I could not complete it as it did not list all the possible solutions.

For instance, concerning Social Security. The first thing I would do is remove the $106,000 cap on taxation. :yep:

I found it, it was later in the survey

Well from a foreigner's perspective, a bit heavy on tax maybe because it will not be me who's going to take it :O:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=gj1645lm

You want a big spending on military? Then make sure you can pay for that all by your own money. Can you? You are the world's greatest debtor, and economically critically dependant on foreign powers and their good will to keep your body floating. Like the US society, your state finances your military megatoys - on tic.

The Chinese are more healthy. First they allowed you to run into the trap of becoming financially depending on their good will I (which they are increasingly losing), following the motto of "If you see your enemy making mistakes, don't interrupt him", next they started to build their military - but not on tic but on a basis that they can finance by their own economy. You weakened your economy, they trengthened their economy, and still do and gain more and more strategic advantages. At the same time they did not get fixiated on hard power, but concentraded on soft powers - and these are the qualities that will beat your military without one shot being fired. Guess who is more clever here!? ;)

Nervi belli pecunia infinita. Real money that has a real value - no state bonds and bubbles and play money. Most of the the great european powers of the past 500 years had allowed to ruin their economies and state finances over gallopwing spendsings for bigger and bigger militaries. All of such nations had to declare state bancruptcy at least once in said 500 years. America is repeating their very same mistakes, refusing to learn by their example. Book tip on this matter: Paul Kennedy - The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Also: Herrfried Münkler - Empires. The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to the United States.

Lotsa stuff either not included, too inclusive or not inclusive enough but FWIW:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=zzyp7jn0

^^^ funny that the only option is reducing benefits for high incomes. Reduce benefits across the board.

Reduce employer tax break... how about we dump employers providing insurance in the first place, let the employees do that.

They also give an option of reducing Medicare growth, which sounds fine, but due to the way things work that also changes contractual obligations with real insurers. medicare already pays below cost in some cases, yet to save money they want to reduce payments to providers. Keep payments the same, and ration what care is paid for. The docs doing the work should get paid, and not cut-rate, but the same as real insurance. If medicare lacks the money, then medicare can tell people to pay up themselves, or not get X done. Docs should not be forced to have to PAY to work.

Also, they probably project the "cost" of tax increases and costs very simply, and do not include (how could they?) possible growth due to tax reduction, or contraction due to increases (since revenues remain pretty constant as a % of GDP regardless of tax rates).

And watch emergency rooms become clogged to the point of shutdown as people flood them for basic medical care.

Because there's absolutely zero evidence for increases or decreases in tax rates having an effect on any measurable metric of growth, be it unemployment, GDP or personal income.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zx1k4270

What is really bad is they didn't have the things in there that I really would have pushed for.

Elimination of the social safety net for the "undocumented".
Denial of all but emergency services for the "undocumented".
Elimination of the Federal Department of Education.
Elimination of income tax, replacing it with a consumption tax instead.
Elimination of Social Security.
Elimination of all other expenditures not directly authorized by the US Constitution...

Of course - the last one alone would balance the button with one click, and remove Federal government from being the all encompassing monstrousity it has become.

So a tax rate of 100% wouldn't have an effect either?

After some thoughts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=gj1140m3



I think that would be a better policy :D

As a foreigner I'm worried about the growing China military aggression towards its fellow Asia neighbors and to think they are just beginning to expand militarily.

A reduced US military presence in Asia could tighten Chinese political and military influence in Asia and South East Asia.

So I decided to cap Medicare growth to GDP growth plus one percent starting from 2013 not sure how it would affect the public. I care less about expensive doctors and hospitals.

But I think the bankers will start a riot because of the bank tax and many other Americans for many other things in the policies.

In the Soviet Union people still worked under an effective 100% tax rate. Not saying that's the model we should aspire to, but saying that hours worked are inelastic to tax rates.

If it's not a model to aspire to then it's not really worthy of being used as an example to prove your point Mookie. People only worked those hours because the government would send them to the gulag if they refused.

Hours worked in this country is not ineleastic due to the threat of gulag, but it's inelastic due to the fact that the majority of us are full time salary workers. I know I am - no matter what the tax rate, I still work the same full time contract rate. I can't adjust my work hours. Again, hours worked are not elastic with respect to marginal tax rates. You either work or you don't.

I've enjoyed seeing most of the plans people submitted here

My "plan" :roll: - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=zzxph010

Of course, that's just a shadow of the plan I'd like to see, owing to the limited answers. I checked pretty much every spending cut on the list and crippled social security payments because in my plan there would be no social security, a much smaller and more privatized military, and no tax increases - though I would eliminate loopholes and subsidies and drastically cut corporate tax rates.

I'd much rather see every domestic arm of the Federal government reduced to a fraction of its current size and the role of government itself reserved primarily to the state and local governments, where it belongs.

Good luck yanks: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=gf15f011 :D

So revenues plunged when the top marginal rate dropped from 70 to 40%? (along with the other brackets dropping in lockstep) Even though the bulk of taxes collected are on the top 20% of earners?

Nope.

The taxes collected wobble between 16 and 20 percent regardless of the marginal tax rate. So either more people are paying at the lower rate, or the economy grows, otherwise the collections should have plunged.