcy, unless they were sucking wind anyway.

[Cuan]

So… close to a million federal workers won't be paid a cent of their salary, but I heard the Representatives still get their compensation? How about turning this all around by 180 degrees?

[Tiffanys]

Here's my 1st go at it:


And that's with maintaining over 400b in military, raising science and medicine funding, raising medicare benefits, not cutting education, and some other stuff... Figures below...

(click to show/hide)

52
2
8
20
9
15
1
15
8
40
3
400
8
1
30
3
5
2
3
2
2
1
10
15
50
47
125
10
2
6
30

_
taxes:
10%
10%
10%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%

_
medicare:
75%
75%
50%
-25%

[Sosseres]

Yes that is strange. Why isn't select tariffs a portion of this (anything manufactured, not raw materials)?

$38.8 B Deficit using that site, which isn't an issue due to inflation.

[Tiffanys]

Here's my second attempt...

Budget deficit for 2015: $-603.7B
Long-term SS deficit solved: 100%

Choices: http://min.us/mcIpRgJ

I should have a much better one this next time around.

edit:

Attempt #3...

Budget deficit for 2015: $-196.8 B
Long-term SS deficit solved: 100%

Choices: http://min.us/mem9Ewx

That one was pretty good I think... except snuffing vets. But I don't really think vets need special treatment like housing loans or education. Medical, yeah... but, this doesn't let me separate those things.

There were pretty massive changes across the board, and military spending even actually went up. All of our research went way, way up, and education would be practically free for everyone, and much better funded.

Elementary/secondary education: 30 -> 60 B
Higher education (aid for college): 5 -> 50 B

I cut down on international aid, cause... well, fuck other countries. We have our own problems to deal with first.

Renewable energy research: 3 -> 30 B
Medical research: 36  -> 75 B
Scientific research: 17 > 50 B

In transportation...
Mass transit: 14>15
Highways: 54>60
Air/rails: 27>28

Homeland Security went up from 47 to 50 B. And in Defense...

Regular operations: 601 > 605
Nuke development: 11 > 20
Afgan/Iraq: 50 > 0 (Yeah. We're pulling out.)

Space program... 19 B to 1 B... Honestly, we have problems here on Earth before we need to worry about space.

etc...

I like my changes overall.

[Sosseres]

Renewable energy research: 3 -> 30 B
Medical research: 36  -> 75 B
Scientific research: 17 > 50 B

Space program... 19 B to 1 B... Honestly, we have problems here on Earth before we need to worry about space.

Those feels strange to me. I would cut scientific to fund NASA myself.

[Tiffanys]

Renewable energy research: 3 -> 30 B
Medical research: 36  -> 75 B
Scientific research: 17 > 50 B

Space program... 19 B to 1 B... Honestly, we have problems here on Earth before we need to worry about space.

Those feels strange to me. I would cut scientific to fund NASA myself.

With a surplus of $196.8 B, cutting Science would not be necessary.

Also, interestingly... just with some tax increases and no other changes whatsoever, we can get the deficit into a surplus...

(click to show/hide)

10% tax increase for $75,000 - $500,000*
20% tax increase for $500,000+*
20% corporate profits*
carried interest
crisis fee
carbon tax
alc tax
soda tax
5% VAT
return estate tax to 2001

RESULT: $-13.4 B

* = not actual percentages, just the "options" on the site. In reality, they're only like 3-4% increases.

Of course, this route is just for show... Obviously that won't work very well with the carbon tax unless we also invest in renewable energy, but if we, say, cut the war in Afgan/Iraq off entirely, there's $50B free that we can put into that research.

So easy...

Of course... I'd be bitching about the tax increase, but... there's no reason the wealthy should live so comfortably when others in the country are suffering. We can make some sacrifices so the middle and lower classes have it easier.

But still... Even doing that, I think I'd probably cut military spending by about $50B or so, and split it into medical and science research.

Not as pretty as my attempt above, but... I think that would go a great way to improving our country without anything too incredibly sweeping. And investing $50B into renewable energy... we would quickly become the world leader in renewable energy, and once we come up with a great solution (which would be inevitable pumping in that much money), then we'd look to make a great deal of money selling it to other countries as well.