DOGE and the FAA

[Warmi]

Just to keep a little focus on the scope of the problem, this is the trend of non- military, non-postal employees of the federal government. The blips are census years where temporary employment drove up numbers. Again, I fail to see the burgeoning crisis that requires drastic action. Of course, many Federal functions have been farmed out under contract to private enterprise. View attachment 135471

Anybody else remember trying to get an answer out of the IRS during Covid?

I think what they are trying to solve is the ever growing per capita spending on the federal level. Unless this growth is somehow arrested, at some point we will, as Thatcher used to put , “run out of other people’s money” …

 

[StraightnLevel]

I feel like we should all be able to participate in some sort of a system where we can hire some people to figure that out while representing our interests and holding them accountable every few years if they aren't doing their jobs properly.

Look at the deficit. They haven't been doing their job properly for a couple of decades now, and

I propose we start by making them notice (return their tax burden to the level of the 40's - 70's) and that will give us a lot of breathing room to figure out the rest. And, it's only 1%, right?

The actual tax burden of the top 1% was LOWER in that time period than it is today. Statutory earned income rates do not correlate to actual effective rates. Are you aware, for example, that the top long-term capital gains rate in the mid-50s was an eye-watering 26%? Also, are you aware that everyone earning more than $250K today is paying an additional 3.8% either in the Obamacare surtax or NIIT? The net top marginal rate including those surtaxes for earned income is 40.8%; starting January 1, 2026 it will be 43.4%. The actual effective rate paid by the top 1% has only been higher than 45% in one single year in our history - 1945, when we were paying for WWII.

Fiscal year '22 showed the federal government's revenue as % GDP as one of the highest in our history - within 1% of the peaks set in 1944, 1945, and 1997.

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I think what they are trying to solve is the ever growing per capita spending on the federal level. Unless this growth is somehow arrested, at some point we will, as Thatcher used to put , “run out of other people’s money” …

That may be, but then how about proposing sensible reforms to the actual drivers of the increases. That ain't federal employees.

 

[172andyou]

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

We also have a distribution problem. My proposal was to let the 1% pay more since they have benefited more.

 

[172andyou]

Look at the deficit. They haven't been doing their job properly for a couple of decades now, and

Yes, it was gallows humor. Certain people get really, really offended if you even pause a moment after an assertion of "greatest country on earth", but you correctly point out that our system of government is quite broken.

The actual tax burden of the top 1% was LOWER in that time period than it is today.

These are the effective rates. The actual burden.

 

[wanttaja]

By definition , if a company sells for X then it is not undervalued but it is worth exactly X- at least at the moment.
There is no intrinsic value to any goods or services , they are always only worth as much as somebody is willing to pay for it.

Very true... just about the definition of capitalism.

The question is whether such action is good for society as a whole. The purchasers/destroyers of the company may make a tidy profit, but if hundreds of workers end up having to collect unemployment and welfare, is that the best result for the nation?

Hence my concern about whether long-term effects will be considered; whether headlines in July 2026 will be the only thing in their minds. It's like the attitude in the Boeing corporate offices for the past 25 years...get the stock price up by any means necessary, so their retirement will be cozier. Too bad if it bites after they retire....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Barrett50]

A nation cannot tax itself to prosperity. We don't have a taxation problem in the US, and even if we did, the tinkering with tax rates, and distribution is a different discussion altogether. Taxation and how it's collected can be discussed in another forum(if the mods say so), this forum thread is for cutting SPENDING. The new DOGE is not focused on anything to do with tax rates, dist and collection but on how to solve the almost intractable issue with wasteful spending. I consider this far more important than a subject of taxation.

 

[Half Fast]

The question that needs to be asked is which of these functions are actually necessary.

Every time we have a “government shutdown,” they actually only shut down those services deemed “non-essential.”

So why are we going into debt to spend a fortune on non-essentials?

There’s your starting point.

 

[172andyou]

By definition , if a company sells for X then it is not undervalued but it is worth exactly X- at least at the moment.
There is no intrinsic value to any goods or services , they are always only worth as much as somebody is willing to pay for it.

So how do people with no money fit into this? How do they get housing, or water, or medicine, or heat, or transportation? Or is this only useful for optional items like super yachts?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Every time we have a “government shutdown,” they actually only shut down those services deemed “non-essential.”

So why are we going into debt to spend a fortune on non-essentials?

There’s your starting point.

Keep in mind that during the Covid stuff, a large portion of the U.S. population was deemed non-essential.

Not that I’m disagreeing with trimming down government substantially, mind you.

 

[Barrett50]

So how do people with no money fit into this? How do they get housing, or water, or medicine, or heat, or transportation? Or is this only useful for optional items like super yachts?

You are determined to get this thread shut down I see. Can you related your concern back to wasteful govt spending cuts?

