Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 163

Thread: Draft report of the US fiscal commission

  1. #1

    Default Draft report of the US fiscal commission

    I'm sure most of you news fiends have already seen this, but it's definitely interesting:

    Quote Originally Posted by WSJ
    Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    By COREY BOLES And MARTIN VAUGHAN

    WASHINGTON—The co-chairmen of a deficit commission established by the White House would seek to limit federal spending on health care, gradually raise the retirement age and lower the corporate tax rate to 26%, according to a draft set of proposals released Wednesday.

    The sweeping plan is likely to provoke a political firestorm. It touches many of the third rails of politics, including defense spending, Social Security and middle-class tax breaks long seen as inviolate.

    It isn't a final document. The co-chairs—Erskine Bowles, a chief of staff in the Clinton White House, and former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming—presented the draft plan to members of the 18-strong committee earlier Wednesday. It was presented as a series of options that could be taken together or considered individually as a way to bring down federal spending.

    The Commission released a draft of recommendations for President Barack Obama. The panel calls for changes in the tax codes including elimination of the popular deduction for mortgage interest. Video courtesy of Fox News.

    Members of the panel emerged from the meeting saying they thought the proposals were "provocative," but they failed to endorse them outright.

    According to the draft, the plan identifies $200 billion in discretionary-spending cuts by 2015, with half the savings from reductions to Pentagon spending. It would place limits on tax breaks for homeowners by removing deductions of interest on second homes, home-equity loans and mortgages worth more than $500,000.

    For businesses, the plan would lower the corporate tax rate but remove a number of deductions currently available. It would make permanent the research-and-development tax credit. The federal gasoline-tax rate would start to rise from 2013, increasing by 15 cents a gallon at that stage. Federal subsidies to agribusinesses would begin to be slashed by $3 billion a year.

    On Social Security, the plan would gradually increase the retirement age when people can start receiving benefits to 68 at around 2050 and to 69 by 2075. It would combine a cut in benefits with an increase in taxes levied on wealthier seniors' benefits.

    The savings would be phased in over time and include a freeze on salaries and bonuses paid to federal employees for three years, at a savings of $15.1 billion by 2015.

    The plan would propose cutting the federal work force by 10% for a further savings of $13.2 billion by 2015.

    It would seek to rein in federal spending on health care, both by introducing further proposed changes, including reform of tort law, and by seeking to slow Medicare growth.

    Congressional earmarks—inserting money into legislation for lawmakers' pet projects—would be banned permanently, saving $16 billion.

    The panel co-chairmen proposed establishing a committee to identify further budgetary cuts going forward.

    "This is really a starting point, and it's an honest starting point," Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) told reporters during a break in panel deliberations.

    "I told them that there are things in there that inspire me, and there are things in there that I hate like the devil hates holy water. I'm not going to vote for this thing," Durbin said.

    Mr. Durbin is one of 18 members of the deficit-reduction commission that is to make recommendations by Dec. 1.

    Panel members were expected to hold meetings next week aimed at narrowing differences.

    Another member of the panel, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.), said she is encouraged that a proposal was put on the table that would restore Social Security to long-term solvency. At the same time, she said it was "not a proposal that I could support right now."

    "This is a serious and impressive effort," said Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.). "It's a good start."

    The panel would need 14 of 18 members to agree on a plan for it to receive an automatic vote from Congress.

    The panel was established by the president to discuss longer-term overhauls to federal spending that are seen by economists as necessary to bring the federal debt back to managable levels.

    The panel was told to come up with a proposal that would bring the federal budget deficit back to about 3% of U.S. gross domestic product by 2015, compared with 8.9% in fiscal 2010, which ended on Sept. 30. If the plan were adopted in its entirety, it would reduce the deficit to 2.2% of gross domestic product by 2015.

    The budget deficit was 8.9% of GDP in the fiscal year that just concluded on Sept. 30.

