It would be easy to get the deficit under control with modest changes

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 20
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,201
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
Here is a quick rundown of some proposals, calculated by chatgpt

Here’s a breakdown of the **estimated annual revenue gains or savings** from each of your listed policy options:

---

### **Wealth Taxes**

**Top 1% of Wealth: approx. $50 trillion**  
**Top 2% of Wealth: approx. $70 trillion**

| Policy | Revenue Gain (Annually) |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| 1% tax on top 1% wealth | $500 billion |
| 2% tax on top 1% wealth | $1.0 trillion |
| 1% tax on top 2% wealth | $700 billion |
| 2% tax on top 2% wealth | $1.4 trillion |

---

### **Income Taxes**

**Top 10% earners: ~$6.5 trillion annual income**  
**Top 20% earners: ~$9.5 trillion annual income**

| Policy | Revenue Gain (Annually) |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| 10% increase on top 10% income | $143 billion |
| 10% increase on top 20% income | ~$209 billion |

*Note: These are based on a ~10% relative increase in effective federal income tax, not a flat 10% income tax.*

---

### **Spending Cuts**

**Federal spending (excluding Social Security): ~$5.1 trillion**

| Policy | Savings (Annually) |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| 10% cut to all non-Social Security spending| ~$510 billion |

---

### **Quick Summary Table**

| Policy | Revenue/Savings (Annual) |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| 1% tax on top 1% wealth | $500 billion |
| 2% tax on top 1% wealth | $1.0 trillion |
| 1% tax on top 2% wealth | $700 billion |
| 2% tax on top 2% wealth | $1.4 trillion |
| 10% tax increase on top 10% income earners | $143 billion |
| 10% tax increase on top 20% income earners | $209 billion |
| 10% cut to non-Social Security spending | $510 billion |

---

Let me know if you want any combos totaled or modeled over a decade!
The current usa deficit is 1.8 trillion 

The real question is do we want to balance it, run a surplus, or just grow debt with inflation. The inflation thing is smartest 
Topic's author
#2
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,201
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
The increase in income tax thing is especially modest. Instead of an effective tax rate of 22 percent, it'd be a 24.2 percent rate instead
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,586
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
flat consumption tax or riot. income tax is the least moral of all government actions.

It punishes productivity. It assumes your labor belongs to the state first, and you only get what they let you keep. It’s a system built on the idea that every hour you work is subject to government permission. Just because we made a constitutional amendment to legalize indentured servitude to the IRS doesn't mean it's moral.

We outlawed crony sharecropping and company scripts for labor before. We can do it again. Pay us in bitcoin and tell the feds to start a consumption tax.
#4
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 483
2
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
2
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot
All taxes are government taking money from people. The only solution to deficit is replacing tax system with limited money printing (print dollars equal to 20 to 25% of GDP). This is the most simple solution which also saves money, as other ways of tax collecting are way more expensive. Also, many people find ways to avoid taxes, so money printing is more fair.
Topic's author
#5
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,201
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Consumption taxes are regressive, they tax the upper middle class most, lower classes next, and rich the least 

Property taxes instead of income could be ok, both liberal and conservative economists like property taxes. People own land of the commons so they should be taxed for common good. Homestead exemptions would be ok for lower classes 
Topic's author
#6
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,201
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Printing money causes inflation which is regressive hurting lower classes the most
#7
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 483
2
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
2
3
5
-->
@n8nrgim
Property taxes instead of income could be ok
Yeah, right, if I had to pay property taxes as well as buisness taxes, my small buisness would perish. Sure, I own land. It doesnt mean I make bunch of money from it, and the taxes would cancel what little profit I earn.
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,586
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Consumption taxes are neither regressive nor progressive as they are 100 percent voluntary. In a free country, that should be the gold standard.

You either own your labor or you do not.

Property taxes instead of income could be ok, 
Private property is the only reason why people still come to America and it's the only real component of the American Dream. You either own property, or you lease it from the government.
Topic's author
#9
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,201
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Property tax exemptions for lower class or personal residence is a good idea, as I said
#10
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 483
2
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
2
3
5
-->
@n8nrgim
Printing money causes inflation which is regressive hurting lower classes the most
Taxes cause inflation too and make buisnesses and investments much more difficult, but unlike taxes, printing money increases amount of money in economy, so all people have more money. Same is not true for taxes.
#11
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 483
2
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
2
3
5
-->
@n8nrgim
Property tax exemptions for lower class or personal residence is a good idea, as I said
Well, I guess that wouldnt hurt me.

Topic's author
#12
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,201
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Choosing not to consume is literally a death wish. To live is to consume. To live even modestly is to consume even more. You r playing games to ignore the regressive nature of the tax. A sales tax that increases with the purchase price might not be so bad
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,586
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
To live is to consume. To live even modestly is to consume even more
You are babbling nonsense.

Rent, mortgages, and food can easily be exemptible consumables and we would still have plenty of tax revenue left over to reduce the deficit. The poor that are financially responsible will finally have a path out of poverty with responsible spending while having a lot more of their paycheck to use as they see fit. That is real freedom, not some bullshit Democrat talking point.

You are just against the idea of keeping every cent of what you earn at work.

And apparently also against the idea of sole ownership of private property.
#14
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 483
2
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
2
3
5
USA prints 2 trillions every year and has like 2% inflation. Printing the remaining 5 trillions instead of using taxes would at best raise inflation to 6%, but buisnesses no longer having to pay taxes might cause them to lower prices of their products, as their costs are reduced, thus prices can be reduced too. And with no tax collecting system, money is additionally saved by not being forced to pay all the people who manage and collect taxes, further saving money for both buisnesses and government, reducing cost, saving money and enabling lower prices. And prices can only rise if demand rises, and if demand rises, its because people now have more money.
Topic's author
#15
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,201
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
You can't just throw out u want to get rid of our progressive income tax system with a consumption tax, and list no nuances to your policy, and expect people to take it seriously 

I wouldn't be against a progressive sales tax. I made a thread on that. 
Topic's author
#16
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,201
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
When money is printed it only benefits institutions and the people getting paid. The poor would be the hardest hit by thus new massive inflation 
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,586
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Trump and MAGA has proved that people take a bloated government that restricts freedom and liberty very seriously.

One way or the other, there will be a time where you get to keep what you make. There are more than ten countries that currently already do this. 
#18
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 483
2
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
2
3
5
-->
@n8nrgim
When money is printed it only benefits institutions and the people getting paid. The poor would be the hardest hit by thus new massive inflation
This is false. When government prints money to pay for some poor guy's healthcare, it directly benefits the poor guy. Sure, I would prefer a basic income for the poor instead, but your government chose healthcare. So when poor guy gets his healthcare, it benefits him. When taxes are abolished on buisnesses, buisnesses can give lower prices, which again benefits the poor guy. As it was explained before, your government takes 7 trillions from economy. It doesnt matter too much to inflation if it does this through taxes or money printing, but money printing saves money and increases amount of money in economy, which enables buisnesses to earn more money and to pay their workers better, as number of buisnesses is increased and competition for workers thus increases. The problem in your argument is that you assume how regular taxes dont cause inflation, which couldnt be further from truth.
Topic's author
#19
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,201
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
You did defect from the opening post, tho. U have to admit it's not hard to get our deficit under control with our current system with no radical policy
#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,005
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
S'all a computer game now.

Soon to be under AI control.

Cash under the mattress will soon be waste paper.

Buy Gold and hide it.