Slashdot Mirror
Need a Receipt On Taxes? The Federal Tax Receipt
ndogg writes "The White House has opened up a tool that lets you see where your tax dollars are being spent. I put my numbers in and it showed that a little over a quarter goes towards defense and military spending (I'm not sure I'm getting my money's worth on that one), and a little under a quarter for health care." I'm sure readers (and think tanks of various stripes) will have some alternative narratives, too. For readers elsewhere; it's tax season here in the US.
...with them I buy civilization.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
So which department does the stupid ass "War on Drugs" fall under? You know, spending massive amounts of money(and wasting fuel and polluting the environment) flying around in helicopters burning naturally occurring plants, throwing people in jail(which costs about $50k/year/head and prevents them from contributing to society) etc etc etc.
As a tax payer, I'm pissed at this stupid ass "war". You want to reduce spending and increase revenues? Legalize and tax marijuana.
Monstar L
I believe the difference is that proving for the national defense is in the Constitution. Welfare and Planned Parenthood are not. At least with NASA, you can say it has military applications. Same with the Interstate system. But the federal government has no Constitutional right to fund Planned Parenthood, ACORN, GE, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or any of the thousands of other programs that get funded because the government is so big that no one will notice.
The government has very few functions. Those need to be funded. The rest needs to be funded by the states... or not.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This will be a supremely unpopular stance among a large section here - but taxes are one of the best bargains in any marketplace.
Taxes buy infrastructure. The kind of infrastructure that allows us all to live as kings used to, and more. The kind of infrastructure without which the work of countless geniuses of all stripes would be impossible. The kind of tools and infrastructure that raises the average lifespan across the world to many times what it was before taxes were common.
Taxes buy culture. Education systems may not be ideal - but they advance the average human state in ways that it is hard to quantify in everyday terms. Simply being able to have conversations and do business across large nations like the US is one small bit. A limited but important bit of shared history, and the seeds of knowledge that sprout in countless little ways. They can certainly always be better - but the return is enormous on what we have so far, just by allowing what we have.
From tools, to access to shared resources, to even the ability to shape the system you live in - taxes buy a lot more than a simple minarchy would allow.
Taxes are the resources of the people paying for the shared needs of the people. They are in effect, allowing everyone to take advantage of economies of scale when used correctly (see: most sane nations' use of healthcare money), and often stand as an irreplaceable method of getting shared needs met.
What's surprising is how often people will directly vote to have the rich pay less taxes, and the poor pay more - that part never made sense to me, given how much shared sacrifice already goes into providing people with the tools to become rich - it just doesn't seem like they need more protection all the time.
But that's part of taxes also - they will be spent as the people's representatives allow them to be spent. Keep electing people and allowing them to be bribed constantly with no checks in place to stop the rising corruption on all sides, and you will keep getting taxes wasted - wasted by the system you allow to grow more stagnant.
Taxes aren't perfect - but they are still a bargain compared to warlords and tycoons ruling everything in the vacuum of a world without any collective funding system.
Ryan Fenton
The vast majority for me is defense and health care. Even though I am exempt from medicare taxes, 25% goes to that category. Anyone who thinks we don't need health care reform is crazy!
Second, if we stop funding health care people die. If we stop funding defense, what happens? Seriously. If the defense budget is cut in half, in what ways is my life or way of life threatened? I can intellectually measure the value ofnthe rest of my tax dollars in the other categories, but, for defense, it's hard to imagine what I get after spending as much per capita as, say, Japan, on defense.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
If we cut that back to 1/6th of our spending on military, we'd still be the top spender in the world.
If we cut 90%, we'd be the world's second-highest spender.
If we cut back 95%, we'd be 10th.
If you're not careful, like ndogg, you'll end up focusing on the percentages listed for each group paid for by the income tax (and not payroll taxes) and conclude (incorrectly) that 25% of taxes paid go to defense. Of course that's not true, but it's easy to be fooled by the page. Look again at the page. They only show percentages for those items paid for by income tax as a percentage of income tax. If one includes social security spending and medicare spending, then military as a percentage of total taxes is much smaller. You're not supposed to pay attention to social security spending and medicare spending.
That page is meant to fool you.
Want's worse -- it's your own government trying to fool you.
The Constitution allows Congress to spend money to provide for the general welfare of the United States; the health care insurance mandate is arguably unconstitutional, but the other things you mentioned are allowed.
That's insane. Out of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US constitution
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
You do realize that Defence isn't any more special than general welfare, right?
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that it's not in the constitution. Considering that the constitution specifically authorizes the Federal Government to tax to pay for the general Welfare of the United States, I think it's pretty clear that the constitution grants the power.
You, and anyone else who likes paying taxes, are welcome to pay more. Here's the page that tells you how.