Please?

 

[wanttaja]

Is this the BEST approach? I would like to think that it is not. Trouble is, nothing else has worked because the system works very diligently to protect itself. Can anyone name a single federal program that has ever been removed after its usefulness has waned? One?

Whole lot of depression-era stuff from the '30s. Civilian Conservation Corps, for one. Civil Works Administration, Works Progress Administration, Federal Art Project, etc. All gone in the '40s.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Barrett50]

Whole lot of depression-era stuff from the '30s. Civilian Conservation Corps, for one. Civil Works Administration, Works Progress Administration, Federal Art Project, etc. All gone in the '40s.

Ron Wanttaja

History reminded me that we had a war to support, and then fight. Many of those labor positions converted within 12 months to soldiers, sailors, Marines, etc. Plus the labor to build war materiel. They didn't really 'go away' so much as changed uniform.

 

[Half Fast]

History reminded me that we had a war to support, and then fight. Many of those labor positions converted within 12 months to soldiers, sailors, Marines, etc. Plus the labor to build war materiel. They didn't really 'go away' so much as changed uniform.

If you’re suggesting we need another war, just be patient.....

 

[172andyou]

You are determined to get this thread shut down I see. Can you related your concern back to wasteful govt spending cuts?

Please?

You really don't get it? That "wasteful" is not easy to define? That which 1% you choose to look at is going to dramatically change that definition? That the government often fills the gaps when capitalist (or libertarian, in warmi's example) approaches fail to provide for those in need? That filling those gaps is viewed as waste by some tax payers and essential services by those not dying as a result of receiving them?

 

[StraightnLevel]

We also have a distribution problem. My proposal was to let the 1% pay more since they have benefited more.

It's easy to just say "somebody else should pay more".

Unless you are standing up to pay more yourself, you are part of the problem.

 

[172andyou]

If you’re suggesting we need another war, just be patient.....

#truth

 

[172andyou]

It's easy to just say "somebody else should pay more".

Unless you are standing up to pay more yourself, you are part of the problem.

Incorrect. There is nothing that requires me to propose that poor people pay more to somehow make rich people paying more seem equitable. That would always be true. But it's particularly true given that poor people have paid more for the past few decades while, at the same time, rich people have paid less.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I think what they are trying to solve is the ever growing per capita spending on the federal level. Unless this growth is somehow arrested, at some point we will, as Thatcher used to put , “run out of other people’s money” …

To your graph, it costs money to have nice things. The PVC chairs and ice chest that I used for my family room chairs and coffee table in my small apartment have been replaced by nice couches and wood table in my big house with acres and multi car garage (and airplane and other shiz). We can cut govt money and have less govt stuff. So let’s agree to have less stuff first. Sure, cut waste too, but less stuff is the bigger gain.

 

[MauleSkinner]

You really don't get it? That "wasteful" is not easy to define? That which 1% you choose to look at is going to dramatically change that definition? That the government often fills the gaps when capitalist (or libertarian, in warmi's example) approaches fail to provide for those in need? That filling those gaps is viewed as waste by some tax payers and essential services by those not dying as a result of receiving them?

Unfortunately “in need” is defined by government in such a way that it often doesn’t agree with anyone else’s definition of “in need”.

 

[172andyou]

Unfortunately “in need” is defined by government in such a way that it often doesn’t agree with anyone else’s definition of “in need”.

Absolutely. All depends on perspective. From the perspective of the poorest 1%, going to bed hungry and having kids that are diminished because their brains can't develop completely on a terrible diet seems like a pretty bad deal. From the perspective of the richest 1%, having to go without the new yacht they need because they have to pay more taxes probably seems like a pretty bad deal.

 

[Barrett50]

You really don't get it? That "wasteful" is not easy to define? That which 1% you choose to look at is going to dramatically change that definition? That the government often fills the gaps when capitalist (or libertarian, in warmi's example) approaches fail to provide for those in need? That filling those gaps is viewed as waste by some tax payers and essential services by those not dying as a result of receiving them?

I get that you have a different ax to grind. Stay on the course, and open your own thread about 'those in need'. I can define $10B right now in a matter of minutes that is wasteful spending under the auspices of the exec office that can and should go away permanently. And, $10B is only a small start. If I work at it, I could find $50B without breaking a sweat.

 

[MauleSkinner]

going to bed hungry and having kids that are diminished because their brains can't develop completely on a terrible diet seems like a pretty bad deal.

The government often disagrees with that.

 

[Barrett50]

If you’re suggesting we need another war, just be patient.....

I don't know where you get that 'suggestion'. I was and even stated I'm talking about history. Ron expressed that many govt jobs 'went away'. Well, in about 1946, yes they did, after WWII. I hope this clears up any confusion regarding a 'suggestion' (that was never referenced).