    But despite the spending cuts and changes to the tax code, it would still take until 2037 to balance the budget entirely. It would do so using a mix of spending cuts and tax revenues, about 75% in spending reductions and about 25% from the tax side.

    "We have harpooned every whale in the ocean, and some of the minnows," said Mr. Simpson. "No one has ever done that before."

    Illustrating the difficulties the panel will have in reaching the requisite 14-member supermajority, external pressure groups didn't hesitate to criticize the draft proposals.

    "If Democrats...entertain for one minute the idea of cutting Social Security, it would be both a policy disaster and a monumental political blunder—and they'd risk losing the Senate and maybe even the White House in 2012," said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...067587042.html

    Quote Originally Posted by WPost
    Highlights of deficit reduction proposals

    WASHINGTON -- Highlights of proposals by leaders of President Barack Obama's bipartisan deficit commission:

    SOCIAL SECURITY

    -Increase the Social Security retirement age by one month every two years after it reaches 67 under current law. It would reach 68 around 2050 and 69 around 2075.

    -Gradually increase the payroll tax to capture 90 percent of wages by 2050.

    -Give retirees the choice of collecting half their benefits early and the other half at a later age.

    TAXES

    -Overhaul individual income taxes and corporate taxes. For individuals and families, eliminate a host of popular tax credits and deductions, including the child tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction. Significantly reduce income tax rates, with the top rate dropping to 23 percent from 35 percent.

    -Reduce the corporate income tax rate to 26 percent from 35 percent, and stop taxing the overseas profits of U.S.-based multinational corporations.

    -Increase the gas tax by 15 cents a gallon to fund transportation programs.

    DOMESTIC SPENDING

    -Freeze Defense Department salaries and bonuses for three years, and noncombat military pay at 2011 levels for three years. Double Defense Secretary Robert Gates' proposed cuts in defense contracting. Reduce overseas bases by one-third, cut spending for base support and integrate children in military families into local schools.

    -Reduce congressional and White House budgets by 15 percent, freeze federal compensation at non-defense agencies for three years, cut the federal work force by 10 percent, eliminate 250,000 non-defense contractors and end money for commercial space flight.

    -Eliminate noncompetitive spending bills known as "earmarks."

    -End grants to large and medium-sized hub airports; require airports to fund a larger portion of the cost of aviation security.

    -Cut funding for the public broadcasting.

    HEALTH CARE

    -Ask doctors and other health care providers, lawyers and individuals to take responsibility for slowing growth of health care costs.

    -Reduce government payments to doctors and lawyers, and adopt legislation to end frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

    -Set a target for total federal health expenditures after 2020, and review costs every two years. If costs grow faster than targets, require the president to submit, and Congress to consider, measures to lower spending.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111005009.html

    I haven't had a chance to read the report in detail, but so far I'm actually pretty surprised (in a good way). They make sensible reforms in Social Security, tax law, and discretionary spending, though I have a few concerns on the latter two. I'm not entirely sure that I see their suggestions for healthcare (the real problem, here) to be particularly inspired, but it might be that the media just didn't cover it well. Tort reform is necessary but hardly sufficient, and otherwise the suggestions seemed pretty vague. I do like the general concept of ~75% spending cut and 25% increased taxes (and the structure of both the cuts and taxes), but the details still need some ironing out.

    Of course, all of this is incredibly unlikely to make its way through Congress intact, but it's a good start.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    I was surprised they didn't dig deeper into agribusiness subsidies. And they'll have to tweak that retirement age, at least for certain laborers. Either that or change how disability is done.

    It'd be great if they could wean federal workers off their platinum tax payer-funded health plans and retirement benefits, especially congress. I've not seen a tally of how much their 'legacy costs' are, but it's got to be enormous.

    Good start, though.


    EDIT from NYT:

    The plan would reduce cost-of-living increases for all federal programs, including Social Security. It would reduce projected Social Security benefits to most retirees in later decades, though low-income people would get higher benefits. The retirement age for full benefits would be slowly raised to 69 from 67 by 2075, with a “hardship exemption” for people who physically cannot work past 62. And higher levels of income would be subject to payroll taxes.

