# Obama freezes federal worker pay for 2 years **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301 "2010-11-29T17:43:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/61 "2010-11-29T22:22:18Z")
> [@2ply](#): > > How will it come back to haunt him? People who work in the private sector and have seen their own pay level frozen or even reduced aren’t going to be outraged that public sector workers are taking a much smaller hit than private sector workers. As one who experienced the wage/price freezes of the early 70s, I don’t care to revisit that era. Just for a point of reference, in those days an entry level drafting job started out at less than $2.00/hr. Combine that with the lines for gasoline…oh yea, those were fun times… I can’t recall if those freezes grew from the public sector into the private, or if they were a blanket order, or if it was all a smoke screen used by employers to keep wages low. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/62 "2010-11-29T22:42:43Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I agree. And I think eliminating jobs would draw criticism from the right and left, so I don’t see it helping him with independents. You may be right but I think, in the long term, it would be viewed favorably by the right and right-leaning independents. In the end it depends on whether people see it as the government firing people or the government reducing the size of government. > [@Marley23](#): > > If it can happen, why are you saying it does not happen? Because, under the current tax structure, people can choose other forms of compensation that may be taxed at a lower rate, look for tax shelters or make tax exempt investments in order to avoid thei increased rates. > [@Marley23](#): > > It’s not semantics. You asked how a tax increase would have helped the economy, and I was pointing out that there wouldn’t have been a tax increase. The tax cuts would not have existed. That’s not semantics. I see what you are saying. My apologies. The question, then, is what would an unchanged tax rate have done for the economy. > [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t think that’s an assumption. The government has spent more money than it took in, so there is a deficit. If it takes in more revenue, the deficit is smaller. There are two different points here. One is that the government spends more than it takes in. The other is the assumption is that the government would take in more revenue due to a tax increase. Tax revenues have consistently been around 19% of GDP regardless of tax rate since WWII. Tax cuts are generally, but not always, associated with an increase in growth of GDP > [@Marley23](#): > > I see how it may, yes. In this case don’t see how it does. The very people responsible for capital formation and job creation will have an incentive to find shelters for their money as opposed to putting their capital to work in pro-growth investments. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/63 "2010-11-29T22:55:34Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > To me, the more important point to that graph is that tax revenue has remained remarkably consistent, regardless of changes to the tax code. Over the years there have been increases and decreases in just about every form of tax, yet revenue doesn’t seem to change much. And yet, this is not the case for other countries ([List of countries by tax revenue - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP) - note this cite includes state and local taxes). Do you think that there is something unique about American that puts some sort of ceiling on the amount of tax revenue available? > [@](#): > > The main conclusion to draw from that is that raising tax rates is not likely to get you to a balanced budget - not when you’d have to raise more than 5% of GDP to do it. There’s simply no precedent in American tax history for a change in revenue like that. Except we are currently at ~15% or GDP as federal tax revenue (according to the Heritage cite). When we were running surpluses it was ~20%. Is it your claim that those higher rates are just not sustainable? That they somehow lead directly to economic collapse? (I would counter that the lower rates of the Bush era didn’t exactly prevent the last recession). Personally I think the current situation calls for about a 50/50 split on tax increases and spending cuts. I’d like to see the upper bracket rolled back, an even higher bracket added (say, 1 million in AGI and higher), and a $1 increase in the federal gas tax. I would also support a more dramatic overhaul if such a thing were feasible, and sufficiently progressive - something like the no-exemptions, no-deduction, two or three bracket, large refundable credit plans might work better, especially from an avoidance perspective. On the spending side, I’d look at some structural changes to SS (in particular the growth factors), and perhaps a one-year increase in the retirement age. Add a flat cut to DoD expenses. Medicare is the big problem, of course, and can only be solved by moving to a more sane health-care system. Somewhat random aside - does anybody have a number for what the estate tax roll-back (and current-year elimination) has cost in terms of federal revenue? ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/64 "2010-11-29T23:19:02Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > This will gain no sugar for Obama from Republicans. > It does however, make him look weak. > He needs to stop pandering, and get ready to veto the GOP’s irresponsible tax cut initiatives. He’s the Chief Executive of an entity drowning in red ink. He’ll get all the credit he deserves if this proves to be anything more than talk. However, in the minds of many, it probably won’t offset the union giveaways of the last two years. