5 ms·

Government Cutbacks Separate This Expansion From Others

28 points by MaysonL 14y ago

robomartin 14y ago
Why do I feel like we are splitting hairs here? This article talks about a 1.5% cut in government spending (or increases of up to 3.8%). Really? That's what I call a rounding error. It's bullshit cuts (or increases) in spending that will do absolutely nothing real to solve our problems. -------------------- TL;DR: We need to cut in the order of 50% from the Federal Budget in order to hope to be debt-free in FIFTY YEARS. -------------------- I decided to go out and finally get a sense of where we stand. We have huge annual deficits and owe a lot of money. Let's fix it. Two goals: 1- Get back to a balanced annual budget. 2- Erase our national debt in 50 years. To simplify we are not going to add interest to our debt. Sensible? I would prefer to get back to zero debt in ten years, but let's go for 50 instead. In other words, our kids are going to be paying off the national debt for most of their adult lives. How to do it? Tax increases? Spending cuts? Both? Let's say both. Now, I am going against my grain here because I don't believe in paying more taxes. In fact, I want to see our tax burden reduced to flat 15% for everyone, corporations included. But, that's a different subject. For the purpose of this exercise I'll go with the "tax more" crowd. No problem. OK, how much? Well, let's say that we really go to the dark side and choose to pay 75% of our national debt and deficit via tax increases and the rest by reducing expenditures (various programs, entitlements, military, whatever). That should make those who believe in higher taxes very happy. Fully two thirds of the money we need will come from higher taxes. To go with a popular theme, let's tax the rich and leave everyone else alone. I propose that this mathematical exercise only only increase taxes on those earning $200,000 or more per year. Again, this is going against every fiber of my body, but I want to "go with the flow" in the interest of just seeing what these numbers look like. OK, the very first fact that comes out of this discussion is that our government needs to cut spending by 25%. Simple numbers. Not 1.5%, not 3%. 25%. I don't care where it comes from, this is just math. Someone needs to figure out how to cut an honest 25% in spending. The rest will come from increased taxes. But, wait, our government is also responsible for paying for 25% of the accumulated national debt by cutting costs. So they have to cut further than just the equivalent of 25% of the annual deficit. OK, I know a little math and know how to use Excel, let's play with some numbers. How much do we owe? http://www.usdebtclock.org/ http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Here are the numbers I'll use for this exercise: US national debt: $16,000,000,000,000 US annual federal deficit: $1,500,000,000,000 US Federal spending: $4,000,000,000,000 I rounded some of it and extrapolated to the end of the year just to get to play with easy numbers. As we agreed, we are going to be debt-free in 50 years. What's the total annual amount of money we need to raise, if you will, in order to do accomplish this? Annual obligation, every year for 50 years: $1,800,000,000,000 How much of this does the Federal Government have to pay? Federal government contribution via spending reductions (25%): $450,000,000,000 Percentage reduction with respect to total annual Federal spending: 11% So, the government has to find half a billion dollar in spending cuts for 50 years. We do the rest by increasing taxes on the "rich". Here we go: How many people make $200K or more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_... http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/how-many-people-make-more-than-250000-per-year/ http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/how-many-people-make-more-tha... I'll use data from the second link because it is a little more granular. Here are the numbers I'll use. Number of people making more than n, where n is the left column: 200,000 3,924,490 500,000 729,451 1,000,000 236,883 1,500,000 128,787 2,000,000 84,514 5,000,000 22,596 10,000,000 8,274 What does this mean? If we decide to tax people who make $200K or more, there are about four million of them. If, instead, we decide to tax those who make one million or more, there are 236,883 of them. We agreed that we are going to cover 75% of the money we need to raise through taxation. Let's see how much each individual would have to pay if we apply this to each group. Total funds required: $1,800,000,000,000 * 0.75 = $1,350,000,000,000 Per capita cost depending on chosen earning threshold: 200,000 $343,994 500,000 $1,850,707 1,000,000 $5,699,016 1,500,000 $10,482,424 2,000,000 $15,973,685 5,000,000 $59,745,088 10,000,000 $163,161,711 This means that if we choose to tax those earning $200K or more, they'll have to pay $343,994 per year, for the next FIFTY YEARS, in order to become debt-free. If, instead, we set the threshold at one million dollars or more in