    But the plan would not count Social Security savings toward the overall deficit-reduction goal that Mr. Obama set for fiscal year 2015, reflecting the chairmen’s sensitivity to liberal critics who have complained that Social Security should be fixed only for its own sake, not to help balance the nation’s books.
    Hardship exemption is a good idea. Would be nice to find the same info from each source, huh. Frequently left out is nixing the mortgage interest deduction is for second homes.
    Last edited by GGT; 11-11-2010 at 03:05 AM.

  3. #3
    "This is a serious and impressive effort," said Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.). "It's a good start."
    Coming from Ryan, this is quite an endorsement. And I agree with a lot of ideas based on what I was reading on the train from the land-o-porkulous today. One of my main concerns was that this committee would be a trojan horse to a VAT tax, but I prefer their ideas of phasing our "darling" deductions such as second-home mortgage interest.

    Barring random hidden issues, I would love for this general outline to be made into law.

  4. #4
    Seems like a pretty conservative way to tackle the debt. Most of the saving from the military, for example, will presumably occur as a function of us pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq, not due to genuine cut backs. The SS proposal could also have been stronger; increasing the age by 2 years over a span of 65 years is a joke. For all we know, people will live until 100 by then. All of the measures seem better than doing nothing though, so it's a good start. Unfortunately, it will probably not see the light of day in its current form.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  5. #5
    As a wager, if Obama is able to get a strong version of this passed I will consider voting for him in the next election. Ideal? No. But loosely speaking, this is the kind of realistic pragmatism we need to survive as a functioning economy/state.

  6. #6
    The panel was told to come up with a proposal that would bring the federal budget deficit back to about 3% of U.S. gross domestic product by 2015, compared with 8.9% in fiscal 2010, which ended on Sept. 30. If the plan were adopted in its entirety, it would reduce the deficit to 2.2% of gross domestic product by 2015.
    Does anyone know how they projected GDP growth for 2015?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Seems like a pretty conservative way to tackle the debt. Most of the saving from the military, for example, will presumably occur as a function of us pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq, not due to genuine cut backs.
    I'm not sure about that; I think the budget forecasts already assume that. I believe they're trying to double Gates' attempt to cut $50 billion a year from the Pentagon budget starting in 2011/2012. This won't be nearly as savage as defense cuts in other countries, but will still add up to pretty significant savings at $100 billion. I believe they plan to reduce some of our unneeded overseas presence, cut personnel costs some, overhaul procurements, and get rid of many of the contractors/consultants at the DoD. This would likely lead to serious cost savings without cutting into frontline procurements programs or significantly eroding manpower.

    Most of the stuff I've seen written so far seems to indicate that there are few gimmicks (though I'm skeptical about healthcare, as I mentioned above), which is refreshing given the regular obfuscation, wishful thinking, and outright lying that the White House budget projections have included for over a decade.

    The SS proposal could also have been stronger; increasing the age by 2 years over a span of 65 years is a joke. For all we know, people will live until 100 by then. All of the measures seem better than doing nothing though, so it's a good start. Unfortunately, it will probably not see the light of day in its current form.
    Age is increasing by 4 years; it's just that the first 2 of those years was already legislated. And even if it doesn't sound like a lot, it keeps SS solvent for much longer and sets the basic precedent for how to do so in the future. I think the more important change, though, is changing the COLA calculation, which will allow us to keep promised benefits to a more reasonable growth rate.

    I think what I like most about this is that no one is really happy. The pain has been spread around - whether to Democrats unhappy about cuts in SS and possible healthcare cuts or Republicans who might be anxious about defense cuts and gas taxes. Hell, the rich will hurt - cutting out most of the exemptions for income tax will probably raise their tax bill, even with a marginal rate decrease (given that the mortgage deduction and HELOC deductions will disappear for them), and their SS benefits will be less for (probably) more contributions.... but so will everyone else (working longer, child tax credits, etc.). If no one's happy, it's probably a decent plan.