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/65 "2010-11-29T23:22:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It’s your chart, and you’re already dissembling that it means anything? Boy, your argument popped like a balloon. You really have no idea what you are talking about. Nothing exists in a vacuum and to ignore the economic condition of the times is, well, ignorant. The bigger point is that, regardless of tax rates or economic conditions, tax revenue remains at about 19% of GDP. > [@Ravenman](#): > > No, I think I understand the point of the chart. It’s to make lousy economic arguments between unrelated issues and display them on deceptive eye-charts to make the uninformed observer think that tax policy is irrelevant to economic growth, without actually having to show that the economy fared better during those times when taxes on the very wealthy were higher. The chart has nothing to do with economic growth. It has everything to do with the fact that tax increases simply do not result in increased revenue. Tax cuts generally result in a growth in GDP and, since tax revenue is linked to GDP, tax revenue tends to increase with a tax cut. Tax policy **is** relevant to economic growth…just not in the way you seem to think it is. Just because a tax rate on the very wealthy is higher does not mean that the very wealthy pay that tax rate. Are you familiar with tax avoidance techniques? > [@Ravenman](#): > > No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the people who work at the think-tank are either stupid or lying when they imply that the top marginal rate is any kind of useful indicator of overall tax policy. It seems like you want to have it both ways. You claim increasing taxes on the rich will bring in more revenue but then dismiss the notion that this increase would even be noticeable. > [@Ravenman](#): > > But if that is what you are saying, what’s the harm in raising the top rate to 39%? It won’t make any difference to anyone, according to your flawed chart. What is the benefit…other than sticking it to the rich. No increase in revenue and a damper on the economy…that’s a great plan! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/66 "2010-11-29T23:24:28Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > And yet, this is not the case for other countries ([List of countries by tax revenue - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP) - note this cite includes state and local taxes). Do you think that there is something unique about American that puts some sort of ceiling on the amount of tax revenue available? Yes. America does not have a VAT. America is a federation of states which set their own tax policy. The dollar is the world currency. There are many differences between America and other countries. I think the big difference is the lack of a VAT. Trying to raise revenue through marginal rate increases is difficult, because the higher rate brackets represent a smaller population, and money is fungible. Raising marginal rates at the top just increases tax avoidance and non-productive behavior. A VAT is a broad-based tax that everyone pays. The revenue from a VAT is large and stable. That’s why a lot of tax experts agree that if you really need to raise revenue to cover the deficit, a VAT is the only way to go. Chasing marginal rates just isn’t going to get you there. If a VAT is politically impossible, then your only other option for balancing the budget is going to be to cut spending. > [@](#): > > Except we are currently at ~15% or GDP as federal tax revenue (according to the Heritage cite). When we were running surpluses it was ~20%. Is it your claim that those higher rates are just not sustainable? That they somehow lead directly to economic collapse? (I would counter that the lower rates of the Bush era didn’t exactly prevent the last recession). I believe federal government spending is now close to 24-25% of GDP. So if revenue returned to its historic norm of 19%, you’d still have a 5-6% of GDP deficit. I think you can make a case that the last decade was a result of the Bush Administration engaging in the same kind of Keynesian pump priming the Obama administration is engaged in, and the result was that a sharper, deeper recession in 2001 was replaced with years of low growth and low job creation. But then reality asserted itself and the recession hit anyway. > [@](#): > > Personally I think the current situation calls for about a 50/50 split on tax increases and spending cuts. I’d like to see the upper bracket rolled back, an even higher bracket added (say, 1 million in AGI and higher), and a $1 increase in the federal gas tax. As soon as you go after people with income of $1 million or more the tax base starts to get really thin. I posted the numbers in another thread, but if you look at the IRS’s data for tax filers, you’ll see that there’s just not much revenue there. If you could increase the taxes paid by 10% for everyone who made over $500,000, you’d raise about $34 billion, as I recall. A drop in the bucket. If you’re going after people who make more than a million, you can cut that estimate substantially. And to raise 10% more in revenue from that small group, you’re probably looking at a much bigger marginal rate hike. Raising the marginal rate from 39% to 45% wouldn’t cut it. You might have to raise it by 15% or more. That will start a lot of serious avoidance activity. The real money to be had