Okays, time for my turn. Also, not being a lawyer myself, there is one thing I want to do that may just be flat out Unconstitutional. One of the things I will list a lot is 'anyone who ever defrauds X can never receive it themselves', and I'd like to make that retroactive, but I'm pretty sure that would be considered Ex Post Facto-ing the penalty on the fraud laws. However, in all cases where an individual is prevented from accessing a specific department due to fraud, like SS or medicare, they must still pay taxes for it even if they will never be able to use it.
First, we cut 2 slices from the military. How do we do this? Well, let's do what I occasionally hear said and get rid of no-bid contracts. That ought to save a percentage point or two. We should also reduce our presence in the Middle East- and I mean our presence OUTSIDE the wars that should have ended long ago. And of course, ending those two wars. I'm sure that the USA alone doesn't necessarily need to spend over 300 billion dollars more on military than China, Russia, the UK, France, and Japan combined. Cutting 28% will still allow it to still outspend all the listed countries. We can also deal with some of the fraud in the Middle Eastern contractors that I still hear about from time to time, to the tune of a few tens of billions of dollars total since 2002, which is about 2-3 billion a year.
Next up, health/medicaid. I would leave this alone. Why would I leave this alone? Well, given my position of ultimate power, I'd try OTHER things to help bring the cost of healthcare down, but that's for another thread.
Next up, Medicare and Social Security. One chop from each. How? Well, first off, deal more with fraud. Instead of fines and/or jail time, make it fines and jail time. Chop off the /or. Also, increase the minimum and maximum amount of fines. Patients who are complicit in the defrauding also become completely ineligible for the rest of their lives. Of course, that won't cover a whole 'slice' even if 100% of all the fraud is found. So I would also phase up the eligibility age for it to 72 over the next ten years. Every year that passes is 6 months older you have to be for it to kick in. So in 2013, you'd need to be 66.5 years, in 2014 67 years, and so on. But that isn't right now, so the rest will just have to come off. My math might be off on the scaling of exact ages for full benefits.
Of course, that will take time and will also not do a full slice from social security. To start with, we're going to have it so that the medicare eligibility age is the same as the social security age. Furthermore, any Social Security fraud fines will be made mandatory and increased. Next, anyone who is 'objectively rich' won't be eligible. OF COURSE THERE WILL BE HUGE DEALS OVER WHAT 'OBJECTIVELY RICH' IS! So, I will provide a definition:
If they receive sufficient total income from any source (including capital gains, lottery winnings, continuing to work) that, when Social Security income is added in they would be in the highest non-married-couple-filing-separately tax bracket currently available in 2012, they do not qualify. If the income is temporary, then the disqualification is also temporary.
Let me give an example. Mr and Mrs Smith are both 75 years old. They have a pension from when Mr Smith worked that pays him 100k$/year, and social security, and no other income. The top tax bracket, IIRC, is about 385k$, so they would continue to receive it. However, if Mrs Smith buys a lotto ticket and wins a 500,000$ lump sum after taxes, they cannot receive Social Security for 1 year, from when they claim their prize, because that would put their total income above the level of the top income tax bracket. Similarly, if instead of a pension, Mr Smith had some financial assets that paid him 400k$/year in capital gains, they would also not qualify for social security. If Mr. and Mrs. Smith are both 68, and still working full time each in a job that pays them a total of over 400$k/year, they would similarly not be eligible.
Is that the perfect, one size fits all distinction for 'too rich for social security'? NO, OF COURSE NOT, but it has to start somewhere. Do I think this, in addition to the previous cuts I mentioned about ages and fraud will take care of a full 100 billion in social security? Nope, I don't think that either. So what else will I do?