income, they'll have to pay $5,699,016 per year for the next 50 years. Clearly this is impossible. OK, let's go with a progressive system. Each group will share the burden in a progressively increasing proportion. Those who earn more will pay a higher percentage of the money we need to raise. How many people in each sub-group? $200,000 - $500,000 3,195,039 $500,000 - $1,000,000 492,568 $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 108,096 $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 44,273 $2,000,000 - $5,000,000 61,918 $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 14,322 $10,000,000 or more 8,274 Unlike the prior count, this table simply shows how many people are found within the given brackets. Let's have them carry the burden in the following proportions: $200,000 - $500,000 1% $500,000 - $1,000,000 2% $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 4% $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 8% $2,000,000 - $5,000,000 10% $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 25% $10,000,000 or more 50% Total 100% How much would individuals in each group have to pay then? bracket share of burden corresponding amount per taxpayer,per year percent of total income $200,000 - $500,000 1% $ 13,500,000,000 $ 4,225.30 2% 1% $500,000 - $1,000,000 2% $ 27,000,000,000 $ 54,814.77 11% 5% $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 4% $ 54,000,000,000 $ 499,555.95 50% 33% $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 8% $ 108,000,000,000 $ 2,439,410.02 163% 122% $2,000,000 - $5,000,000 10% $ 135,000,000,000 $ 2,180,302.98 109% 44% $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 25% $ 337,500,000,000 $ 23,565,144.53 471% 236% $10,000,000 or more 50% $ 675,000,000,000 $ 81,580,855.69 816% 816% Total: 100% Well, it looks alright to begin with, doesn't it? Make $200K or more, you get to pay about $4,000 per year for the next fifty years. $500K or more? about $50K per year for the next 50 years. Tough, but, hey, got to pay your "fair share" right? The problem becomes very evident as you get past these initial brackets. You'd have to take half a million dollars a year from people earning in the one million bracket. That's not sustainable. Certainly not for 50 years. One more thing: These are tax INCREASES. In other words, the guy making a million bucks will have to pony-up $500K more than what he (or she) already pays in taxes. That means that the vast majority of the money they earn would have to be handed over to the Federal Government for the next fifty years. Raise your hand if you think that's sustainable. Now, as you get past the million dollar bracket the situation becomes even worst. The highest earning groups would have to pay MORE than what their income to Uncle Sam for the next fifty years straight. If you happen to earn ten million a year you'll have to hand over over eighty million every year for the next fifty. Right. ...continued on next post due to HN length limitations here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4333013 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4333013
- robomartin 14y ago
  ...continued from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4333008 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4333008 This is simply raw data and basic arithmetic. No magic. No funny business. And, yes, I am not even adding-on the interest on our debt. If this doesn't make the "let's tax the rich" crowd reconsider their ideas I don't really know what would. There is no way to pull out of this mess thorough taxation without SEVERE spending cuts. Fire-up Excel and do the math yourself. Unless you create some kind of an alternate reality with different mathematical theories, the results should be pretty darn close to these. Also note that I was very generous and proposed paying off the debt in half a century. That's a long time. Well, OK, how can we make this happen? Easy math: No tax increases and cut $1,800,000,000,000 in spending every year, for the next 50 years, from the Federal budget. Fifty years. In half a century we would be solvent again. If that doesn't make you sick in the stomach you are stronger than I am. OK, let's just get back to a balanced budget and raise taxes to deal with the rest: Cut spending by $1,500,000,000,000 every year for the next fifty years. Pass a balanced budget amendment to force the issue. How much do we have to raise in annual tax revenues in order to be debt-free in fifty years? $ 300,000,000,000 Annual obligation, every year for 50 years: $300,000,000,000 Now 100% of this will be paid through tax increases. How much if we tax everyone at or above a certain annual income equally? 