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.
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.
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.
Let's imagine a world where you don't pay for the "unearned security" of others. The kid next door, through no fault of his own, has irresponsible parents. Maybe he gets knocked around. He certainly can't afford college. He tries to get a job, but the antics of the super-rich (in their efforts to become double-ultra-super-rich) have sent a lot of them overseas. He has no access to food or medicine or shelter, because you're too greedy to toss some money his way.
So he breaks into your home, robs, and murders you.
Taxes are what the rich people pay in exchange for the poor letting them continue to be rich. Doesn't seem fair? Tough shit. Life isn't fair. Just ask that starving kid next door.
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?
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%.
Taxes are what the rich people pay in exchange for the poor letting them continue to be rich. Doesn't seem fair? Tough shit. Life isn't fair. Just ask that starving kid next door.
Exactly. Funny how the anti-tax people only state that life isn't fair when they're asked to feel sympathy for the kid born to poor parents, through no fault of their own. But ask them to pay taxes and all of a sudden they feel like we should be in some fairy-tale flat-tax (or no tax) world.
What I like to ask the wealthy whiners is; if you're getting treated so unfairly while these freeloading, poor, sub-human, cradle-to-grave ghetto-dwellers are living the high-life off of your tax dollars, you should be happy to trade places, right? Right?
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
I'm not sure how much you budgeted for those six months, but one major medical emergency while not covered by health insurance would probably wipe out the majority of those savings.
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.