I Fought the Swamp... and the Swamp Won!

[RX792P]

https://doge.gov/
Latest work...blank


But not ready to give up

The government’s cost-cutting effort, inspired by a 2010s-era meme, was all the rage for the GOP last winter. Republicans were excited to have Elon Musk, a cool billionaire, lead their cause. In the House, they made a DOGE caucus, which is basically a fan club, and an official DOGE committee.

Eleven months later, the committee’s chair has resigned, DOGE failed to get anywhere close to its promise of $1 trillion in spending cuts, its activities got terrible reviews from the public, and Musk has not only abandoned the project, he’s suggested he regrets starting it.

“Instead of doing DOGE, I would have, basically, built ― worked on my companies,” Musk said on a recent podcast.

But Republicans on Capitol Hill aren’t ready to put DOGE down. House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-Ky.), whose panel includes the new Delivering on Government Efficiency subcommittee, said he’ll appoint a new chair after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene resigns in early January.

Taking his cue from Monty Python...

Rep. Aaron Bean (R-Fla.), co-chair of the DOGE caucus, said the group would meet in January.
“He launched a big movement of a new focus on waste, fraud and abuse,” Bean told HuffPost. “We’re not dead.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doge-...test-news-unit

[Precious_b]

I've wondered why the maggies have gone silent on Doggy.

It seems with the multiple failures of the current administration they have taken up going into turtle mode.

[pxmcc]

what kills us is the failure to bring the deficit to 0 and start paying off the debt during bull markets. Trump's first term is a case in point. Republicans are for a balanced budget until they're in power, and then they could care less. whatever the problem is, the solutions are deregs and tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts..

when Democrats are in power, suddenly all we hear from the right is balanced budget balanced budget balanced budget..

can you imagine our fiscal picture during a real crisis such as war with China. it's frightening..

the solution to our debt crisis is simple. here's the recipe:

-return tax rates and tax policy to the Clinton II era, the last time we ran a surplus;

-add a carbon tax. save the planet while zeroing out the deficit;

-raise the social security retirement age;

-remove caps on taxable income and benefits payable for FICA taxes;

-tax capital gains and losses as ordinary income;

-give Medicare full power to spend funds wisely, and have a patient advocate, who would carry a certain caseload, coordinating care for each beneficiary. our Medicare expenditures are obscene at the micro and macro level, for generally piss-poor results for U.S. healthcare as a whole;

-end whatever loopholes Trump and other billionaires use to avoid paying federal income taxes;

-tax corporate profits at the international median level;

-end silly loopholes like the carried interest deduction;

-encourage guest worker immigration exempted from minimum wage to increase federal revenue and rebuild American manufacturing and exports, with incentives for entrepeneurs who want to build factories. to compete, we need workers at internationally competitive rates, which we don't have right now;

-end ridiculous spending on ICE for a silly goal. you don't expel your best workers because of their race;

-turn commercial fusion into a Manhattan Project. once completed, this will save $ at every level and turn us into a fusion tech exporter;

-invest and become a world leader and exporter in all green technologies;

-limit military expenditures to only those needed to counter China, and stop fighting dumb wars like Iraq and Afghanistan;

-stop subsidizing Israel. they can manage themselves;

-mandate that excess revenues go to paying down the debt.

obviously, this would involve some pain in the short term while giving America hope in the long term. you would need a JFK-style politician to explain the plan to the people and actually pull it off.

does anyone doubt that if we did this whole laundry list, we could easily pay off the debt? it deals with both revenues and expenditures. basic math says that when revenues>expenditures, debt can be paid off. anything else is just pure fantasy.

it's just so simple..

ok, queue the naysayers and the rotten tomatoes..

before you dismiss my ideas, remember that things fall apart slowly, and then quickly. right now we're in the slowly part, but it can't last.

[Tiny]

what kills us is the failure to bring the deficit to 0 and start paying off the debt during bull markets. Obama's second term is a case in point. Democrats are for a balanced budget until they're in power, and then they could care less. whatever the problem is, the solutions are regs and spend, spend, spend...

when Republicans are in power, suddenly all we hear from the left is balanced budget balanced budget balanced budget..

can you imagine our fiscal picture during a real crisis such as war with Canada. it's frightening..

Hi Pxmcc, see comments in red.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

-return tax rates and tax policy to the Clinton II era, the last time we ran a surplus;

So you'd take the maximum tax rate on individuals down from 40.8% (current) to 39.6% (Clinton era)? And the capital gains rate down to 20% from 23.8%? Good idea! Now if you're proposing to take the federal corporate income tax rate back to 35% and the tax on dividends to 39.6%, those are bad ideas. First, that's going to make it more difficult to achieve your goals of becoming a leader in renewable energy, and hurt the competitiveness of American business in general. Including state income tax, that would put us in a tie with Brazil for the highest corporate rate in the world. You take the dividend tax back to 39.6%, and companies will pay less in dividends. This makes allocation of capital less efficient. For example, the buggy whip company retains earnings instead of distributing them to shareholders who may invest in Ford Motor.