Cut the divorced spouse possibility if they have been divorced longer than they were married. (AFAIK, you must have been married for 10+ years, then divorced to claim it. This is an additional restriction. If Mr. and Mrs. Smith were married from age 20 to age 40, then divorced, 40-66 is longer than 20-40, so Mrs. Smith could not claim benefits form Mr Smith, nor could Mr Smith claim benefits from Mrs. Smith.) In addition, the 'defrauding Medicare means you can never get it yourself' also extends to 'if you defraud SS, you can never get it yourself', which includes stealing SSNs as well as fraud in getting benefits or the amount of benefits.
Any further amount the above listed changes don't cover will just be straight up cut almost across the board.
Veteran's Benefits will not be touched.
Interest of the debt also will not be touched.
Income security will take a slice. Food stamps and welfare will also start with the whole 'if you defraud it once, you may never be on it again' approach. I'd restrict the items they can be spent on to actual food, not alcohol/cigarettes/pot (in some states)/et cetera. I'd also restrict what can be bought with them, both food stamps and welfare. Yes, amounts would take an actual cut here.
'Everything else' would also take a cut. What would I cut from 'everything else'? Let's start with corporate subsidies. TSA will also take a cut until they can figure out how to get their act together and show they're worthy of the spending, as well as cooperating with local police about baggage thefts. I personally would also stop minting new pennies, and getting ready to start phasing them out. I'd also get rid of contract prisons. If prison is being handled by a private company, it means they have a vested profit interest in getting people jailed, and they are making a profit off the the federal government jailing people, neither of which are acceptable to me personally.
After that, I'd also raise taxes. Assuming the Bush tax cuts became permanent, I'd start by creating the following marginal tax brackets (but the numbers in half for married couples filing separately):
42%: 1,000,001
49%: 5,000,001
56%: 25,000,001
63%: 125,000,001
70%: 525,000,001
I would also change capital gains and other investment income so that they are taxed at the same rates and in the same brackets as income tax, but separately. So if I earn 100k in income and 1 million in capital gains, I pay the appropriate amount on the income tax in the up to 28% brackets, and then the appropriate up to 35% brackets for the capital gains separately, and nothing would be taxed at 42%.
I would eliminate the loopholes that keep so many large companies in the US paying zero taxes (as I've already gotten rid of the corporate welfare earlier).
I would up the % of the estate tax, but I would completely exempt undeveloped/farmland, historical artifacts, et cetera. So, basically, it would only apply to cash, stocks, bonds,, non-farm/ranch buildings (like a mansion, but not a stable)... I hope I'm getting the idea across better. Basically, it would only apply to money and financial constructs.
I would rule that in addition to court imposed fines and all that jazz, any positive gross income a company makes by illegal action by the part of its executives or board of directors or whatnot is added on to the fine as a federal tax (assuming it is an interstate entity or ran afoul of a federal agency), with no upper limit. Made money by manipulating credit ratings? Saved money by skimping on the EPA regulations? All of the gross income from that could also get added to your fine as a federal tax.
I'd take Accelerated Depreciation credit and change it to be 5 year steps instead of all at once. For instance, if Delta buys a plane, right now they can get al the depreciation tax credit up front. My way, they'd subtract 5 years, then in 2017, they could get another 5 years, and so on. If the machinery is sold, a % of the depreciation credit must be repaid based on how long is was. So if Delta bought the plane today, and sold it in exactly 30 months to the day, they'd have to pay back half the depreciation credit upon sale.
I'd change the Deferral of Tax Income from Controlled Foreign Corporations or whatever they call it to allow companies to not pay the US incomes taxes 'for five years' or until they move the profits back to the US, instead of 'indefinitely'.
While I don't see it actually happening, I'd also love to make a federal law that CEOs and boards of directors legally cannot get bonuses if their company is in debt from a previous bankruptcy and it hasn't been paid off yet, if the company has products sold in more than one state (you know, interstate commerce clause and all that jazz).
Metherion
Edit: The Social Security tax will not have a maximum taxable earning, instead of 110k$. Payouts will also scale up to 200k annually instead of 110k$. Bonuses will be included in the amount used to calculate the SS tax, but above 200k$/year will not be added in the amount paid out.