If you want to advocate for higher taxes, start by going to that page, following the instructions, and sending the government a check. Then come back and talk to us about paying higher taxes.
I don't like paying taxes, because I don't like paying for everyone else's unearned security. Out of my own pocket, I have saved a six months emergency fund in the bank that could sustain my family for six months should I lose my job. But apparently I'm the only one left who actually saves for a rainy day, because all my medicare taxes go to medicare, and then on top of that an additional 24.3% of my general taxes go to healthcare (again, much of that amount medicare and medicaid), another 21.9% goes to job and family security (unemployment, housing, foodstamps, unearned income credit, etc), and another 5% goes to education and job training. So 100% of my medicare taxes, plus 46.2% of my general taxes go to pay for people who won't provide for themselves and won't save for their own security and/or made poor decisions.
And don't even get me started on social security... I pay through the nose for a system that won't be there when I retire (because it is a ponzi scheme) because a bunch of entitled baby boomers didn't bother to save anything for retirement and are going to bankrupt the whole thing. I actually save for my own retirement (imagine that), but it's pretty hard to get a lot together for that when the government takes almost 13% of my income by force to pay for the retirement of those who didn't bother to prepare for it.
And the worst part of it all? The government has no legal right to fund anything on the list I just mentioned, as none of those things are in the constitution. The military spending is one of the only things on that tax receipt that is actually constitutional (not saying it can't be cut, because it probably should be, but I think we should start with the unconstitutional programs that reward irresponsibility and punish the responsible).
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
One quarter goes to the Military-Industrial Complex. Another quarter goes to the Medical-Industrial Complex. Countless other lesser special interests getting their little cuts of the action as well.
The preamble of the United States constitution reads: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (emphasis added)
Article I, section 8 reinforces this general welfare statement by remarking: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (more emphasis added).
Insofar as Planned Parenthood encourages the development of families that are planned and not just accidents, ACORN encourages get out the vote projects to enhance American democracy, General Electric, General Motors, and Chrysler provide gainful employment for Americans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide opportunities for home ownership, and the like, I think you reasonably have to say the goal is to provide for the general welfare.
You and I are welcome to disagree over whether those are the best ways to promote the general welfare (and in many cases, though not all, I suspect we would be in agreement, despite this post). However, the constitution is pretty clear that the US government has a general broad right to promote the general welfare in the United States.
I should also like to add, one of the primary advocates of the United States Constitution during the period leading up to its ratification was Alexander Hamilton, who was originally in favor of setting up a fairly powerful monarch. He lost out on the the first draft of the Constitution -- the Articles of Confederation -- which provided for a much more limited government. However, we threw that in the toilet and opted for the Constitution, which was designed to strengthen and centralize the Federal government's power, not really limit it (though it does have its own limitations laid out in the Bill of Rights).
Look, I'm pretty sympathetic to the Jeffersonian minimalist government ideal. But the Constitution isn't a Jeffersonian document. It's a Hamiltonian and Madisonian one, and those guys were more for centralized power than the original founders were. Insofar as that's the government we got, that's the government we got.
The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. - Alexander Hamilton
Personally, I'm still rather irritated that a significant portion of my taxes went towards 'health care', and yet I still have zero coverage. I realize that this particular discussion has been beaten to death around here, so don't feel like you have to reply. I just want to complain about it somewhere.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
In other countries, a quarter of their taxes goes to health care, but then they actually get health care for that! It's very sad that in the US, you can pay just as much, yet that only covers old people and poor people and politicians.
I've lived in 3 countries -- UK, Canada, and USA -- and the health care in UK and Canada is a billion times better than in the US. The doctors here in the US spend about half their energy finding funding for whatever care they want to provide, and people here routinely walk around sick and with untreated wounds and diseases. Even people who "have insurance." And people who live on the Canadian or Mexican border cross the border to get health care or buy pharmaceuticals routinely. It's just amazingly sad.
Nomadic, you REALLY need to pick up a history book. You've been swallowing far too much Government Kool-Aid.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -- James Madison, letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
(Hint: there is a lot of sarcasm in this quote): "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ⦠Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." -- James Madison, speech to Congress, 6 Feb. 1792
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -- Thomas Jefferson [emphasis mine]
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison
"... the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison
I could go on. But I think my point is made.
You're not putting it in historical context. Your assertion is unsupported by your purported proof. James Madison was ONE of the framers of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, another framer, had the opposite belief. They both signed the Constitution; why should Madison's interpretation be the operative one, when the plain language of the document itself does not limit the spending power only to the otherwise enumerated powers?
You choose to quote Hamilton, who was an avowed Statist, and who deliberately and publicly contradicted just about everyone else at the Constitutional Convention.
Hamilton was in a very small minority in his thinking. Those who actually decided the principles that would go into the document thought quite differently, and stated so many times.
Hamilton thought the President should effectively be a king. Is that the kind of person you want to follow?
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. -- James Wilson
And the fact is that those who made it -- with the exception of Hamilton and just one or two others -- meant something far different.
Why should we be obsessed with our so-called founding fathers' vision of what should be? Should we not determine this for ourselves rather than believing in the infallibility of our ancestors? We are here because of them, but what they thought is a product of the time they existed. Why should we do what they say when in light of new information we can logically determine a better path?
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Also, all you Amish farmers can STFU about barn-raising until I see Amos over there hoist one up by himself.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
It's hilarious how many slashdotters are accusing me of not knowing history, and then follow that with "proof" that the Constitution doesn't mean what the clear language states based on James Madison's (or Thomas Jefferson's) say-so. You all have to realize that the Constitution was not drafted by a hivemind that had a single intent. There were bitter fights over what it should say and what it should mean. Madison and Jefferson represented only one faction. Hamilton represented another, which interpreted it very broadly. Picking and choosing which signer's intent should govern is idiotic; in these cases you have to look at the plain language of the document. They could have limited the General Welfare Clause to furthering the enumerated powers. They decided not to.
Think for yourself. Research the original sources; don't just grab sound bites off fringe libertarian blogs or wherever you pasted that from t is 1:30 AM, so I am not going to teach you too much history, but be assured that the Hamiltonian view of the general welfare clause was pretty much operative from the beginning, from Washington's administration on. The Jefferson and Madison administrations don't change that.
So the Supreme Court is wrong when they say the General Welfare clause is not limited to furthering the enumerated powers, but they're right when they say the 16th amendment created no new taxes?
By the way, the 16th amendment is very, very clear: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
When the Supreme Court said the 16th amendment created no new ability to tax, they simply meant Congress had the authority to levy income taxes already.
The US government spends more than it earns, so for every dollar of tax you pay, the government spends something substantially more than one dollar, with the difference being borrowed and compounded until some future generation pays it back, or the debt (and everyone's savings) are eroded by printing more money and then paid back. To be accurate, the calculator should add to substantially more than 100%.
Yes, I, most Supreme Court Justices, most Presidents, most Congresspeople, and most legal scholars are wrong, but you are right. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html
No, it was crafted by what were -- on this particular matter -- a very clear majority, and Hamilton was virtually off by himself in a corner.
You would know that, if you had actually read your history.
More like the past 50 years. Al qeada was not a nation.
No, we need to make them pay taxes on their real income rather than their reported salary.
If you actually take the time to expand the categories you'll see that a few lines items could easily be moved around
Federal military and civilian employee retirement and disability 4.6%
This is listed under health care, but a major portion of it could be in the Military personnel salaries and benefits.
The line item for Veterans Benefits 4.1%
could also just as easily have been a sub-paragraph of the Military budget.
So if you wanted to read it differently, Health Care would be at 19.7% and Nation Defense would be at 35%
Now that's more like an American Government!
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Now it's true with numbers released by planned parenthood itself that well over 90% of prenatal services at planned parenthood are abortions
[Citation needed]. These numbers released by Planned Parenthood itself say otherwise.
I love how American political dialogue is strictly limited to the exegesis of a very old document. How bizarre.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I've never seen such pig ignorance.
The Supreme Court affirmed Hamilton's point of view both in Helvering vs Davis and Steward Machine Company vs Davis. The Supreme Court's view is that Congress is entitled to an expansive definition of "general welfare," and may seek to promote it through many means, including its prodigious taxing and spending power.
My pathetic, deluded friend, you should have learned this in middle school. What is going on in your screwed up country that so few understand their own laws and government? Granted, I did well in American history, but I still expect AMERICANS to know SOMETHING about it.
It has deep philosophical roots, based on very practical situations. Learn about the rule of law. It says that no person or organization is above the rule of law (for good reason). In the US, the constitution is the document used to restrain congress, the president, and others from abusing their position. It was carefully designed to do so. It is much like Unix; if you don't follow it you are likely to run into the same problems it was designed to solve.
Note that the situation is not entirely different than the European way. There is a government over the entire European union, but the individual states are responsible for providing things like healthcare or a social safety net. And each one does it in a different way.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I used the tax spending site. And I added my expenses on private medical insurance to my tax expenses on healthcare. That's 54% of my combined total tax and health insurance spending, and 12% of my income. If I include my employer's expenses on my health insurance (that could otherwise be paid directly to me), that's over 18% of my income. I am several years past the median life expectancy and I've collected as much in health insurance benefits over my lifetime as I pay in a year.
I know I'll be spending a lot more as I get older, especially for the last several years where I'm basically dying. I'd just rather spend that close to 20% of my income directly on Medicare in my taxes. Medicare costs less per care than private insurance. The insurance cartel's gouging and stingy approvals, plus its large profits, atop a mountain of waste, are sucking money from me that will never go to my health, or to anyone else's health other than the insurance corp's shareholders.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are working as hard as they can to destroy Medicare and Medicaid, and force all of our health expenses to funnel through the private insurance skimmer. The worst part of the Healthcare Reform they manipulated into a shadow of what was needed is what they are trying to convert the whole thing into.
Medicare for all. Like the rest of the civilized world. Or bust. Literally.
--
make install -not war
Please, enlighten the world, what in your estimation constitutes a 'reasonable amount'? Please.
Should it be percentage of their total wealth?
Should it be percentage of their earnings?
Is, say, 49% good enough?
Is it supposed to be 79%?
Is it 99%?
Do you know how much you pay today if you earn more than 500Kin Connecticut today? With 35% federal, 6.5% state (and the governor wants to push it up by a few points), FICA is really irrelevant then, because it's capped at first 100K, but 2.9% Medicare tax is applied on the ENTIRE amount. This is only the income taxes, can you do the addition?
Add to this the existing gas and other consumption taxes, levies and excise taxes, import and property taxes, you get to over 50%. The serfs of the past paid 25% to their lords. Why are people today being treated worse than serfs? Why do people today have to have their taxes cut in half at least to get to the level of serfs?
What is fair? Why should anybody pay any taxes based on income rather than on consumption? After all, money that is earned but not spent is reinvested, shouldn't investment be rewarded rather than consumption? Of-course it should, but not in an economy based on government subsidized spending through borrowed and printed money, gov't doesn't want savings - it wants spending, thus it subsidizes spending in various asset classes and creates bubbles in them, all this while printing money so that it doesn't have to pay its debts back in real money but in printed funny money (and this adds an additional inflation tax on your entire US dollar denominated holdings).
Real question is: who in their right mind is still paying taxes in USA and why should they do that at all? I think everybody should stop paying income taxes yesterday.
You can't handle the truth.
So, you would like the top 1% to pay over 35% of all federal income tax collected? Or maybe you think the top 5% should pay over 50% of all federal income tax collected?
Of course, the fact is they already do. So, exactly what do you consider a "reasonable" amount?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Well played. That's one of the best analogies I've seen in a while.
That's a completely illogical argument because individual actions cannot solve collective problems. Installing a catalytic converter on your own car won't improve the air you breathe in the slightest, whereas requiring everybody to do so (including yourself) causes a huge improvement. The two are not the same, so equating them doesn't work.
GE, as in 'Government Electric'? :)
I already made my point clear - I am against government owning any assets, printing money, borrowing, taxing income, subsidizing any businesses or individuals, regulating any businesses and basically doing anything beyond minimum military and justice system (and I am now convinced they can't do that right either.)
As to having the top rate at over 90% (I believe it was 94% at some point), that does not change this simple fact: the actual effective taxes collected have always staid between 18% and 20%, which indicates that it is the real rate anybody is ever paying, and it's because changes of tax codes cause changes in behavior.
However I was specifically talking about personal income taxes, which in USA are unacceptably high (they should be 0%). But I will reiterate my position: all income taxes and payroll taxes and all corporate income taxes must be 0%, I really hope I am clear on my point. My point is that government must never be allowed to grow based on income but only based on ratio of consumption that the economy is involved in, because during bad times consumption must subside and give place to increases in savings and production.
But yes, I am against all government and corporate ties, there must be none.
You can't handle the truth.
So, you would like the top 1% to pay over 35% of all federal income tax collected? Or maybe you think the top 5% should pay over 50% of all federal income tax collected?
Of course, the fact is they already do.
Of course they do. The income tax is specifically designed for that purpose, which is why it is always singled out by right wing propaganda interests.
So, exactly what do you consider a "reasonable" amount?
A percentage high enough to ensure that you don't get a run away wealth distribution which eventually destroys the economy. While it is difficult to say exactly, historical evidence seems to indicate that 70% top margin income taxes with around 50% capital gains tax accomplishes that decently.
Do you know how much you pay today if you earn more than 500Kin Connecticut today? With 35% federal, 6.5% state (and the governor wants to push it up by a few points), FICA is really irrelevant then, because it's capped at first 100K, but 2.9% Medicare tax is applied on the ENTIRE amount. This is only the income taxes, can you do the addition?
The problem is it's not entirely additive. That 35% number you quote for federal is only for the amount above $380k (when the 35% bracket kicks in). People often quote the highest rate as if that's the total tax for the entire amount. This often comes up when people talk about taxes 50 years ago at 90% tax rates. The problem with this is that taxes are progressive so quoting the highest rate is misleading.
If you want to talk about taxes due, you should be calculating the effective tax rate, not the top tax rate. On $500k it's about 29% with no deductions (which everyone gets). Start there and your point would have more weight.