  8. #8
    The mortgage tax deduction must be phased in, or it'll be a disaster. In any case, the mortgage tax deduction subsidizes the middle class, the most productive part of society; get rid of something else, you silly overpaid bureaucratic goons, like the child tax exemptions! (ok, they recommended it, but who will take them up on it?)

    Edit: GGT, are you sure it's for second homes? Even so, so what? What if you buy a new house, and just can't sell your first house (not uncommon currently), so you rent it out? Being punished for that isn't a good thing... it will make the housing market less fluid and raise the percent of unoccupied houses (since people won't risk moving before they are about to sell their first house).

    How about setting the 100K+ federal employee wages to competitive levels, instead of the current fat-cat wages now? (I heard a report about a 10 fold increase in 100Kers in the government on TV, from 2005!)

    Of course both standard Democrats and Republicans would love the mortgage tax deduction removed... doesn't hurt the rich or the poor... let's beat down the middle class again.
    Last edited by agamemnus; 11-11-2010 at 04:05 AM.

  9. #9
    It would place limits on tax breaks for homeowners by removing deductions of interest on second homes, home-equity loans and mortgages worth more than $500,000.

    For individuals and families, eliminate a host of popular tax credits and deductions, including the child tax credit...

  10. #10
    The mortgage tax deduction must be phased in, or it'll be a disaster. In any case, the mortgage tax deduction subsidizes the middle class, the most productive part of society; get rid of something else, you silly overpaid goons, like the child tax exemptions!
    While I'm opposed to having different rules just based on income for taxes the argument that this is an attack on the middle class is absurd.

    It would place limits on tax breaks for homeowners by removing deductions of interest on second homes, home-equity loans and mortgages worth more than $500,000.
    So over 500k homes typically isn't middle class. Second homes ditto. The only one you may look at as a reasonable issue as it pertains to the middle class is home-equity loans. And typically that is going to be a small part of the total owed on a home.

    We've learned what happens when government subsidizes home ownership... it ain't pretty. The only reason I at all think it might be OK to keep the mortgage tax reduction is because of how home owners get reamed by local property taxes.

  11. #11
    Hey GGT, I edited my post. So I win.

    ALSO, 500K homes is middle class, in New York and parts of Massachusetts. By the time this is made into law, house values should hopefully recover somewhat, putting some 400K-450K homes (very common here in MA) back into the 500K+ range.

    Edit: Also, it's too much text to process for a fast rage post, so I double win.

  12. #12
    aggie --- 500K means jumbo loans, not house values.

    Who knows how tax codes will change, but if you have to rent a primary home because it won't sell, I think it's considered an investment property only if you rent for more than two years (or something).

  13. #13
    ALSO, 500K homes is middle class, in New York and parts of Massachusetts. By the time this is made into law, house values should hopefully recover somewhat, putting some 400K-450K homes (very common here in MA) back into the 500K+ range.
    When your mortgage payment nears what the median wage of the country is, your not going to find a lot of those people in the middle class range. I guess I'll have to ask you to define middle class in purely objective terms either based on net worth or income in order to really discuss this with you.

  14. #14
    ALSO, 500K homes is middle class, in New York and parts of Massachusetts. By the time this is made into law, house values should hopefully recover somewhat, putting some 400K-450K homes (very common here in MA) back into the 500K+ range.
    When your mortgage payment nears what the median wage of the country is, your not going to find a lot of those people in the middle class range. I guess I'll have to ask you to define middle class in purely objective terms either based on net worth or income in order to really discuss this with you.

  15. #15
    Middle class is anywhere from a 100K to 200K yearly income for a family of 3-5.