 

[wanttaja]

History reminded me that we had a war to support, and then fight. Many of those labor positions converted within 12 months to soldiers, sailors, Marines, etc. Plus the labor to build war materiel. They didn't really 'go away' so much as changed uniform.

Certainly true. But the *Agencies* involved were dissolved...those specific Federal programs were dismantled, the bureaucracy broken up. Which was germane to the original question.

I must point, too, out that the legacy of those programs remain. Many of the facilities of our national parks were built by the CCC, and many areas still have art projects produced by the Federal Art Project.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Every time we have a “government shutdown,” they actually only shut down those services deemed “non-essential.”

So why are we going into debt to spend a fortune on non-essentials?

There’s your starting point.

You pose an interesting question. The following is a list of "non-exsential" services most affected by the last shutdown, and though not all services came to a complete halt, they were severely curtailed with only 30% of workforce. Which do you thing we could do away with on a permanent basis?

• Social Security and Medicare: Checks are sent out, but benefit verification as well as card issuance ceased.

• Environmental and Food Inspection. EPA) inspections that include hazardous waste, drinking water, and chemical facilities, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspections.

• National Parks: kept open but no services or trash collection

• Air Travel: air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents work, but without janitorial and clerical support.

• Health and Human Services:. (NIH) would be prevented from admitting new patients or processing grant applications. States would be forced to front the money for formula grant programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, sometimes described as “cash welfare”).

• Internal Revenue Service (IRS): As a result of funds provided in the Inflation Reduction Act, essential IRS operations would continue, and roughly one-third of its nearly 90,000 employees would be exempt from furlough, but without janitorial or clerical support.

• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):Though funding for the SNAP program is mandatory, the ability to send out “food stamp” benefits could be affected since continuing resolutions have generally only authorized the Agriculture Department (USDA) to send out benefits for 30 days after a shutdown.

So these are the programs that would be, and no doubt are, the targets.

 

[Warmi]

So how do people with no money fit into this? How do they get housing, or water, or medicine, or heat, or transportation? Or is this only useful for optional items like super yachts?

Simple, it either you who pays for it or somebody else covers your costs ( or is forced to do so ) - there are no other alternatives but frankly this has nothing to do with the value of things … a plane is worth only as much as somebody is willing to pay for it and if I am unwilling to sell it for X , then I am the one to whom the plane is worth more than X.

 

[172andyou]

I get that you have a different ax to grind. Stay on the course, and open your own thread about 'those in need'. I can define $10B right now in a matter of minutes that is wasteful spending under the auspices of the exec office that can and should go away permanently. And, $10B is only a small start. If I work at it, I could find $50B without breaking a sweat.

Ax to grind? We're talking about finding "$50B without breaking a sweat". I mean, ok? I guess? The rounding errors (50B is .7% of the federal budget) are probably pretty easy. Once you get into real money, "needs" are super important to understand in order to make good decisions. And, it's hard. We have, at least, 50 years of efforts to contain waste and still no ones happy. Largely because one persons waste is another persons housing.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Yes, it was gallows humor. Certain people get really, really offended if you even pause a moment after an assertion of "greatest country on earth", but you correctly point out that our system of government is quite broken.

These are the effective rates. The actual burden.

View attachment 135477

...and here is the share of taxes paid by the top 1% and bottom half over time:


Your argument does not hold water.

In fact, the top 1% are the only people in the US who pay anything close to a "fair share" of taxes under today's policy.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Whole lot of depression-era stuff from the '30s. Civilian Conservation Corps, for one. Civil Works Administration, Works Progress Administration, Federal Art Project, etc. All gone in the '40s.

Ron Wanttaja

OK, fair enough. So, anything that's been cut in any of our lifetimes?

 

[StraightnLevel]

Incorrect. There is nothing that requires me to propose that poor people pay more to somehow make rich people paying more seem equitable. That would always be true. But it's particularly true given that poor people have paid more for the past few decades while, at the same time, rich people have paid less.

Patently false, as shown by the chart I posted just above.

I'll speak up and state that I am in the top 1%, and I pay that 40.8% marginal rate in my income. How much do you pay?

Somehow, I'm guessing that the majority of people complaining about tax rates being too low aren't really paying very much. Prove me wrong.

 

[Half Fast]

Which do you thing we could do away with on a permanent basis?

Let's start with all that on a temporary basis and see just how long we can go without, then selectively add back juuuuuust barely enough to keep going where we find it's absolutely necessary. And let's look for alternative solutions along the way.

 

[StraightnLevel]

• Internal Revenue Service (IRS): As a result of funds provided in the Inflation Reduction Act, essential IRS operations would continue, and roughly one-third of its nearly 90,000 employees would be exempt from furlough, but without janitorial or clerical support.