In addition you don't raise as much money as you think, from the corporate tax or the dividend tax. There was an NBER paper, which LustyLad and I posted about, a year or two ago that indicated federal revenues in the long run will actually increase because of the cut in the corporate rate in 2018 from 35% to 21%. Most of the effect is from higher employee and employer contributions to social security/Medicare. With the lower corporate rate, companies invest more and hire more.

-add a carbon tax. save the planet while zeroing out the deficit;

Given certain qualifications which we've discussed elsewhere, a reasonable carbon tax may make sense

-raise the social security retirement age;

Yeah, if we keep the Ponzi scheme in place as is, employer and employee contributions will have to go up, and raising the retirement age isn't a bad idea either

-remove caps on taxable income and benefits payable for FICA taxes;

Are you going to apply just to wages and self employment income or investment income too? If the later, then combined with your next idea, which is really bad, this idea would stifle investment and turn America into a second rate country

-tax capital gains and losses as ordinary income;

That's your worst idea. The CBO and JCT assume the revenue maximizing capital gains rate is 28%. Undoubtedly you'll find some partisan economists on the left who argue with that. But what you're proposing likely will not only stifle investment, and to a lesser extent wages and jobs, but also LOWER federal revenues.

-give Medicare full power to spend funds wisely, and have a patient advocate, who would carry a certain caseload, coordinating care for each beneficiary. our Medicare expenditures are obscene at the micro and macro level, for generally piss-poor results for U.S. healthcare as a whole;

Not sure how effective your solution would be, but your description of the problem nails it

-end whatever loopholes Trump and other billionaires use to avoid paying federal income taxes;

Yes, absolutely. I'd flatten tax rates at the same time. I suspect you and TC would not. So we agree on the loopholes and the smarter guy's in your corner.

-tax corporate profits at the international median level;

Another good idea. For the combined state federal income tax paid by American corporations, that would probably represent a small reduction if we went to the median OECD rate of 25% or 26%. And a 2 or 3 percentage point reduction if we went to the average OECD rate (23%).

-end silly loopholes like the carried interest deduction;

Absolutely

-encourage guest worker immigration exempted from minimum wage to increase federal revenue and rebuild American manufacturing and exports, with incentives for entrepeneurs who want to build factories. to compete, we need workers at internationally competitive rates, which we don't have right now;

I would require they get paid at least the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour) because I'm a bleeding heart. But I'd go with your idea for places like Washington state with minimum wages over $20/hour, assuming the people of Washington agree. Your proposal may make more sense than my preference. It certainly has worked for places like the Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Singapore. And has provided a lot of people from third world countries with jobs.

-end ridiculous spending on ICE for a silly goal. you don't expel your best workers because of their race;

You're not going to save much money that way but I agree, don't expel your best workers, make them guest workers

-turn commercial fusion into a Manhattan Project. once completed, this will save $ at every level and turn us into a fusion tech exporter;

Trump's probably cut research funding more than what's desirable. That's speculation though, I haven't been following the issue. If you want a Manhattan Project, do it for rare earth and strategic materials, high end chips, and the like which are very important for industry and military and not sourced from countries like Canada. As to fusion, that could pay off. Or it might not. I'd let the market work. And yes, fund fusion research, but not to the extent of the Manhattan Project.

-invest and become a world leader and exporter in all green technologies;

A reasonable regulatory regime, reasonable corporate income tax, reasonable taxes on investment (dividend, capital gains), a reasonable carbon tax, better school systems with emphasis on improving education in technical fields and sciences, continuing to encourage the world's best and brightest to come to America, all would help accomplish that and so much more. Again, I'd let markets work.

-limit military expenditures to only those needed to counter China, and stop fighting dumb wars like Iraq and Afghanistan;

I'm not as concerned with China, otherwise agree.

-stop subsidizing Israel. they can manage themselves;

Absolutely, although not a big deficit reducer

-mandate that excess revenues go to paying down the debt.

What are excess revenues? Implement all your proposals and we'll still have a deficit, I'd guess over 4% of GDP.


does anyone doubt that if we did this whole laundry list, we could easily pay off the debt? it deals with both revenues and expenditures. basic math says that when revenues>expenditures, debt can be paid off. anything else is just pure fantasy.

it's just so simple..

ok, queue the naysayers and the rotten tomatoes..

before you dismiss my ideas, remember that things fall apart slowly, and then quickly. right now we're in the slowly part, but it can't last.