200,000 $76,443 500,000 $411,268 1,000,000 $1,266,448 1,500,000 $2,329,428 2,000,000 $3,549,708 5,000,000 $13,276,686 10,000,000 $36,258,158 It doesn't really work at all, does it? Remember, this is tax money due ABOVE what these people are already paying. OK, let's go with the same progressive approach as used before: bracket share of burden corresponding amount per taxpayer,per year percent of total income $200,000 - $500,000 1% 3,000,000,000 938.96 0.5% 0.2% $500,000 - $1,000,000 2% 6,000,000,000 12,181.06 2.4% 1.2% $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 4% 12,000,000,000 111,012.43 11% 7% $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 8% 24,000,000,000 542,091.12 36% 27% $2,000,000 - $5,000,000 10% 30,000,000,000 484,511.77 24% 10% $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 25% 75,000,000,000 5,236,698.79 105% 52% $10,000,000 or more 50% 150,000,000,000 18,129,079.04 181% 181% Once again, it looks good in the beginning but falls apart very quickly as you go up the tax brackets. This is not workable. By this time you should have a solid idea that we've been spending and borrowing money like drunken sailors for a long time. Even with a fifty year timeline we can't fix this problem through taxation. At least not if your goal is to tax the "rich". When I hear politicians parrot the phrase "fair share" I, to quote Pink Floyd, get filled with the urge to defecate. It sure is a nice phrase to pound into the heads of the masses who, non interested in looking at even simple data and doing some math, seem to swallow this shit up and get behind it. "Fair share"? What the fuck is that? "Fair share" is when we each pay for what we eat at the restaurant. Would it be fair for me to pay for someone else's meal just because I earn more? Not really. "Fair share" might be that my neighbor and I split the cost of rebuilding our common fence. Each pays half of it. That's fair. "Fair share" could also mean that if I break something I get to pay for it. That's fair. Asking those who make more to hand over 90% (or more) of their income in order to cover our drunken-sailor spending spree isn't "fair" in any measuring system anyone might care to concoct. It is beyond obvious when one looks at the data and applies just a little basic math that the first thing that needs to go is the spending. And, yes, it will hurt, but it needs to go. If we did that, if we cut $1,500,000,000,000 from the Federal budget every year, we'd still have to come-up with $300,000,000,000 every year for the next 50 years to become debt-free. About 140,000,000 tax returns filed every year. If we all pay the same portion of the $300,000,000,000 we would all have to pay $2,143 per year, every year, for the next fifty years. Am I driving home just how bad this problem is? A progressive taxation system could be used to reduce the burden on those earning less, but you can't start at the $200,000 bracket, that simply won't cut it. Everyone has to pay something and, even then, it looks ridiculous: bracket share of burden per taxpayer, per year Under 5000 0.00% - $5,000 - $10,000 0.00% - $10,000 - $15,000 0.00% - $15,000 - $20,000 1.00% 197.36 $20,000 - $25,000 2.00% 448.48 $25,000 - $30,000 2.00% 519.49 $30,000 - $35,000 2.00% 585.98 $35,000 - $40,000 2.00% 672.43 $40,000 - $45,000 3.00% 1,158.03 $45,000 - $50,000 3.00% 1,358.82 $50,000 - $55,000 3.00% 1,484.21 $55,000 - $60,000 3.00% 1,639.11 $60,000 - $75,000 7.00% 1,570.46 $75,000 - $100,000 7.00% 1,373.90 $100,000 - $200,000 7.00% 1,164.76 $200,000 - $500,000 7.00% 4,929.52 $500,000 - $1,000,000 7.00% 31,975.28 $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 7.00% 145,703.82 $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 7.00% 355,747.30 $2,000,000 - $5,000,000 10.00% 363,383.83 $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 10.00% 1,571,009.64 $10,000,000 or more 10.00% 2,719,361.86 Total share: 100% Remember, you are looking at something we'd have to do for fifty years. To paraphrase Ross Perot, the sound you would hear would be the huge sucking sound of jobs, innovation, investment and people leaving our country. For fifty years. The solution is painful and obvious: Cut spending and cut it to the bone. In other words, what every family has to do: Live within or below your means. It is high time that we act like adults and do what must be done. We are looking at fifty years of agony no-matter what. We need to tell unions to go pound sand and forget about their luxury pensions and benefits. We need to fire government workers en-masse and compel them to become more useful members of society. We need to end ridiculous government workers pensions, benefits and spending. We need to end entitlement programs as they exist today. We need to cut, cut, cut and then cut some more. Above all, we also need to go back to being the most entrepreneurial and business-friendly nation in the world. We need to make it so attractive to do business in the US that we usher-in a new age of technological and entrepreneurial revolution. We do that and we might just be able to deal with our problems in 25 years instead of 50. There are a million different ways to look at this problem, but I feel that the fundamental numbers are inescapable. Add interest payments and other costs I did not account for and the picture is even worst. So, yes, going back to the article that is the subject of this thread: 1.5% spending reduction? What a joke!