    At a 500K price, a mortgage payment is not $30K yearly. It would be more like 27K at a 30 year mortgage, with about 70% of that deductible interest in the first few years... so 8K. Of course then there are the taxes and maintenance/heating/cooling, which ups the cost to 16K-20K. Entirely reasonable.

  16. #16
    Middle class is anywhere from a 100K to 200K yearly income for a family of 3-5.
    Heh so what percentage of the population do you consider middle class?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States

    Less then 15% of households in the United States make up the 100k to 200k range.

    Now if you look at 25k to 75k you get about 40% of the households. Numerically that would be closer to middle class.

    Unless you consider "Middle Class" to be "The top 20% of society not counting the top 5%" ? Thats hardly in the middle.

  17. #17
    Trying to define "middle class" will bring us down a rabbit hole. $500k buys you a large studio in Manhattan, and there are other places where similar real estate dynamics work. Removing the deduction for second homes seems pretty fair, and phasing it out for everyone would be a worthwhile tradeoff to lower income tax rates overall.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    As a wager, if Obama is able to get a strong version of this passed I will consider voting for him in the next election. Ideal? No. But loosely speaking, this is the kind of realistic pragmatism we need to survive as a functioning economy/state.
    Yet another reason for the Republicans to block anything he attempts?


    and can someone fix Lewk's retardedness up there?

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Interesting to see this debate is happening in the US as well. In Holland we're slowly coming to the realisation that the deductability of mortgages is not viable in the long run and a lot of people are claiming that it's only effect is a severe distortion of the market. They have started introducing limits to it over the last 10 years;

    1. limiting the duration of deductability to 30 years
    2. limiting the deductability to the house you live in (in case you haven't sold your old house yet you can deduct the interest on that loan up to 3 years)
    3. no deductability of loans that are not directly connected to the purchase or improvement of your home
    4. no deductability of an amount that equals the net proceeds of the sale of your previous home.

    a new rule will be added in the near future limiting deductability to loans under €1m.

    I personally see this 'tax-deduction' as a huge subsidy to the banks, and a silly pumping around of tax-payer's money. It should be scrapped, and any American with an ounce of sense should want the same.
    Congratulations America

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I personally see this 'tax-deduction' as a huge subsidy to the banks, and a silly pumping around of tax-payer's money. It should be scrapped, and any American with an ounce of sense should want the same.
    Yeah, easy for you to say, since you've paid off your mortgage.

    But you're right about that interest deduction being a huge subsidy to banks. Also brokers, realtors, home builders, or anyone remotely connected to our housing bubble. It's actually been used as a selling point, a driver for buying a mortgage. "It's tax-deductible!" It worked because our income taxes and property taxes are designed to make us look for loopholes.

    Anyway, I doubt this initial draft will do much beyond the 18-member commission bickering, and it'll never get the 14 votes needed to make it to congress. As a skeptic, I wonder if this was done to feel-out the electorate, and test congressional alliances. Already I'm reading tons of opinions that this is a rout against the elderly or middle classes.


  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    As a wager, if Obama is able to get a strong version of this passed I will consider voting for him in the next election. Ideal? No. But loosely speaking, this is the kind of realistic pragmatism we need to survive as a functioning economy/state.
    While you're playing Mr. Reasonable, can you recognize that such pragmatism also needed to be applied to health care? The result may have fallen short, but primarily because of political horse trading.

  22. #22
    At the risk of this commission turning into a clusterfuck of sub-committees.......I'd really like to see SS and Medicare treated as their own entities. It doesn't make sense to fiddle with details of a fundamentally flawed and broken structure.

    *Return SS to its original intent --- Elder Welfare. It wasn't intended to be a blanket pension program, but everyone paying into it from payroll taxes came to think of it that way. Everyone expected it would be there "for them", even if they didn't really need it.

    *Begin means testing, right now. Millions of baby boomers are very wealthy. Many draw on defined employer pension benefits and have retiree health plans, in addition to Medicare subsidies. They take SS once they reach eligibility, not because they need it, but because they think they're owed. Mantra is, "I paid in for years, now I'm entitled to get my money back".