I don't think this will work because it's not addressing spending and efficiency. And practically, there are very few politicians interested enough in controlling spending and deficits to do things that aren't in their best interests. Like no longer ladling out the pork or making changes to entitlements. The new breed of Democrat is no Bill Clinton or Robert Rubin. The Bernie Sanders and AOC's don't think deficits matter, and the Bidens and Harris' aren't far behind. The Republicans who would drastically cut the deficit have either been run off by Trump (e.g. Justin Amash and Jeff Flake) or marginalized (Rand Paul and Chip Roy). The rest play the game and run the country deeper and deeper into debt.

[pxmcc]

^^good post Tiny!

[Ripmany]

Need some alligator buddies. Nother wards don't go in deep water if can't swim.

[pxmcc]

Gentleman, we have a surplus. Carbon tax is set at 12.5%, saving the planet while restoring fiscal sanity. Modeled with AI, specifically ChatGPT.


1️⃣ CBO-Style Budget Scoring Table
(10-Year Budget Window, Nominal Dollars)

Baseline: CBO current-law projection
Window: FY 2026–FY 2035
Scoring: Mostly static with limited macro feedback; interest effects shown separately

Table 1. Estimated Budgetary Effects of the Proposal (FY 2026–2035)
(Billions of dollars)

Revenue Provisions
Policy Change 10-Year Revenue Effect
Restore individual income tax rates to Clinton-era levels +2,500
Tax capital gains and losses as ordinary income +1,000
Remove cap on taxable earnings for payroll taxes +1,300
Carbon tax (12.5% average effective rate) +2,000
Increase corporate tax to international median; close profit-shifting +800
Eliminate carried interest and similar preferential treatments +200
Minimum effective tax on high-income households +500
Expanded legal guest-worker immigration (net fiscal effect) +7,800
Total Revenue Increase | +16,100

Spending and Savings Provisions
Policy Change 10-Year Outlay Reduction
Gradual increase in Social Security retirement age +1,500
Remove payroll tax benefit cap (net savings to SSA) +600
Medicare care coordination, negotiation authority, patient advocacy +1,000
Reduce defense spending to China-focused deterrence posture +1,000
Reduce unnecessary immigration enforcement expenditures +300
Reduce foreign aid to self-sufficient allies +200
Total Spending Reductions | +4,600

Primary Budget Impact
Item Amount
Baseline cumulative deficit –20,000
Revenue increases +16,100
Spending reductions +4,600
Primary balance (before interest) +700
Interest on the Debt
Item Amount
Reduced interest costs from lower borrowing +1,500
Table 2. Net Budgetary Impact
Measure 10-Year Amount
Primary surplus +700
Interest savings +1,500
Total unified budget surplus +2,200
Debt Effects
Indicator Outcome
Debt-to-GDP (baseline) Rising
Debt-to-GDP (proposal) Stabilizes by Year 3
Debt-to-GDP (long run) Declines
CBO-Style Bottom Line
If fully implemented, the proposal would eliminate projected primary deficits within the first half of the budget window and generate a cumulative unified budget surplus of approximately $2.2 trillion over ten years, significantly reducing federal debt held by the public relative to GDP.


A Fair, Growth-Focused Plan to Balance the Budget and Invest in America
America’s fiscal challenge is not caused by working families or essential public services. It is the result of demographic change, unpriced pollution, an eroded tax base, and decades of tax preferences that reward wealth over work.

This plan restores balance by asking those who have benefited most from the economy to contribute fairly — while strengthening Social Security, improving Medicare, investing in clean energy, and putting the national debt on a declining path.

Fairness in the Tax Code
Restores income tax rates that prevailed during the last period of sustained budget surpluses.

Treats income from wealth the same as income from work by taxing capital gains as ordinary income.

Closes loopholes such as carried interest and profit shifting that allow high earners and multinational corporations to avoid paying their fair share.

Establishes a minimum effective tax rate on the highest-income households.

Protecting and Modernizing Social Insurance
Strengthens Social Security by gradually adjusting the retirement age and removing the cap on taxable earnings and benefits.

Improves Medicare by empowering the program to negotiate prices, coordinate care, and reduce waste — improving outcomes while lowering costs.

Climate Responsibility Without Punishing Workers
Implements a modest carbon tax that prices pollution rather than labor.

Uses revenues to eliminate the deficit, reduce debt, and fund clean-energy innovation.

Encourages efficiency and innovation while protecting economic growth.

Pro-Worker, Pro-Growth Immigration Reform
Expands legal guest-worker programs to support domestic manufacturing, exports, and entrepreneurship.

