Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Congratulations

You reduced the debt to 52% of GDP in 2018, and kept it at a sustainable level through 2030.

Make it so.

You reduced the debt to 55% of GDP in 2018, and kept it at a sustainable level through 2030.

Reduce Troops to 60,000 by 2015 -$690B
Allow All the Tax Cuts, Except for AMT Patches, to Expire -$490B
Grow Regular Discretionary Spending with Inflation $0
Enact Administration's Proposed Weapon System Cuts -$30B
Reduce Spending on Ship Building -$50B
Reverse "Grow the Army" Initiative -$90B
Eliminate the New Markets Tax Credit -$40B
Progressively Reduce Benefits, Protecting Low and Medium Earners -$60B
Use An Alternate Measure of Inflation for COLAs -$100B
Reduce Spousal Benefits from 50% to 33% -$20B
Increase Years Used to Calculate Benefits -$40B
Include all New State and Local Workers -$80B
Increase Cost-Sharing for Medicare -$100B
Raise Medicare Premiums to 35% of Costs -$140B
Establish a Public Option in the Health Exchange -$40B
Enact Medical Malpractice Reform -$50B
Increase the Medicare Retirement Age to 67 -$80B
Reduce Funding, Removing Floor on Matches -$130B
Eliminate Certain Outdated Programs -$40B
Reform Federal Retiree Benefits -$30B
Cut All Earmarks and Use Half of Savings for Deficit Reduction -$80B
Increase User Fees Across the Board -$40B
Sell Certain Government Assets -$70B
Repeal LIFO Accounting Methods and Eliminate Oil and Gas Preferences in the Tax Code -$90B
Enact Five Percent VAT With Partial Rebate -$630B
Impose Surtax on Income above $1 million -$190B
Gradually Increase Payroll Tax by One Percentage Point -$130B
Raise Cap to Cover 90% of Earnings -$420B
Reduce Corporate Tax Rate to 30% $270B
Index Tax Code to Alternate Measure of Inflation -$90B
Improve Tax Collection (Reduce Tax Gap) -$20B
Eliminate Subsidies for Biofuels. -$110B

Frazzled wrote:Serioualy I like how repeal Obama care raises the deficit, but leaving it alone doesn't.

Umm, Obamacare is in place and is part of the budget as you're given at the start of the process. When you leave the status quo alone things don't change.

Seriously, that's why you think the test is biased? Pretty weak, dude.

If this were a serious test. You'd have all departments in a line or at least summary line by line. Thats how you do a real budget. This is designed to foster given endings.

Yes, if this were serious it would provide you with a team of advisors and give you three month time frame to produce the preliminary budget, and another three months to work with executive and congress to produce a final budget. But it's actually just a web program, that gives you an idea of the most likely budget cuts from a top level view, and shows you how much each would actually save.

Melissia wrote:And yet, they still can't actually manage to predict how the economy works.

The weatherman doesn’t predict next week’s weather with absolute certainty every single, therefore meteorology is a complete waste.

Kilkrazy wrote:I started the quiz. As soon as I found I could only choice from pre-selected options I stopped.

Fair enough. I like the approach, but I can see how some wouldn’t.

Melissia wrote:100%? They'd be lucky for a 50% sometimes.

What is that number? 50% of what? How have you quantified the total number of decisions made based on economics, then scored each as correct or not?

Global or even nation-level macroeconomic theory is quite frequently politics-driven rather than fact-driven.

Arguing that most are political only makes sense if you assume economics is a purely government field. Most macro-economic studies are entirely within the private sector, undertaken for banks and other major finance and investment bodies, used to predict future interest and exchange rates. You’ve made the mistake in thinking the stuff the public hears is the most common work undertaken, when it isn’t.

Better idea, instead of a VAT (which arbitrarily raises the prices of everything at every level of production), why not a consumption tax to fund all federal tax revenue? Repeal the 16th and install the FairTax. Watch all the capital we need come pouring back into the US.

The VAT is a consumption tax.

Stormrider wrote:Better idea, instead of a VAT (which arbitrarily raises the prices of everything at every level of production), why not a consumption tax to fund all federal tax revenue?

That was incoherent. First up? Arbitrarily? It's 5% on the value added at each level of production, what's the arbitrary component?

Second up, levying the tax on final consumption compared to levying at each stage of production is functionally the same, except the consumption tax provides for the opportunity of avoiding the tax through having items classified as non-consumption.

Repeal the 16th and install the FairTax. Watch all the capital we need come pouring back into the US.

You cannot physically run a developed economy with a flat tax. It's been tried, you cannot set a tax rate high enough to generate sufficient government revenues, and simultaneously low enough to leave the poor with enough to survive. It cannot be done, give it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The VAT is a consumption tax.

The difference is that it raises the tax on the value added component of each stage of production, instead of levying it all at the final point. Which seems to make it arbitrary, somehow.

dogma wrote:The VAT is a consumption tax.

Is it a national sales tax though? One that replaces all other federal taxes (including the federal income tax)? No it does not, it is another way to raise prices and keep a sales tax on top of items as well.

Stormrider wrote:

dogma wrote:The VAT is a consumption tax.

Is it a national sales tax though? One that replaces all other federal taxes (including the federal income tax)? No it does not, it is another way to raise prices and keep a sales tax on top of items as well.

Other than simply bankrupting the nation immediately wouldn't abolishing income taxes and placing end line sales taxes on all purchases (high enough ones to replace the losses incurred with the rest of your plan) create a system that would encourage people to avoid spending money at all costs?

ShumaGorath wrote:Other than simply bankrupting the nation immediately wouldn't abolishing income taxes and placing end line sales taxes on all purchases (high enough ones to replace the losses incurred with the rest of your plan) create a system that would encourage people to avoid spending money at all costs?

It does provide an incentive towards savings over consumption. Which to be honest is not necessarily a bad thing (well, long term it'd be alright, you wouldn't want to depress consumption right now). A VAT or straight consumption tax is a good thing as part of a range of taxes that also includes a progressive income tax, as it captures income from a number of source that would otherwise be exempt - foreign travellers, the black market and the like.

Trying to use one to replace income tax is idiotic, though. You just cannot fund the government of a developed country with the revenue from a single, flat tax.

Stormrider wrote:
Is it a national sales tax though?

Essentially, yes. At least from the perspective of the end-consumer.

Stormrider wrote:
One that replaces all other federal taxes (including the federal income tax)? No it does not, it is another way to raise prices and keep a sales tax on top of items as well.

So is your personal consumption tax (I assume that's what you were talking about). The only difference is that you want your tax to replace all taxation, which would lead to insanely high-cost merchandise, and I am positing that a VAT would be a good way to bolster Federal revenue as part of an overall taxation strategy.

I was cutting everything like crazy at the start as I didn't realise just how many pages of options you would get

Will have to go back through it again and be a bit less heavy handed at the start and put a few investments in there as well as cuts.

Also, I find it weird that you don't (from what I gather) have any kind of VAT - ours is currently 17.5% (going up to 20% at the end of the year :()

Stormrider wrote:

dogma wrote:The VAT is a consumption tax.

Is it a national sales tax though? One that replaces all other federal taxes (including the federal income tax)? No it does not, it is another way to raise prices and keep a sales tax on top of items as well.

It wouldn't replace the income tax. It would be an additional tax.