is in the middle class. Unfortunately, the U.S. has been on a path of giving the middle class tax reductions. > [@](#): > > I would also support a more dramatic overhaul if such a thing were feasible, and sufficiently progressive - something like the no-exemptions, no-deduction, two or three bracket, large refundable credit plans might work better, especially from an avoidance perspective. Making the tax code more progressive would be a bad move, since the world is moving in the other direction. You’ll be setting the U.S. up to be even less competitive. In Canada, we’ve lowered our top marginal rate rate to 29%, cut our dividend and capital gains taxes, and lowered the corporate tax rate (to 12.5% by 2012). We made up the gap by cutting the size of the government from 53% of GDP to 35% of GDP (that’s for all forms of government - and it’s lower than the U.S.), and by instituting a Goods and Services Tax nationally. Those changes made our tax code less progressive, but they also made it more stable, and made our economy more competitive. As a result, we started running surpluses right up to the recession, and we’re forecast to be back in surplus territory in a few years. This has been the policy of both Liberal and Conservative governments, and it’s serving us really well. You should try it. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/67 "2010-11-29T23:30:09Z")
I’ve been a civil servant for almost 25 years, and I applaud the decision. As tough as things are now, with so many people out of work or working at stagnated wages, it isn’t fair for civil servants to receive blanket cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). It wasn’t clear from the article: does the pay freeze apply to promotions and within-grade-increases (WGIs), and not just to COLAs? The answer won’t affect me, since I don’t expect to be promoted, and am at the top step in my grade - just curious. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/68 "2010-11-29T23:45:39Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Making the tax code more progressive would be a bad move, since the world is moving in the other direction. You’ll be setting the U.S. up to be even less competitive. I might have been unclear - I didn’t mean _more_ progressive than it currently is, just _sufficiently_ progressive (obviously everyone’s definition of sufficient will vary). > [@](#): > > In Canada, we’ve lowered our top marginal rate rate to 29%, cut our dividend and capital gains taxes, and lowered the corporate tax rate (to 12.5% by 2012). We made up the gap by cutting the size of the government from 53% of GDP to 35% of GDP (that’s for all forms of government - and it’s lower than the U.S.), and by instituting a Goods and Services Tax nationally. Those changes made our tax code less progressive, but they also made it more stable, and made our economy more competitive. As a result, we started running surpluses right up to the recession, and we’re forecast to be back in surplus territory in a few years. > > This has been the policy of both Liberal and Conservative governments, and it’s serving us really well. You should try it. What does the exemption/deduction system look like in Canada? I can’t find anything at [http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html](http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html). Also, from what I can tell, there are comparatively large province income taxes (maybe some of the health-care costs are borne by the provinces?). I must admit to being somewhat unfamiliar with Canadian tax policy 🙂 Your point re: VAT is well taken. I am certainly not opposed to exploring it as a more stable source of government funding. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/69 "2010-11-30T01:01:16Z")
$28 billion over five years? That’s barely a fart in the wind! The _best_ way to reduce the deficit (aside from eliminating tax breaks for rich people and termimating corporate welfare…but c’mon, that’s never gonna happen) would be to immediately cut off financial aid to foreign countries who don’t need it, including Israel. _Especially_ Israel. It would be political suicide, of course…but people will forget all about it over time. Ending farm subsidies will help, too. There aren’t any individual farmers left anyway, no matter what John Cougar Mellencamp says. Slash the defense budget, shut down all our overseas military bases (keep Guantanamo for rendition purposes) and focus on keeping our own borders more secure. Get rid of pork-barrel endowments like the NEA, Amtrak, payouts to Native Americans, and many of those silly national parks & preserves in places nobody cares about. Start a national sales tax. Raise the SS retirement age to 72. Will any of this happen? Hell no…but that’s what it will take to save our economy. (Assuming it’s even worth saving…) ---
**Author:** ![Edward\_The\_Head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ce73a5/32.png) [@Edward\_The\_Head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edward_The_Head)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/70 "2010-11-30T01:05:05Z")
> [@F.U.Shakespeare](#): > > I’ve been a civil servant for almost 25 years, and I applaud the decision. > > As tough as things are now, with so many people out of work or working at stagnated wages, it isn’t fair for civil servants to receive blanket cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). > > It wasn’t clear from the article: does the pay freeze apply to promotions and within-grade-increases (WGIs), and not just to COLAs? The answer won’t affect me, since I don’t expect to be promoted, and am at the top step in my grade - just curious. As much as I could use the increase I’m in agreement with you. I’ve worked for the feds for the last 10 years and I thought about writing my representatives until I realized that here in MD the dems wouldn’t care if I didn’t vote for them or not. I’m not sure if it impacts the grade increases or not. ---