Increases payroll tax contributions and long-run economic growth.

Reduces labor shortages without undermining worker protections.

Smart National Security Spending
Focuses defense resources on genuine peer competitors.

Ends wasteful expenditures associated with prolonged, low-value conflicts.

Maintains deterrence while improving fiscal discipline.

Investing in the Future
Launches a Manhattan Project–scale effort to commercialize fusion energy.

Positions the United States as a global exporter of clean and advanced energy technologies.

Creates high-wage jobs and strengthens U.S. competitiveness.

A Simple Fiscal Rule
Any revenue collected above the level required to fund current obligations is dedicated automatically to debt reduction.

The Result
A balanced budget within five years

A $2.2 trillion surplus over ten years

A declining debt-to-GDP ratio

Stronger growth

Cleaner energy

More secure retirements

This is a plan grounded in fairness, growth, and responsibility — not austerity.

so there's that..

if a random clown in h-town can solve America's debt crisis using just common sense and tools freely available on the internet, wtf is Congress' problem..

thoughts?

[lustylad]

Hmmm... perhaps my pessimism was premature.

Thanks to Tampon Tim, the Republicans may have another chance to start "draining the swamp"... if they play their cards right... a big "if"!

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=3074866

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

Gentleman, we have a surplus. Carbon tax is set at 12.5%, saving the planet while restoring fiscal sanity. Modeled with AI, specifically ChatGPT.


thoughts?

i cut out all the AI nonsense specifically the carbon tax fraud. what you are left with is nothing.


climate change is a fraud to steal money from everyone and keep it for the elite nwo globalists.


there is no way carbon taxes can balance the US debt and it certainly won't help the 3rd world


thoughts?

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

climate change is a fraud to steal money from everyone and keep it for the elite nwo globalists.

Yep...that's why with the we 'need' Greenland as the melting of polar ice is creating new trade...and attack...routes.

“We need Greenland … It’s so strategic right now. Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,”

[pxmcc]

ya. why wouldn't it work?

ai is a tool. it's not perfect but they're smarter than us carbon-based humans. if you want to counter ai, you gotta bring some math into the picture. so..

climate change is a reality. wtf do you think Trump wants Greenland? so he can break all his drill bits digging into the permafrost?

bahahahahahaha..

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

i cut out all the AI nonsense specifically the carbon tax fraud. what you are left with is nothing.


climate change is a fraud to steal money from everyone and keep it for the elite nwo globalists.


there is no way carbon taxes can balance the US debt and it certainly won't help the 3rd world


thoughts?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

ya. why wouldn't it work?

ai is a tool. it's not perfect but they're smarter than us carbon-based humans. if you want to counter ai, you gotta bring some math into the picture. so..

climate change is a reality. wtf do you think Trump wants Greenland? so he can break all his drill bits digging into the permafrost?

bahahahahahaha..

AI is nonsense. climate change is nonsense. Dr Mann's hockey stick graph is nonsense. it hasn't happened in 40 years since Dr Mann said it would.



why is that and why should the Government think stealing money from everyone if going to fix the debt or their own massive corruption?



this is why we are in debt. carbon tax crap isn't going to fix that removing the corruption in US politics is the only fix.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

Gentleman, we have a surplus. Carbon tax is set at 12.5%, saving the planet while restoring fiscal sanity. Modeled with AI, specifically ChatGPT.


1️⃣ CBO-Style Budget Scoring Table
(10-Year Budget Window, Nominal Dollars)

Baseline: CBO current-law projection
Window: FY 2026–FY 2035
Scoring: Mostly static with limited macro feedback; interest effects shown separately

Table 1. Estimated Budgetary Effects of the Proposal (FY 2026–2035)
(Billions of dollars)

Revenue Provisions
Policy Change 10-Year Revenue Effect
Restore individual income tax rates to Clinton-era levels +2,500
Tax capital gains and losses as ordinary income +1,000
Remove cap on taxable earnings for payroll taxes +1,300
Carbon tax (12.5% average effective rate) +2,000
Increase corporate tax to international median; close profit-shifting +800
Eliminate carried interest and similar preferential treatments +200
Minimum effective tax on high-income households +500
Expanded legal guest-worker immigration (net fiscal effect) +7,800
Total Revenue Increase | +16,100

Spending and Savings Provisions
Policy Change 10-Year Outlay Reduction
Gradual increase in Social Security retirement age +1,500
Remove payroll tax benefit cap (net savings to SSA) +600
Medicare care coordination, negotiation authority, patient advocacy +1,000
Reduce defense spending to China-focused deterrence posture +1,000
Reduce unnecessary immigration enforcement expenditures +300
Reduce foreign aid to self-sufficient allies +200
Total Spending Reductions | +4,600