28 points by MaysonL 14y ago

Why do I feel like we are splitting hairs here? This article talks about a 1.5% cut in government spending (or increases of up to 3.8%). Really? That's what I call a rounding error. It's bullshit cuts (or increases) in spending that will do absolutely nothing real to solve our problems. -------------------- TL;DR: We need to cut in the order of 50% from the Federal Budget in order to hope to be debt-free in FIFTY YEARS. -------------------- I decided to go out and finally get a sense of where we stand. We have huge annual deficits and owe a lot of money. Let's fix it. Two goals: 1- Get back to a balanced annual budget. 2- Erase our national debt in 50 years. To simplify we are not going to add interest to our debt. Sensible? I would prefer to get back to zero debt in ten years, but let's go for 50 instead. In other words, our kids are going to be paying off the national debt for most of their adult lives. How to do it? Tax increases? Spending cuts? Both? Let's say both. Now, I am going against my grain here because I don't believe in paying more taxes. In fact, I want to see our tax burden reduced to flat 15% for everyone, corporations included. But, that's a different subject. For the purpose of this exercise I'll go with the "tax more" crowd. No problem. OK, how much? Well, let's say that we really go to the dark side and choose to pay 75% of our national debt and deficit via tax increases and the rest by reducing expenditures (various programs, entitlements, military, whatever). That should make those who believe in higher taxes very happy. Fully two thirds of the money we need will come from higher taxes. To go with a popular theme, let's tax the rich and leave everyone else alone. I propose that this mathematical exercise only only increase taxes on those earning $200,000 or more per year. Again, this is going against every fiber of my body, but I want to "go with the flow" in the interest of just seeing what these numbers look like. OK, the very first fact that comes out of this discussion is that our government needs to cut spending by 25%. Simple numbers. Not 1.5%, not 3%. 25%. I don't care where it comes from, this is just math. Someone needs to figure out how to cut an honest 25% in spending. The rest will come from increased taxes. But, wait, our government is also responsible for paying for 25% of the accumulated national debt by cutting costs. So they have to cut further than just the equivalent of 25% of the annual deficit. OK, I know a little math and know how to use Excel, let's play with some numbers. How much do we owe? http://www.usdebtclock.org/ http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Here are the numbers I'll use for this exercise: US national debt: $16,000,000,000,000 US annual federal deficit: $1,500,000,000,000 US Federal spending: $4,000,000,000,000 I rounded some of it and extrapolated to the end of the year just to get to play with easy numbers. As we agreed, we are going to be debt-free in 50 years. What's the total annual amount of money we need to raise, if you will, in order to do accomplish this? Annual obligation, every year for 50 years: $1,800,000,000,000 How much of this does the Federal Government have to pay? Federal government contribution via spending reductions (25%): $450,000,000,000 Percentage reduction with respect to total annual Federal spending: 11% So, the government has to find half a billion dollar in spending cuts for 50 years. We do the rest by increasing taxes on the "rich". Here we go: How many people make $200K or more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_... http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/how-many-people-make-more-than-250000-per-year/ http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/how-many-people-make-more-tha... I'll use data from the second link because it is a little more granular. Here are the numbers I'll use. Number of people making more than n, where n is the left column: 200,000 3,924,490 500,000 729,451 1,000,000 236,883 1,500,000 128,787 2,000,000 84,514 5,000,000 22,596 10,000,000 8,274 What does this mean? If we decide to tax people who make $200K or more, there are about four million of them. If, instead, we decide to tax those who make one million or more, there are 236,883 of them. We agreed that we are going to cover 75% of the money we need to raise through taxation. Let's see how much each individual would have to pay if we apply this to each group. Total funds required: $1,800,000,000,000 * 0.75 = $1,350,000,000,000 Per capita cost depending on chosen earning threshold: 200,000 $343,994 500,000 $1,850,707 1,000,000 $5,699,016 1,500,000 $10,482,424 2,000,000 $15,973,685 5,000,000 $59,745,088 10,000,000 $163,161,711 This means that if we choose to tax those earning $200K or more, they'll have to pay $343,994 per year, for the next FIFTY YEARS, in order to become debt-free. If, instead, we set the threshold at one million dollars or more in income, they'll have to pay $5,699,016 per year for the