**Author:** ![dasmili](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@dasmili](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmili)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/71 "2010-11-30T01:07:18Z")
I’ve been a federal employee for 5 years now, and when I heard the news I was pretty upset. Then again, my agency is pretty notorious for giving out lousy raises anyway, so I guess it won’t have too much effect on me. I suppose I’ll just wait and see how it pans out for us. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/72 "2010-11-30T01:20:07Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Longtime fed employee here. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. It is not as tho Obama has the sole say on this. My understanding is that he had previously proposed a COLA in the area of 1.5% or so. Any bump is nice, but the difference between 0% and 1.4% ain’t exactly going to change my lifestyle. > > I think all governments are going to have to look carefuly at all categories of spending, so I’m not going to cry too much about personally taking a minor hit. But I feel this type of move is essentially grandstanding, and of little import. > > I also tend to be leery about across-the-board cuts like this, same as proposals to cut ALL spending by x%. It may well be that some categories of fed employees are significantly overpaid - or even superfluous. But I also believe that a significant number of fed employees - especially those at the lower pay grades - are not exactly raking in the bucks. I think this sense of shared sacrifice among federal employees is going to fly relatively well. I think what bothers federal employees more is the sense that Obama is either throwing them under the bus or is buying into the nonsense that federal employees are almost categorically overpaid. I would also say that while the pay scale at the top of the pay scale is not too bad the folks at the top of the pay scale are usually the ones that are most UNDERPAID while the ones at the lower end of the pay scale are slightly overpaid if you include benefits. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > It’s a very smart move. This will give Obama all kinds of political cover when negotiating with Republicans. Now when the Republicans try to stall something Obama wants done, he can legitimately point at the federal worker freeze and say, “Look, I’ve been meeting you guys halfway. Time for you to give a little.” Without making a move like this, Obama is very vulnerable to charges that he’s just an ideologue unwilling to cross the aisle and work together with Republicans. By doing this up front, he can short-circuit that whole avenue of attack by Republicans. > > In terms of absolute dollars it doesn’t add up to that much, but symbolically it’s important. One of the things making the private sector mad has been the perception that government workers aren’t sharing in the pain that everyone else is feeling. I don’t think the Republicans will care. In dollars I believe it amounts to $2 billion dollars over 2 years. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/73 "2010-11-30T01:29:46Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Politically smart. It helps symbolically. > > In terms of impact, won’t amount to a hill of beans. > > Much better would be to take large chunks out of entire federal agencies, or eliminate tem altogether. > > Eliminating the entire Federal Dept of Education, for example, would save $80 billion per year and nobody other than the employees and their families would ever notice. When it comes to cutting the size of government, the military, social security and medicare/medicaid are the most important peices of the puzzle and without them you just can’t get to where you want to be. Even with deep cuts to these three areas, we will need to increase taxes. With that siad, sure we could cut some spending in almost every agency. It all depends on what level of government service (or even functionality) you want. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Look, if Social Security recipients are going on their second year of not getting a COLA, anyone with a job for Uncle Sugar (myself included) would have to be a first-class whiner to get all upset at not getting a 1.5% raise. I think most federal employees will take this in stride, as a general rule, they care more about this country than the average citizen and if money was what was really driving them, they would work in the private sector anyways. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Spending cuts don’t do shit. We need to stop handing out free money to rich people. Ermm we can’t tax our way to a balanced budget. We will need some spending cuts, especially in medicare. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/74 "2010-11-30T01:34:02Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > I’m afraid I’m getting more and more jaded nearly every day. But what are folk suggesting when they speak of negotiating with Repubs? Is there any reason to believe that Repubs are interested in any true negotiation on any significant issue? > > Unfortunately, I see this as little more than grandstanding - which is consistent with most of what I see from both parties these days. At least it does not seem blatantly aimed at enriching one particular demographic as seems so common in proposals from the right. > > Will be interesting is to see how eager the Repubs from Va and Md are to support this. In the past, they have assuaged their voters by tying civilian pay to military. > > And while we are at it - why exempt the military? Why do you hate the troops? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/75 "2010-11-30T01:34:47Z")