Primary Budget Impact
Item Amount
Baseline cumulative deficit –20,000
Revenue increases +16,100
Spending reductions +4,600
Primary balance (before interest) +700
Interest on the Debt
Item Amount
Reduced interest costs from lower borrowing +1,500
Table 2. Net Budgetary Impact
Measure 10-Year Amount
Primary surplus +700
Interest savings +1,500
Total unified budget surplus +2,200
Debt Effects
Indicator Outcome
Debt-to-GDP (baseline) Rising
Debt-to-GDP (proposal) Stabilizes by Year 3
Debt-to-GDP (long run) Declines
CBO-Style Bottom Line
If fully implemented, the proposal would eliminate projected primary deficits within the first half of the budget window and generate a cumulative unified budget surplus of approximately $2.2 trillion over ten years, significantly reducing federal debt held by the public relative to GDP.


A Fair, Growth-Focused Plan to Balance the Budget and Invest in America
America’s fiscal challenge is not caused by working families or essential public services. It is the result of demographic change, unpriced pollution, an eroded tax base, and decades of tax preferences that reward wealth over work.

This plan restores balance by asking those who have benefited most from the economy to contribute fairly — while strengthening Social Security, improving Medicare, investing in clean energy, and putting the national debt on a declining path.

Fairness in the Tax Code
Restores income tax rates that prevailed during the last period of sustained budget surpluses.

Treats income from wealth the same as income from work by taxing capital gains as ordinary income.

Closes loopholes such as carried interest and profit shifting that allow high earners and multinational corporations to avoid paying their fair share.

Establishes a minimum effective tax rate on the highest-income households.

Protecting and Modernizing Social Insurance
Strengthens Social Security by gradually adjusting the retirement age and removing the cap on taxable earnings and benefits.

Improves Medicare by empowering the program to negotiate prices, coordinate care, and reduce waste — improving outcomes while lowering costs.

Climate Responsibility Without Punishing Workers
Implements a modest carbon tax that prices pollution rather than labor.

Uses revenues to eliminate the deficit, reduce debt, and fund clean-energy innovation.

Encourages efficiency and innovation while protecting economic growth.

Pro-Worker, Pro-Growth Immigration Reform
Expands legal guest-worker programs to support domestic manufacturing, exports, and entrepreneurship.

Increases payroll tax contributions and long-run economic growth.

Reduces labor shortages without undermining worker protections.

Smart National Security Spending
Focuses defense resources on genuine peer competitors.

Ends wasteful expenditures associated with prolonged, low-value conflicts.

Maintains deterrence while improving fiscal discipline.

Investing in the Future
Launches a Manhattan Project–scale effort to commercialize fusion energy.

Positions the United States as a global exporter of clean and advanced energy technologies.

Creates high-wage jobs and strengthens U.S. competitiveness.

A Simple Fiscal Rule
Any revenue collected above the level required to fund current obligations is dedicated automatically to debt reduction.

The Result
A balanced budget within five years

A $2.2 trillion surplus over ten years

A declining debt-to-GDP ratio

Stronger growth

Cleaner energy

More secure retirements

This is a plan grounded in fairness, growth, and responsibility — not austerity.

so there's that..

if a random clown in h-town can solve America's debt crisis using just common sense and tools freely available on the internet, wtf is Congress' problem..

thoughts?

Hi Pxmcc, Did you submit your question using "Deep Research" in ChatGPT? When I don't do that, I typically get answers that ChatGPT gathers without much "thought", mostly from left-of-center MSM. For tax matters, with normal searches, it strongly favors the far left (according to All Sides) CBPP over the right-of-center Tax Foundation. As you'd expect, I strongly favor the Tax Foundation.

Anyway, I don't have a lot of confidence in the numbers above. The one that sticks out like a sore thumb is the 780 billion a year that would be raised from legal expanded guest worker immigration. Why? Well, total federal revenues in FY2024 were $4.9 trillion, and total collections from the personal income tax were $2.4 trillion. That $780 billion has to be way too high. Please note that if you take the 7.8 trillion in increased revenues (for 10 years) out of the mix, your 2.2 trillion cumulative surplus for 10 years turns into a $5.6 trillion cumulative deficit.

I have the heavy-duty, industrial strength version of ChatGPT ($200 per month), and ran just that component of your plan through Deep Research in ChatGPT. It took over 30 minutes to come back with an estimate, that an expanded guest worker program would improve the federal budget balance by roughly $50 billion over ten years, or $5 billion per year. Obviously that's a lot lower than $7.8 trillion.