next 50 years. Clearly this is impossible. OK, let's go with a progressive system. Each group will share the burden in a progressively increasing proportion. Those who earn more will pay a higher percentage of the money we need to raise. How many people in each sub-group? $200,000 - $500,000 3,195,039 $500,000 - $1,000,000 492,568 $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 108,096 $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 44,273 $2,000,000 - $5,000,000 61,918 $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 14,322 $10,000,000 or more 8,274 Unlike the prior count, this table simply shows how many people are found within the given brackets. Let's have them carry the burden in the following proportions: $200,000 - $500,000 1% $500,000 - $1,000,000 2% $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 4% $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 8% $2,000,000 - $5,000,000 10% $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 25% $10,000,000 or more 50% Total 100% How much would individuals in each group have to pay then? bracket share of burden corresponding amount per taxpayer,per year percent of total income $200,000 - $500,000 1% $ 13,500,000,000 $ 4,225.30 2% 1% $500,000 - $1,000,000 2% $ 27,000,000,000 $ 54,814.77 11% 5% $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 4% $ 54,000,000,000 $ 499,555.95 50% 33% $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 8% $ 108,000,000,000 $ 2,439,410.02 163% 122% $2,000,000 - $5,000,000 10% $ 135,000,000,000 $ 2,180,302.98 109% 44% $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 25% $ 337,500,000,000 $ 23,565,144.53 471% 236% $10,000,000 or more 50% $ 675,000,000,000 $ 81,580,855.69 816% 816% Total: 100% Well, it looks alright to begin with, doesn't it? Make $200K or more, you get to pay about $4,000 per year for the next fifty years. $500K or more? about $50K per year for the next 50 years. Tough, but, hey, got to pay your "fair share" right? The problem becomes very evident as you get past these initial brackets. You'd have to take half a million dollars a year from people earning in the one million bracket. That's not sustainable. Certainly not for 50 years. One more thing: These are tax INCREASES. In other words, the guy making a million bucks will have to pony-up $500K more than what he (or she) already pays in taxes. That means that the vast majority of the money they earn would have to be handed over to the Federal Government for the next fifty years. Raise your hand if you think that's sustainable. Now, as you get past the million dollar bracket the situation becomes even worst. The highest earning groups would have to pay MORE than what their income to Uncle Sam for the next fifty years straight. If you happen to earn ten million a year you'll have to hand over over eighty million every year for the next fifty. Right. ...continued on next post due to HN length limitations here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4333013 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4333013

robomartin 14y ago
...continued from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4333008 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4333008 This is simply raw data and basic arithmetic. No magic. No funny business. And, yes, I am not even adding-on the interest on our debt. If this doesn't make the "let's tax the rich" crowd reconsider their ideas I don't really know what would. There is no way to pull out of this mess thorough taxation without SEVERE spending cuts. Fire-up Excel and do the math yourself. Unless you create some kind of an alternate reality with different mathematical theories, the results should be pretty darn close to these. Also note that I was very generous and proposed paying off the debt in half a century. That's a long time. Well, OK, how can we make this happen? Easy math: No tax increases and cut $1,800,000,000,000 in spending every year, for the next 50 years, from the Federal budget. Fifty years. In half a century we would be solvent again. If that doesn't make you sick in the stomach you are stronger than I am. OK, let's just get back to a balanced budget and raise taxes to deal with the rest: Cut spending by $1,500,000,000,000 every year for the next fifty years. Pass a balanced budget amendment to force the issue. How much do we have to raise in annual tax revenues in order to be debt-free in fifty years? $ 300,000,000,000 Annual obligation, every year for 50 years: $300,000,000,000 Now 100% of this will be paid through tax increases. How much if we tax everyone at or above a certain annual income equally? 