Half or double the budget.

[David Young]

Department X is funded by the taxpayer.

For Department X to continue to exist, it needs to give clear answers to the following questions:

What could you still manage to do if your budget was halved?
What could you do if your budget was doubled?
What could you do if your budget was increased fivefold?
What could you do if your budget was increased tenfold?
For each of the above four questions, how long would it take for the results to be visible?

How fair would it be to apply this to any and every department or organisation which is taxpayer-funded?

 

[Kooky]

Sounds like the military is winning out, as usual in American politics.

After all, what could be more clear than "we would buy even more military hardware than we already do"?

 

[David Young]

But could the American military give a concrete answer to the question of what they could achieve with half their funding?
And could they even say what they could achieve with more hardware?

 

[Kooky]

But could the American military give a concrete answer to the question of what they could achieve with half their funding?
And could they even say what they could achieve with more hardware?

The US military has entire departments dedicated to writing out justifications why they need this or that new piece of hardware. Several think tanks, both private and semi-public, exist solely to figure out where the next military threat is coming from, and what shiny new toys the military would need to buy in order to meet that threat.

The scenario you're creating is far from an even playing field.

 

[David Young]

Could the department take on the half-budget challenge?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Department X is funded by the taxpayer.

For Department X to continue to exist, it needs to give clear answers to the following questions:

What could you still manage to do if your budget was halved?
What could you do if your budget was doubled?
What could you do if your budget was increased fivefold?
What could you do if your budget was increased tenfold?
For each of the above four questions, how long would it take for the results to be visible?

How fair would it be to apply this to any and every department or organisation which is taxpayer-funded?

Let's put it this way. Nothing should be this expensive.

Markups are now the clean term for rampant gouging at every opportunity.

 

[David Young]

When you say that nothing should be this expensive, do you mean even half a department's budget would be too expensive?

 

[HonestJoe]

How fair would it be to apply this to any and every department or organisation which is taxpayer-funded?

I don't think it is anything like as that simple and those questions are largely meaningless.

Governments tell departments what they're expected to do and the departments tell them how much it will cost. Then there is a negotiation, because the departments obviously want a generous budget and governments want to spend as little as possible, and will also prioritise different policy areas (theoretically based on importance to the country, in practice based on politics). When governments cut departmental budgets (or don't increase them in line with costs), they will similarly need to negotiate to agree which areas or services will be impacted and how.

Politics and propaganda (party, departmental and personal) will get in the way and complicate all of this of course, especially over how (if at all) it is all presented to the public.

 

[Suave]

Department X is funded by the taxpayer.

For Department X to continue to exist, it needs to give clear answers to the following questions:

What could you still manage to do if your budget was halved?
What could you do if your budget was doubled?
What could you do if your budget was increased fivefold?
What could you do if your budget was increased tenfold?
For each of the above four questions, how long would it take for the results to be visible?

How fair would it be to apply this to any and every department or organisation which is taxpayer-funded?

I'd like Medicare for all and a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each American resident, I'd like this done by keeping federal spending below six trillion dollars and tax revenue below five trillion in current dollars resulting in sub trillion dollar deficits. I'd like this implemented by year 2024 as follows:

1. Universal health insurance could affordably be implemented at tax-payer expense if there were also insured cost sharing of 40 percent co-insurance to the insured for covered Medicare expenses including prescription drug expenses. The government paying 60 percent of all U.S. residents' Medicare approved health care would cost tax-payers approximately 2.35 trillion dollars in the fiscal year 2024. Upgraded coverage insuring 80 percent of the insured's Medicare approved expenses and prescription drug costs could be purchased at cost by the insured at an annual premium price of ca. $2,000.

