771–780 of 1001 posts
For those who want to have a substantive discussion on the federal budget and believe these cuts are justified, I have a few questions (putting aside questions of constitutionality for this thread): 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least th…
For those who want to have a substantive discussion on the federal budget and believe these cuts are justified, I have a few questions (putting aside questions of constitutionality for this thread): 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least th…
For those who want to have a substantive discussion on the federal budget and believe these cuts are justified, I have a few questions (putting aside questions of constitutionality for this thread): 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least th…
Corporate income tax is a bad idea. It should be cut to zero. If you run a corporation, and a larger tax bill comes, you will keep your own salary (hence, wealth) and either pass the tax onto your employees or cut employee benefits/jobs to afford the tax. With corporate tax in effect what you are doing is handing the responsibility of allocating obligations to the owners/controllers of the corporation. They will defi…
Ironically, if you reduce employee salaries or benefits, then you will have lower expenses, and thus a larger amount of profits you have to pay taxes on (regardless of the tax rate).
I do agree that corporate tax should be progressive, though, just like personal income taxes are. Corporate taxes used to be progressive, but Trump and the GOP changed that in 2017.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The proposed Senate budget includes $150 billion increase in the defense budget, which already was 50% of all discretionary spending (that means after SS and Medicare as that is covered by a separate tax). This is much more than any DOGE savings, and shows that this isn't about reducing the federal budget, but about cutting services in order to fund two things: military, and corporate tax cuts (which largely benefit…
> This is much more than any DOGE savings DOGE is an 18 month project. Confidently asserting the end result after a few weeks is bold.
For those who want to have a substantive discussion on the federal budget and believe these cuts are justified, I have a few questions (putting aside questions of constitutionality for this thread): 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least th…
This framing is a bit far from the actual motivating issue underlying the federal "budget" itself. I think a better question is whether having a federal workforce of 4 million people managed by an unaccountable bureaucracy is in the best interests of any country. If you frame it as simply whether to spend money on this or that or if you're getting comparable value to other countries, then it is inevitable for the sid…
I'm not sure what's unaccountable about a bunch of people who report to political appointees who have been confirmed by the Senate (a body elected by the people), who then report to the president and vice president (also elected by the people).
I think impartial observers have not spent time in actual government bureaucracy. Basically everything will seem like “they’re cutting something important!” Or “they’re stopping critical research!” because every government contract needs justification; so naturally they will all sound good. The data and accounting itself is such bad quality in all cases that it is impossible to be perfect at this; there are entire in…
> it’s insane watching everyone around me get gaslit into thinking the government is actually efficient. It's equally insane to me that people think the private sector is somehow efficient. The amount of resources used to feed profit alone are a huge waste.
The private sector is indeed filled with lots of inefficiencies, but due to the profit motive and presence of competition, there’s massive incentives to correct those inefficiencies slowly over time. You'll make more profit doing so!
Hence, the private sector is constantly self correcting itself and becoming more efficient via creative destruction. You can just look at the numbers, even the Chinese Communist Party understand this. Turns out the profit motive combined with competitive instincts of humans results in a consistently greater good.
Not sure you’re aware, but the government doesn’t do that. Hence why the US is massively indebted. Unfortunately the US debtors aren’t doing so great these days so it can’t continue even at current rates. Instead of DOGE they should have named it “The department of not finding the level of US debt that leads to currency debasement and collapse.”
I never thought I’d need to explain the elementary school 101 of why communism is bad and why debt is not endless on HN but apparently this place is turning into Reddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And don't worry, the House is ready to extend and expand tax cuts to more than extinguish any potential "savings" - to the tune of over $3 trillion in extra deficit spending. But don't worry, they've planned for that- just increase the debt limit by $4 trillion to cover the difference! After all, now that the Democrats aren't in charge any longer, increasing the debt limit is no biggie - we'll just grow ourselves out…
Wait, I thought the GOP was the party of fiscal conservatism and reducing the deficit? Shouldn't they be reducing the debt ceiling rather than raising it?
For those who want to have a substantive discussion on the federal budget and believe these cuts are justified, I have a few questions (putting aside questions of constitutionality for this thread): 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least th…
1. I do not really care about any historical precedent, they take 40% of my money and there is clearly a ton of waste, if not grift. 2. All of those things can be done more efficiently. Drug prices, crappy mega defense contractors, welfare work traps, etc. 3. People eat themselves to death. RFK is going after this problem. 4. I'm in favor of simplifying the tax code and charging a flat tax to corporations, ending tax…
Er what? The top marginal tax bracket is only 37%, and no one will pay that percentage on all their income. Perhaps you misunderstand how marginal tax rates/brackets work?
I was very tax-inefficent a few years ago, and my effective tax rate was still under 25%. Usually it's under 20%, even though my income does sometimes put me in into the tax brackets that are in the 30s.
If you're paying 40% of your income in taxes, you're either a) doing something exceptionally wrong, or b) one of a very small, sub-1% group of people who need to do super tax-inefficient things on a regular basis for some reason.
> All of those things can be done more efficiently. Drug prices, crappy mega defense contractors, welfare work traps, etc.
How? That's the meat of the question and problem here. It's easy to say "government is inefficient". It's a lot harder to identify what those inefficiencies actually are, and come up with a plan to reduce or eliminate them. Simply saying that certain things in government are inefficient is not useful.
For those who want to have a substantive discussion on the federal budget and believe these cuts are justified, I have a few questions (putting aside questions of constitutionality for this thread): 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least th…
Y'all, original poster here - please don't downvote or flag kill responses to this that are good-faith attempts to discuss the issue, even if the response seems misinformed to you. I don't think anyone will change their minds when that happens.
HN mods (or perhaps pg) have said in the past that "I disagree" is a perfectly reasonable use of the downvote button.
For those who want to have a substantive discussion on the federal budget and believe these cuts are justified, I have a few questions (putting aside questions of constitutionality for this thread): 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least th…
The Constitution doesn't protect the many bureaucratic organizations that have sprung up since it's inception. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's any amendments that protect the agencies either. For example, the CIA has been controversial. There's nothing protecting it in the founding documents. 1. The GDP is largely raised due to costs of services, tech innovation, & inflation. Note that the measurement of…
Not sure what you mean by "protecting". Of course none of those agencies are mentioned in the constitution, but that doesn't matter. They were all created by bills passed by the legislature and signed into law by the president at one point or another. Their existence has been upheld by the judiciary on more than one occasion. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to disband something that Congress has created by law.
If you don't like that those agencies exist, you are free to lobby your congresspeople to write and sponsor bills to disband them.