I probably defined the question better than you did, given I was just looking at one component of the plan. The main restriction I gave ChatGPT that you might disagree with is that the program shouldn't increase the unemployment rate by over 0.5 percentage points. I figure anything over that wouldn't be palatable to either party.

I'll repeat the question and the answer below.

Question, Tiny: Over a 10 year period, what do you think would be the total net revenue or net spending from expanded legal guest worker immigration to the USA? Please size the program so it won't result in any more than an an increase of half a percentage point in the unemployment rate. Please take into account the reduction in revenues as guest workers replace illegal immigrants from lower payroll and income taxes paid by illegals. Assume that payroll taxes for the guest workers (unlike illegal immigrants) will be equitable, in that they will receive back benefits commensurate with their contributions. Please reduce your estimate of total net revenue or net spending by those benefits, discounted at your estimated average rate of inflation. Please increase your estimate by any knock on effects from higher personal, corporate and payroll taxes to be realized from non-immigrants and businesses as a result of the guest worker program.

Questions for Tiny, ChatGPT:

To estimate the 10-year total net revenue or spending from expanded legal guest worker immigration to the U.S., I’ll need a few clarifications:

Size of Guest Worker Program: Could you specify an approximate number or range of guest workers you'd like to model (e.g., 500,000, 1 million per year)? Or should I calculate the maximum number that would not raise the unemployment rate by more than 0.5 percentage points?

Types of Jobs: Should I assume these workers are concentrated in specific sectors (e.g., agriculture, construction, hospitality), or distributed across low-skilled labor broadly?

Program Duration: Should I assume each guest worker stays for the entire 10 years, or that there is turnover (e.g., 1-year or 3-year stays)?

Benefit Scope: Should the estimate account only for direct federal fiscal impacts (taxes and benefits), or also state and local effects?

Let me know and I’ll get started!

Answers to ChatGPT's questions from Tiny: 1. Calculate the number that would not raise the unemployment rate by more than 0.5 percentage points. 2. Distributed across low-skilled labor broadly. 3. Pick whatever your best guess is, assuming government doesn't mandate workers leave during the 10 year period. 4. Only federal.

Projected Ten-Year Federal Budget Impact of an Expanded Guest Worker Program

Program Size and Unemployment Impact

To avoid raising U.S. unemployment by more than 0.5 percentage points, the guest worker program would need to be modest in scale. A 0.5-point rise in the unemployment rate equates to roughly 850,000 additional unemployed people (since the U.S. labor force is about 170 million[1]). In practice, adding well under this number of workers – on the order of 2 to 3 million guest workers spread over 10 years (approximately 200,000–300,000 entries per year) – is a reasonable target. Distributed broadly across low-skilled sectors (e.g. agriculture, hospitality, construction, etc.), this scale of labor inflow could be absorbed with minimal disruption. Historical evidence suggests that immigrant workers do not significantly increase overall unemployment; in fact, one study found a 1 percentage-point increase in the immigrant share of labor slightly reduces native unemployment (by ~0.062 points on average)[2]. Thus, a few million added guest workers (≈1–2% of the labor force) is unlikely to push unemployment up by more than 0.5 points, especially if phased in and filling jobs in high-demand low-skill occupations. This assumption also fits the program design that guest workers would largely replace existing unauthorized workers** rather than simply swell the labor pool beyond labor demand.

Tax Revenue from Guest Workers vs. Unauthorized Workers
Legal guest workers would pay higher taxes than the unauthorized immigrants they replace, but much of those taxes come with offsetting future obligations. By becoming legal, these workers would fully participate in payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare), whereas many undocumented workers currently pay only partially or not at all. (The Social Security Administration’s chief actuary estimated that in 2010 about 1.8 million unauthorized workers paid $13 billion into Social Security, while receiving only about $1 billion in benefits – a net $12B boost to the trust fund[3]. Still, not all unauthorized workers pay taxes – roughly half file income tax returns[4] – but those who do contribute billions in payroll taxes under false SSNs.) With an expanded guest worker program, compliance would approach 100%, so payroll tax collections would rise substantially for these workers. For example, if the average guest worker earns roughly \$30,000–\$35,000 annually, each would contribute on the order of \$4,500–\$5,300 per year in Social Security and Medicare taxes (employee + employer share). Across ~3 million guest workers at full program scale, that implies on the order of \$15–\$16 billion per year in payroll tax revenue flowing to federal coffers (around \$150 billion over 10 years in nominal terms).
However, unlike the case with undocumented workers, those payroll contributions are not pure gain for the government – guest workers will eventually receive benefits commensurate with what they pay in. The question specifies that payroll taxes should be considered “equitable,” meaning the workers’ future Social Security/Medicare benefits will roughly equal their contributions (in present value, discounted by inflation). In other words, the long-run net impact of these payroll taxes is approximately zero from the federal budget perspective – they represent deferred obligations rather than true surplus revenue. (By contrast, taxes paid by undocumented workers today often remain unclaimed as benefits, effectively subsidizing Social Security’s finances[3]. Replacing those workers with legal guest labor reduces this implicit subsidy.) Therefore, we must subtract the present value of future benefits owed to guest workers from the payroll tax collections. After discounting for inflation, the entire payroll tax haul (≈\$150B) is essentially offset by future benefit payments, yielding no net fiscal gain in the long term from payroll taxes. In fact, to the extent that previously unauthorized workers were bolstering Social Security’s trust fund without drawing benefits, the shift to legal guest workers eliminates that windfall. We account for this by reducing the net budget estimate by the value of those eventual benefits, per the instructions.