The IRS would be easy to massively curtail. Simplify the tax code. Do away with ALL of the various targeted exemptions and deductions, then adjust all of the tax rate brackets by an equal percentage to maintain level revenue.

Some would pay more, some would pay less. Overall, we'd be better off with a more equitable tax structure and less need for audits and complex filing structures.

OK, it would put a few accountants out of work. I'm guessing that they could find other positions doing cost accounting or other value-add functions.

Unfortunately, DOGE cannot accomplish this, as it would have to be done by Congress.

 

[StraightnLevel]

From the perspective of the richest 1%, having to go without the new yacht they need because they have to pay more taxes probably seems like a pretty bad deal.

I think that you are completely out of touch with economic reality.

Most high income earners aren't buying yachts. They are investing in businesses, which in turn results in capital spending and employment. You should be careful what you wish for, because it would have negative consequences that you don't seem to be taking into account.

 

[Baked Potato]

Patently false, as shown by the chart I posted just above.

I'll speak up and state that I am in the top 1%, and I pay that 40.8% marginal rate in my income. How much do you pay?

Somehow, I'm guessing that the majority of people complaining about tax rates being too low aren't really paying very much. Prove me wrong.

Unless I'm wrong, isn't the red line in that chart showing the percent of all taxes paid by the 1% across all taxes collected from everyone, and not simply the income tax rate paid by the 1%?
(The highest income tax bracket rate is not 40% anyway - it's 37%. And even then, for 2024, you're only paying that rate on income after the first $600,000 or $730,000, depending on your marriage status)
That changes the meaning of the chart if you look at how much total wealth is held by that subset of taxpayers and how it's increased over time as compared to the other 99%.

 

[172andyou]

...and here is the share of taxes paid by the top 1% and bottom half over time:

View attachment 135482
Your argument does not hold water.

In fact, the top 1% are the only people in the US who pay anything close to a "fair share" of taxes under today's policy.

The cool part is that both of us seem to be right.

 

[172andyou]

Patently false, as shown by the chart I posted just above.

I'll speak up and state that I am in the top 1%, and I pay that 40.8% marginal rate in my income. How much do you pay?

Somehow, I'm guessing that the majority of people complaining about tax rates being too low aren't really paying very much. Prove me wrong.

I'm not going to defend a position that I think is nonsense. And, to be clear, I think it's total nonsense to say that anyone calling for tax increases must also be demanding them for themselves. Nor am I interested in making it about me, or you. That's not a healthy way to try and figure out an answer.

You know that if you are part of the 1% and paying 40% income taxes that you're an outlier, right? Most 1%'s manage to take money in forms other than salary to allow themselves tax benefits. It's especially surprising since the highest current bracket is 37%. I'm not even sure how you can get to 40.8.

 

[TCABM]

Just to keep a little focus on the scope of the problem, this is the trend of non- military, non-postal employees of the federal government. The blips are census years where temporary employment drove up numbers. Again, I fail to see the burgeoning crisis that requires drastic action. Of course, many Federal functions have been farmed out under contract to private enterprise. View attachment 135471

Anybody else remember trying to get an answer out of the IRS during Covid?

Labor costs are a pittance of federal government spending. The Dept of Health and Human Services is the ninth largest federal employer with ~80,000 employees. HHS is the largest spender of tax dollars; one in four tax dollars is spent by HHS. HHS also the largest grant-making federal agency. Their grant funds are more than all other agencies combined.

 

[172andyou]

I think that you are completely out of touch with economic reality.

Most high income earners aren't buying yachts. They are investing in businesses, which in turn results in capital spending and employment. You should be careful what you wish for, because it would have negative consequences that you don't seem to be taking into account.

The top 1% are currently making a minimum of about 800K per year. Whether they spend it on yachts or not, is up to them. In either case, they aren't hurting.

 

[Barrett50]

Ax to grind? We're talking about finding "$50B without breaking a sweat". I mean, ok? I guess? The rounding errors (50B is .7% of the federal budget) are probably pretty easy. Once you get into real money, "needs" are super important to understand in order to make good decisions. And, it's hard. We have, at least, 50 years of efforts to contain waste and still no ones happy. Largely because one persons waste is another persons housing.

So, is $50B in waste not worth eliminating? What is your threshold for wasteful spending by a govt? My threshold is zero. None, nada, nyet wasteful spending of my hard earned tax dollars. You - I can see disagree with that level. No we don't have any 50 years of effort to contain waste. In fact - we have just the opposite. We have 50 years of idiotic profligate expansion of govt at taxpayer expense. No one in 50 years has made even a token effort to contain(it's not even contained) waste. Pretty much every dept in govt has gone waste spending crazy. EPA spending $4.5 mil for weapons, and bullets in 2022? Who did they shoot with all that weaponry and ammo? Paper targets? Well, congrats to them.