200,000 $76,443 500,000 $411,268 1,000,000 $1,266,448 1,500,000 $2,329,428 2,000,000 $3,549,708 5,000,000 $13,276,686 10,000,000 $36,258,158 It doesn't really work at all, does it? Remember, this is tax money due ABOVE what these people are already paying. OK, let's go with the same progressive approach as used before: bracket share of burden corresponding amount per taxpayer,per year percent of total income $200,000 - $500,000 1% 3,000,000,000 938.96 0.5% 0.2% $500,000 - $1,000,000 2% 6,000,000,000 12,181.06 2.4% 1.2% $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 4% 12,000,000,000 111,012.43 11% 7% $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 8% 24,000,000,000 542,091.12 36% 27% $2,000,000 - $5,000,000 10% 30,000,000,000 484,511.77 24% 10% $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 25% 75,000,000,000 5,236,698.79 105% 52% $10,000,000 or more 50% 150,000,000,000 18,129,079.04 181% 181% Once again, it looks good in the beginning but falls apart very quickly as you go up the tax brackets. This is not workable. By this time you should have a solid idea that we've been spending and borrowing money like drunken sailors for a long time. Even with a fifty year timeline we can't fix this problem through taxation. At least not if your goal is to tax the "rich". When I hear politicians parrot the phrase "fair share" I, to quote Pink Floyd, get filled with the urge to defecate. It sure is a nice phrase to pound into the heads of the masses who, non interested in looking at even simple data and doing some math, seem to swallow this shit up and get behind it. "Fair share"? What the fuck is that? "Fair share" is when we each pay for what we eat at the restaurant. Would it be fair for me to pay for someone else's meal just because I earn more? Not really. "Fair share" might be that my neighbor and I split the cost of rebuilding our common fence. Each pays half of it. That's fair. "Fair share" could also mean that if I break something I get to pay for it. That's fair. Asking those who make more to hand over 90% (or more) of their income in order to cover our drunken-sailor spending spree isn't "fair" in any measuring system anyone might care to concoct. It is beyond obvious when one looks at the data and applies just a little basic math that the first thing that needs to go is the spending. And, yes, it will hurt, but it needs to go. If we did that, if we cut $1,500,000,000,000 from the Federal budget every year, we'd still have to come-up with $300,000,000,000 every year for the next 50 years to become debt-free. About 140,000,000 tax returns filed every year. If we all pay the same portion of the $300,000,000,000 we would all have to pay $2,143 per year, every year, for the next fifty years. Am I driving home just how bad this problem is? A progressive taxation system could be used to reduce the burden on those earning less, but you can't start at the $200,000 bracket, that simply won't cut it. Everyone has to pay something and, even then, it looks ridiculous: bracket share of burden per taxpayer, per year Under 5000 0.00% - $5,000 - $10,000 0.00% - $10,000 - $15,000 0.00% - $15,000 - $20,000 1.00% 197.36 $20,000 - $25,000 2.00% 448.48 $25,000 - $30,000 2.00% 519.49 $30,000 - $35,000 2.00% 585.98 $35,000 - $40,000 2.00% 672.43 $40,000 - $45,000 3.00% 1,158.03 $45,000 - $50,000 3.00% 1,358.82 $50,000 - $55,000 3.00% 1,484.21 $55,000 - $60,000 3.00% 1,639.11 $60,000 - $75,000 7.00% 1,570.46 $75,000 - $100,000 7.00% 1,373.90 $100,000 - $200,000 7.00% 1,164.76 $200,000 - $500,000 7.00% 4,929.52 $500,000 - $1,000,000 7.00% 31,975.28 $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 7.00% 145,703.82 $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 7.00% 355,747.30 $2,000,000 - $5,000,000 10.00% 363,383.83 $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 10.00% 1,571,009.64 $10,000,000 or more 10.00% 2,719,361.86 Total share: 100% Remember, you are looking at something we'd have to do for fifty years. To paraphrase Ross Perot, the sound you would hear would be the huge sucking sound of jobs, innovation, investment and people leaving our country. For fifty years. The solution is painful and obvious: Cut spending and cut it to the bone. In other words, what every family has to do: Live within or below your means. It is high time that we act like adults and do what must be done. We are looking at fifty years of agony no-matter what. We need to tell unions to go pound sand and forget about their luxury pensions and benefits. We need to fire government workers en-masse and compel them to become more useful members of society. We need to end ridiculous government workers pensions, benefits and spending. We need to end entitlement programs as they exist today. We need to cut, cut, cut and then cut some more. Above all, we also need to go back to being the most entrepreneurial and business-friendly nation in the world. We need to make it so attractive to do business in the US that we usher-in a new age of technological and entrepreneurial revolution. We do that and we might just be able to deal with our problems in 25 years instead of 50. There are a million different ways to look at this problem, but I feel that the fundamental numbers are inescapable. Add interest payments and other costs I did not account for and the picture is even worst. So, yes, going back to the article that is the subject of this thread: 1.5% spending reduction? What a joke!