Aside from payroll taxes, income tax revenues from guest workers would increase the federal take. Low-wage workers pay modest federal income tax – many earn too little to owe much after the standard deduction, though single filers might pay a small amount. Assuming a broad mix of household types (some single workers, some with families), we can estimate an average federal income tax payment around \$1,000–\$2,000 per guest worker per year. For 2–3 million workers, that is on the order of \$2–\$6 billion per year in income tax, or roughly \$25–\$30 billion over 10 years (cumulatively) once the program is fully phased in. This is net of any reduction in taxes from the displaced undocumented workers. Unauthorized workers’ income tax contributions are relatively low – about half of undocumented workers pay some income taxes (e.g. in 2010, ~3 million filers using ITINs paid only \$870 million total in federal income tax[4]). Many undocumented workers have low incomes and often do not file, or they may even receive refundable tax credits if they do (for example, if they have U.S.-born children, they could claim the Child Tax Credit). Thus, the baseline income-tax revenue from the population that guest workers replace is minimal. In effect, the income tax paid by new legal workers (perhaps \$25B+ over 10 years) is largely a net new gain to the federal budget[5]. We do adjust this for any benefits or tax credits the guest workers might newly qualify for: for instance, if many guest workers have dependent children, they could become eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit or Additional Child Tax Credit. These credits could reduce federal revenue by a few billion dollars over the decade (e.g. low-income workers with children can receive several thousand dollars in refundable credits annually). Since the problem didn’t explicitly quantify these transfers, we note them qualitatively as a offsetting cost. Overall, however, the direct fiscal impact of legalizing these workers is modestly positive on net in the federal ledger – CBO’s analysis of a prior immigration reform found that newly legalized workers increased revenues by \$48.3B over 10 years versus \$22.7B in added federal outlays, for about a \$25.6B deficit reduction from those status changes[6].

Broader Economic Effects and Knock-On Tax Revenues
Beyond the taxes paid directly by the guest workers, the program would have dynamic effects that generate additional federal revenue. By expanding the legal labor force, the program would boost overall economic output, which in turn raises incomes for other Americans and increases business profits. Over ten years, a few million extra workers can significantly expand GDP – for example, 3 million additional workers (gradually added) earning ~$30k–\$35k could add on the order of \$100+ billion per year to GDP by the end of the decade (roughly \$600–\$700 billion cumulative extra output over 10 years, in nominal terms, as the workforce ramps up). This larger economy yields higher tax receipts from U.S. natives and businesses. Employers can produce more and earn higher profits by utilizing the guest workers (especially in sectors that currently face labor shortages). This translates into increased corporate tax revenue (from higher profits) and higher personal incomes for complementary native workers (for example, supervisors, supply-chain jobs, and service providers who see more business), which means more income and payroll tax from those folks as well.

In effect, immigration tends to enlarge the tax base broadly. Most economists agree that immigration grows the labor force, boosts consumer demand, and increases tax revenue overall[7]. We can roughly quantify the knock-on fiscal gains: if the additional economic activity from the guest workers is on the order of \$600B over a decade, and if even a modest fraction of that becomes taxable profit or income for U.S. persons, the extra federal tax collected could easily be tens of billions of dollars. For instance, assuming perhaps ~5% of that incremental GDP comes in the form of corporate profits, that would be \$30B in profit; at a 21% corporate tax rate, around \$6 billion in corporate tax over the period. Likewise, if another portion of the new GDP goes to U.S. workers’ wages (e.g. managers, equipment suppliers, etc.), those earnings will generate payroll and income taxes. Even a few billion dollars a year in such ancillary tax collections would sum to $20–$30+ billion over ten years. (This aligns with the idea of an “immigration surplus” – the economy’s gains from immigration that accrue to natives and government. Research by the National Academy of Sciences found that immigrants create a net positive surplus for existing residents by increasing overall productivity[2].) In short, the expansion of legal guest labor has multiplier effects that raise federal revenue from personal, payroll, and corporate taxes beyond just the contributions of the guest workers themselves.
Net Fiscal Outcome Over 10 Years (Federal Level)

Bringing the above pieces together, an expanded guest worker program (~2–3 million low-skill workers over a decade) would likely result in a net positive fiscal impact for the federal government over the 10-year period. We estimate the total net revenue gain (i.e. deficit reduction) on the order of tens of billions of dollars. In rough terms, the additional income and other taxes paid by guest workers and their employers (relative to the status quo with undocumented workers) could contribute on the order of \$25–\$30 billion to the Treasury over ten years[5]. Meanwhile, the knock-on effects of higher economic growth and output may generate another \$30+ billion in federal tax receipts from U.S. households and businesses as a result of the program’s expansion of the economy. These gains would be partially offset by new costs or foregone revenue: the government loses the “free” tax payments that unauthorized workers were contributing without benefit claims (previously bolstering Social Security by ~$12B/year) and will eventually owe commensurate benefits to the guest workers for their payroll contributions. Additionally, some guest workers will qualify for federal tax credits or safety-net benefits (to the extent they are eligible), which we have noted could shave off a portion of the revenue. After accounting for the offsetting future benefit obligations (discounted to present by inflation) and these smaller costs, the net effect still appears to be a surplus for the federal budget. We do not count the payroll-tax contributions of guest workers as net revenue (since those will be paid back in benefits later[3]), and that neutralizes what would otherwise look like a large short-term influx to Social Security. Even so, primarily thanks to increased income tax payments and indirect fiscal gains, the program should pay for itself and then some.

In summary, our best estimate is that an expanded legal guest worker program of this scale would improve the federal budget balance by roughly \$50 billion over ten years (on the order of $5 billion per year on average in net revenue to the government). This assumes no forced turnover of workers (they can stay and work the full period) and focuses only on federal revenues/spending. Put differently, the policy is fiscally positive at the federal level – not a cost to taxpayers, but a net revenue enhancer over the decade. (For context, the Congressional Budget Office similarly found that immigration reforms tend to narrow federal deficits modestly in the first decade[5][8].) The expanded guest workers would pay taxes like U.S. workers and contribute to economic growth, and while they would eventually draw benefits proportional to their contributions, those payouts mostly lie outside the 10-year window and are accounted for in our estimate. Bottom line: a carefully sized guest worker program (capped to keep unemployment impacts ≤0.5%) is projected to yield a net federal revenue gain on the order of a few tens of billions of dollars over 10 years, rather than net government spending. This reflects increased tax receipts from both the guest workers and the broader economy, offset by the future benefit costs and the replacement of undocumented workers’ more limited tax contributions.
Sources: Studies show added immigrant workers have minimal impact on unemployment[2]. Unauthorized immigrants currently contribute billions in payroll taxes without benefits[3]; legal workers would pay more taxes but eventually receive earned benefits, canceling out long-run payroll-tax gains. The 2013 Senate immigration bill’s fiscal estimate indicated revenues from legalized workers would exceed new spending, reducing deficits by ~$25 billion in the first decade[6]. More broadly, immigration expands the economy and tax base, which most experts agree boosts federal revenue and growth[7]. These findings underpin the projected net positive federal budget impact of an expanded guest worker program as described above.

______________________________ __________
[1] Civilian Labor Force Level (CLF16OV) | FRED | St. Louis Fed
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLF16OV
[2] nfap.com
https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/...E.May-2018.pdf
[3] [4] The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...-taxes/499604/
[5] [6] CBO Estimate Shows the Senate Immigration Bill's Budget Impact Is Very Modest | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
https://www.cbpp.org/research/cbo-es...is-very-modest
[7] How Does Immigration Affect the U.S. Economy? | Council on Foreign Relations
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-doe...ect-us-economy
[8] budget.senate.gov
https://www.budget.senate.gov/downlo...ges&download=1

[pxmcc]

^^great research Tiny!

ok let's keep doing tweaks to get an actual surplus using your enhanced Ai.

i know you don't like some of the policies like taxing capital gains like ordinary income, but i think this is still an important thought experiment nonetheless. our debt situation is gonna kill us eventually on the present trajectory.

neither defaulting nor printing dollars are plausible solutions. the 1st is the end of the world as we know it and the 2nd is hyperinflation way worse than Venezuela. keeping the status quo is just delaying the inevitable clusterfuck.

[Precious_b]

One think I would suspect is that AI is contributing to a bigger carbon footprint. Along with draining other resources.

Human Beings deserve what we get if we bankrupt the resources of this world for a chatbot.