Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:17 AM
oregonMakr (14 posts)
Senate budget proposal: GO BIG!!!!
Senate Budget Thoughts:
With the House attempting to pass a budget, without raising extra revenue, and without cuts to defense, whilst still balancing the budget in a decade, there will obviously be huge cuts to domestic spending.
I believe the Senate needs to go big, and provide a clear different view, to solving our budget issues...
That means adding revenue, and cutting into defense spending.
Cap Personal Federal Tax Deductions @ $25,000 and it brings in over a trillion over the next decade.
Cap Personal Federal Tax Deductions @ $50,000 and it brings in $750 billion over the next decade.
“The Congressional Budget Office found that a tax on carbon dioxide, starting at $20 per ton, could raise $1.25 trillion over the next decade.”
Robin Hood Tax: placing a 0.5% tax on stock transactions. I've seen estimates from $150Billion to over a trillion over the next decade.
A bill pushed by Sen. Ron Wyden(D) and then Sen. Judd Gregg(R) found they could save significantly, by closing specific corporate loopholes.
1) Taxing Overseas Profits of Multinational Corps: $580 billion
2) Ending Immediate Writeoffs of Equipment Purchases: $580 billion
3) Ending Domesitc Production Credit: $155 billion
Cuts/savings on budget:
Cut defense spending harder: “A whopping 80 percent of Insiders said the defense budget, over the next decade, could be reasonably reduced by more than $100 billion. The biggest faction of Insiders, 35 percent, supported cuts between $100 billion and $300 billion. "With the operation in Afghanistan winding down, the Pentagon could likely absorb another $100 to $300 billion with minimal pain," one Insider said.”
“To its enormous credit, the Simpson-Bowles Commission proposed serious cuts to security spending -- $1.3 trillion over a decade. Yet that recommendation was quickly forgotten, even by the Commission's many boosters.”
With the sequester only taking out $450 billion from defense, by just using the Simpson-Bowles cuts to defense, you are cutting another $850 billion.
Keep Social Security seperate, and remove the upper limit on FICA.
"To support the Social Security program, FICA taxes earned income up to $110,100 at a rate of 12.4 percent; the tax is divided equally between employers and employees."
If you remove the upper limit of $110k, and just keep the 12.4% taevenly divided), and change the age of Social Security to 68, Social Security is forever funded.
It's that easy.
Clearly, we aren't going to get all of these things, but as with all negotiations, each side has to start somewhere. Lets put out a budget that allows for clear differences.
The House has indicated that they are going to go big, will the Senate do the same????
PLEASE GO BIG!!!
3 replies, 1234 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Senate budget proposal: GO BIG!!!! (Original post)
|Filibuster Harry||Jan 2013||#3|
Response to safeinOhio (Reply #1)
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:42 AM
oregonMakr (14 posts)
2. I don't disagree...
But I think it's a non-starter, even with dems. Both sides would probably argue that people of significant wealth, would just leave the US.
I believe all of these proposals are negotiable positions to begin from...
Response to oregonMakr (Original post)
Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:17 PM
Filibuster Harry (664 posts)
3. I like some of the ideas. But there won't be a cap on personal federal deductions because it
could hurt housing and charitable contributions. That's why i laughed at Romney's proposal because he really wasn't going to cap his Sch A deductions at $ 25,000 or pick a number because he gave away up to $ 4
million; I found out later his proposal was going to limit your Sch A deductions to $ 25,000 but also allow ALL charitable donations. They will not remove the upper limit because it will not only affect employees but the employer matching it. Now i can see increasing it from $ 113,700 (2013) to say $ 120,000 (2014) to $ 130,000 etc. (bigger increases). But you are correct in that the senate should come up with something bigger and different.