    *Seniors draw far more in monthly benefits than they paid in over their working lifetimes. But they're happy to lay the burden on their children or grandchildren.

    *Probably none of the old guys who served as senators or congress need SS, let alone Medicare.



    ANECDOTE ALERT

    The sweet lady in her late 80's across the street doesn't need to draw on SS or use Medicare, but she does. She has generous survivor pension benefits from two deceased husbands, a lovely home with no mortgage, a housekeeper and gardener, spends winters in her second home in Florida, buys a new Cadillac every other year, and can afford the Country Club membership fees. She's been taking SS for decades, and looks to be around for her 100th birthday. She supplements Medicare with a platinum private policy as an executive's widow. She needs nor wants for anything.

    Multiply her by a few million, and I can see how we've arrived at this place.

  23. #23
    Yes, let's rob the rich old ladies.

    /runz

    Edit: Yes, Lewk... I don't consider the middle class to be the median class. Also, than.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Yes, let's rob the rich old ladies.
    I'm serious, though. It's silly to lump all seniors in the same group. SS should be needs-based and not a blanket entitlement. But the senior sector seems willing to lump all youth into one group --- the ones who keep their checks coming --- whether they're needed or not.

    If everyone is expected to "sacrifice", then why put wealthy seniors ahead of young people who are just starting out?

  25. #25
    Well, it's logical. Taxes are progressive, so make SS at least somewhat progressive? Kind of unfair since the poor would not pay more, but would get more .... but then, progressive taxes are like this, too... a bit depressing.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Well, it's logical. Taxes are progressive, so make SS at least somewhat progressive? Kind of unfair since the poor would not pay more, but would get more .... but then, progressive taxes are like this, too... a bit depressing.
    Depends on your philosophy of a civilized society. The working poor wouldn't pay more....because they're already poor! Not sure you could say the poor "get more", when that means a janitor working 50 hrs/wk X 40 yrs is still "poor" at the end of a working life.

    Not everyone is meant for college or highly skilled jobs. Even if everyone had a college degree, we don't have enough jobs to employ them. But we'll always have low-skilled job openings, and poor people.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Yeah, easy for you to say, since you've paid off your mortgage.
    Not really, me paying off my mortgage is a matter of talking the talk and walking the walk. If I wouldn't have paid off my mortgage but simply would have put all the money I used for that in a savingsaccount I would have had a situation where I would pay 1.95% interest on my mortgage of which I would get around 0.70% back from the tax-service. Effectively I would pay around 1.25% interest on my mortgage while getting 2.3% on a regular savings account. You do the maths, but something tells me I could have made money on not paying off. I just deeply dislike the whole idea of tax deductability.
    Congratulations America

  28. #28
    Your whole tax structure is different than ours, Hazir. So are your retirement and health care systems. It's almost comparing apples with....broccoli.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Not really, me paying off my mortgage is a matter of talking the talk and walking the walk. If I wouldn't have paid off my mortgage but simply would have put all the money I used for that in a savingsaccount I would have had a situation where I would pay 1.95% interest on my mortgage of which I would get around 0.70% back from the tax-service. Effectively I would pay around 1.25% interest on my mortgage while getting 2.3% on a regular savings account. You do the maths, but something tells me I could have made money on not paying off. I just deeply dislike the whole idea of tax deductability.
    Are you sure you mean Regular Savings? Here regular savings have an APY of like 0.25 %. And that's if you have over $100,000 in the account.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  30. #30
    I think Hazir also had an adjustable rate mortgage that was allowed to float indefinitely. In the US (as far as I know) we're limited to the time our ARMS can float before we have to lock them in. 3-5-7 years, often with a balloon payment.

    The only sensible ARM I've ever had was a short term, time-limited construction loan. But I was required to convert that to a fixed 30 year mortgage once construction was complete. It was part of the contract.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •