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
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 we stop funding defense, what happens?
I agree that defense spending should be cut, but I also wonder if we (the US) need to restructure what we call "defense." For example, I think a lot of defense-related research is a Good Thing (ARPANET comes to mind). My guess is the research would be the first to go, which could royally screw us down the road.
It does seem to me that cutting the military operations budget could be a good thing, but I'm really not qualified to speak on that I guess...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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%.
What seems incredible to me is you're paying more tax for healthcare than me, yet in my country I get healthcare that is free at the point of use and don't need health insurance at all.
I think I rather like my (pejoratively termed by right wingers in the US) "socialist health care system". It's certainly way cheaper on my tax take and neither I nor my employer don't have to pay for insurance on top of that.
I therefore have to agree 100%: your health care system sounds as if it needs reform.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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.
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.
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.