In my field, I think this probably costs more money than it saves. I know at least one person for whom this tips the balance on deciding whether to accept her government offer or make much more money in the private sector. I can’t say for sure that she’d save the government more money than the person who replaces her, but I think there’s a substantial chance of that being true. ETA: This assumes it affects level jumps. And, of course, even if it works as intended, it’s more a symbolic gesture than anything. Given that the GOP has taken pretty much every serious cut off the table in their proposals, now is an opportunity for Obama to take the high ground on spending: embrace phased-in increases in the FICA cap, means-test social security, add copays for veterans benefits, further cut defense spending, and all of the rest of the things the GOP would do if they were serious, but don’t do because they are not. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/76 "2010-11-30T01:35:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You have to be fucking joking. > > $80 billion is nothing, and you’re talking about one of the most valuable departments we have. Well we get pretty good value and it punches above its weight (same can be said of the department of energy) but I would have thought that there were more valuable departments in the government. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/77 "2010-11-30T01:45:59Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Nothing in the government happens quickly. By the time federal jobs are eliminated we will probably have gone through another boom-bust cycle. I don’t think anyone is suggesting firing federal employees in the middle of a recession. > > That being said, people on unemployment benefits will eventually be off of them. Also, the federal government does not have to pay for their retirement or their health care. Let’s not pretend that reducing the federal workload will not result in savings over time. The non-military/security federal payroll is about 100 billion dollars. How much of the workforce do you think we should cut to make an impact on the federal deficit? I don’t think we should increase the federal payroll for its own sake but I don’t think we should cut it for cutting’s sake either. We can probably reallocate some resources. There are probably some useless functions and some that are grossly understaffed. > [@](#): > > Letting the tax cuts expire will do little or nothing to increase revenue. Regardless of the tax rates the federal receips are always around 19% of GDP. Tax increases will just create a drag for the recovering economy. I’ve heard this statistic thrown around quite a bit and I always thought it was a little bit squirrelly. The statistic is frequently based on all federal revenues. As income taxes decreased over the last few decades other taxes increased, primarily SS and medicare. Increases int he federal income tax rate results in increases in federal income tax revenue and reductions in rate resulted in reductions in revenue. First the economy is not THAT responsive and secondly its not anywhere that elastic. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/78 "2010-11-30T01:48:49Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The question is what would a tax increase have done for the economy over the last decade? Well our debt would be smaller. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/79 "2010-11-30T01:58:55Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I think you missed the point of the chart. If you look at your chart again, the blue line tracks the top marginal federal income tax rate and the red line tracks federal revenue from all sources. So one tracks the rate on the top 1% of Americans while the other measures all federal tax revenue form every source, including medicare, tariffs, corporate taxes, everything. The statistics on federal income tax revenue is readily available, why do you suppose they use total federal revenue? In fact the federal income tax raised from the top 1% or 10% of the population is also available, why do you think they decided to make this particular graph? They are trying to get folks like you to fill int he blanks and reach the conclusion that changes in top marginal rates don’t affect taxes collected. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/80 "2010-11-30T02:01:47Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Exactly. I saw that chart as well and realized immediately that it is worthless. You might as well compare Bill Gate’s marginal tax rates to federal tax receipts and try to make a point based on that. > > Oh, and right on cue, here is Boehner’s response: > > So yup, “thanks for doing half of what we wanted and taking the heat off of us, now do the rest of what we want and we’ll call it bi-partisan.” At some point I hope to wake up and realize that Obama has been rope-a-doping the Republicans. Letting the Republicans tired out their arms beating in his head and then he’ll have them right where he wants them. I should have voted for Hillary. At least she has balls. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301.md?page=5)