2. Universal health insurance in the U.S could be funded as follows: this being funded in large part by half the revenues collected from personal income taxes (est. $950 billion), in part by a ten percent value-added-tax ( V.A.T. exemptions for Medicare covered services/meds, insurance, food, residential rent, tuition, and banking services ) less less monthly rebates of $180 to each U.S. resident age 18 or over, this would net approximately $300 billion of revenue in the year 2024; Universal health care also being funded in part by an increase in the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 25 percent resulting in corporations paying U.S. corporate income taxes of nearly $450 billion in 2024,, and also Universal health insurance being funded in small part by alcohol, cannabis and tobacco excise taxes generating ca. $70 billion of funding towards U.S. Universal Health insurance in year 2024. Medicare payroll taxes would fund ca. $330 billions towards Medicare-for-all in the year 2024.

3. Social security spending of $1.3 trillion in 2024 would be funded in large part by the status-quo system of payroll taxes, this would generate $1.1 trillion during 2024. This $200 billion annual shortfall of funding to social security by payroll taxes would be covered by the withdrawal of excess funds in the social security trust fund.

4. U.S. military and veteran support spending of a $950 billion in 2024 could then be funded with nearly half the revenue from the following simplified income tax system, just a few income tax brackets beginning in year 2024, zero percent on the initial $20,000 of personal individual annual income, 18 percent on $20,001 to $60,000 of personal individual annual income, 29.8 percent on individual personal annual earnings in excess of $60,000., and a 3 percent surcharge tax on an wealthy individual's earned income per year in excess of $5,000,000. Capital gains taxed at same rate as ordinary income. No tax credits, save for a refundable $2,000 child tax credit as well as a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each adult American legal resident. In 2024, this would result in total personal federal income taxes amounting to an estimated $1.9 trillion source of annual federal revenue..

5.. The imposition of financial transaction taxes ( remittance taxes and stock/bond trade taxes) generating ca. $200 billion, the implementation of tariffs resulting in ca. $100 billion of revenue in 2024 and federal estate taxes generating an additional ca. $35 billion in revenue would mostly fund spending for the following federal agencies:: ( est. $63 billion ) spending on the Department of Agriculture, ( est. $46 billion) to the State Department, ( est. $42 billion ) towards Housing and Urban Development, ( est. $33 billion ), by the Department of Energy, ( est. $30 billion ) to the Department of Justice, ( est. $26 billion) for N.A.S.A., ( est. 24 billion ) into the Department of Treasury, (est. $23 billion ) towards the Department of Interior, ( est. $14 billion ) by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, ( est. $10 billion ) for the Department of Commerce, ( est. $10 billion ) by the Department of Labor, ( est. $9 billion ) for the Environmental Protection Agency, and ( est. $5 billion ) for the Food and Drug Administration.

6. The implementation of excise taxes on railways, fuel, airports and aviation collectively adding up to $160 billion, would fund the Department of Transportation and Homeland Security.

7. Approved federal spending in 2024 at an estimated $2.35 trillion for universal health care ( U.H.I. ) $1.3 trillion for Social Security, ( no change from status-quo on S.S. retirement benefits ), an estimated 950 billion dollars towards the military and veteran services or veteran benefits, $510 billion on debt interest payments, ( est. $63 billion ) spending on the Department of Agriculture, ( est. $46 billion) to the State Department, ( est. $42 billion ) towards Housing and Urban Development, ( est. $33 billion ), by the Department of Energy, ( est. $30 billion ) to the Department of Justice, ( est. $26 billion) for N.A.S.A., ( est. $24 billion ) into the Department of Treasury, (est. $23 billion ) towards the Department of Interior, ( est. $14 billion ) by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, ( est. $10 billion ) for the Department of Commerce, ( est. $10 billion ) by the Department of Labor, ( est. $9 billion ) for the Environmental Protection Agency, and ( est. $5 billion ) for the Food and Drug Administration. ( est. $50 billion) for the Department of Homeland Security, ( est. $110 billion) for the Department of Transportation; the above proposed federal spending resulting in total federal annual spending to be ca. $5.425 trillion..

8. The above approved fiscal year 2024 federal spending being at $5.605 trillion and $4.645 trillion of tax revenue would result in a federal deficit of ca. just only $960 billion for Fiscal Year 2024!

 

[David Young]

And your answer to the original question?