4 ms·

While I agree, there are a lot of problems with the tax system for ex-pats, and I would love some reform being an ex-pat myself, it's not clear to me why citize

While I agree, there are a lot of problems with the tax system for ex-pats, and I would love some reform being an ex-pat myself, it's not clear to me why citizens shouldn't be double taxed. Sure, for some things (national funding for roads, schools, etc...), ex-pats may receive no benefit. But 53% of US discretionary spending is military spending. In what way does the US military provide more service to resident citizens than ex-pats? Now to my mind, all this military spending doesn't help anyone and just causes a bunch of problems, but that's not how our democracy works. I don't get to opt out of paying for the war in Iraq just because I didn't support it. And what about programs like NASA, which I do support? They provide no less benefit to me than they do to resident citizens. Given that large portions of the budget (Military, Veteran's Benefits, International Services together make up 63% of discretionary spending) serve residents and ex-pats, it seems like the most logical thing would be for ex-pats to get a tax discount (which they do), not to pay no taxes at all.

mattmcknight 11y ago
Talking just about just "discretionary" spending is not an accurate way to talk about where our tax money goes.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> discretionary spending "Discretionary spending" is a term the left made up to lie about how much of the budget is things they want. Things they want are non-discretionary, other things are discretionary. It's political newspeak, not a comprehensible way to measure the government budget.
- caseydurfee 11y ago
  Incorrect, it has a perfectly precise legal meaning. Discretionary spending is government spending allocated through an appropriations bill. It's useful to distinguish between entitlement programs and non-entitlement programs. Where did you get the idea it was simply "political newspeak"? Perhaps you should reassess the value of your contributions to these types of discussions in light of your demonstrated ignorance here.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    It's political newspeak because the large majority of the federal budget is social programs and so is the overwhelming majority of "non-discretionary spending." Excluding it diverts focus away from the primary source of government expenditures. It's language designed to make a particular thought unthinkable, which is the defining characteristic of newspeak.
    - caseydurfee 11y ago
      You said: "Things they want are non-discretionary, other things are discretionary." That simply isn't true. Things that are funded by an appropriations bill are considered discretionary because the level of funding they receive is up to the discretion of Congress. Things that are funded by a mandate are not considered discretionary because their funding is not up to the discretion of congress from year to year. The opinions of liberals or conservatives do not factor into which is considered which. There is a precise legal meaning here. It is not simply "a term the left made up". In addition to there being a legal distinction, there is also an accounting distinction. Medicare and social security, the two biggest non-discretionary expenditures by the federal government, come out of entirely different piles of money than discretionary expenditures do. Were you not aware of that? Your income taxes are not funding social security. Your social security taxes are not funding things that come out of the general budget. Cutting social security benefits would not free up more money to fund the things you think government should be doing. So, although I get that you do not like the nomenclature, I don't get how it makes some particular thought unthinkable. They are two different things. They should have two different names. It seems far more Orwellian to pretend like there isn't a legal difference between the two, simply because it would make achieving political goals you happen to find favorable easier. You seem to be under the impression we could take the money from social security or medicare and spend it on stuff you like better. Legally, that isn't true. So yes, in the sense that it would be totally freaking illegal, it is "unthinkable" to cut social security in order to lower income taxes. You might as well refer to calling animals "lions" and "tigers" as newspeak, because they make the thought that they are actually the same species of animal unthinkable. Well, they aren't the same species of animal. So it ain't newspeak, it's just nomenclature that you don't like. It is perfectly accurate to describe spending appropriated from the general fund as discretionary and social security as non-discretionary whether or not you like the terminology. They're two different things, one of which is up to the discretion of congress, one of which is not. Come up with a new term if you'd like. But you've strongly implied you think the two types of spending aren't different. That's not Orwellian -- that's you simply not understanding freshman high school civics. You also claimed that "discretionary spending" is a term the left made up. Are you going to post a citation for that, or admit you were wrong?

mattmcknight 11y ago

Talking just about just "discretionary" spending is not an accurate way to talk about where our tax money goes.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> discretionary spending "Discretionary spending" is a term the left made up to lie about how much of the budget is things they want. Things they want are non-discretionary, other things are discretionary. It's political newspeak, not a comprehensible way to measure the government budget.

caseydurfee 11y ago
Incorrect, it has a perfectly precise legal meaning. Discretionary spending is government spending allocated through an appropriations bill. It's useful to distinguish between entitlement programs and non-entitlement programs. Where did you get the idea it was simply "political newspeak"? Perhaps you should reassess the value of your contributions to these types of discussions in light of your demonstrated ignorance here.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  It's political newspeak because the large majority of the federal budget is social programs and so is the overwhelming majority of "non-discretionary spending." Excluding it diverts focus away from the primary source of government expenditures. It's language designed to make a particular thought unthinkable, which is the defining characteristic of newspeak.
  - caseydurfee 11y ago
    You said: "Things they want are non-discretionary, other things are discretionary." That simply isn't true. Things that are funded by an appropriations bill are considered discretionary because the level of funding they receive is up to the discretion of Congress. Things that are funded by a mandate are not considered discretionary because their funding is not up to the discretion of congress from year to year. The opinions of liberals or conservatives do not factor into which is considered which. There is a precise legal meaning here. It is not simply "a term the left made up". In addition to there being a legal distinction, there is also an accounting distinction. Medicare and social security, the two biggest non-discretionary expenditures by the federal government, come out of entirely different piles of money than discretionary expenditures do. Were you not aware of that? Your income taxes are not funding social security. Your social security taxes are not funding things that come out of the general budget. Cutting social security benefits would not free up more money to fund the things you think government should be doing. So, although I get that you do not like the nomenclature, I don't get how it makes some particular thought unthinkable. They are two different things. They should have two different names. It seems far more Orwellian to pretend like there isn't a legal difference between the two, simply because it would make achieving political goals you happen to find favorable easier. You seem to be under the impression we could take the money from social security or medicare and spend it on stuff you like better. Legally, that isn't true. So yes, in the sense that it would be totally freaking illegal, it is "unthinkable" to cut social security in order to lower income taxes. You might as well refer to calling animals "lions" and "tigers" as newspeak, because they make the thought that they are actually the same species of animal unthinkable. Well, they aren't the same species of animal. So it ain't newspeak, it's just nomenclature that you don't like. It is perfectly accurate to describe spending appropriated from the general fund as discretionary and social security as non-discretionary whether or not you like the terminology. They're two different things, one of which is up to the discretion of congress, one of which is not. Come up with a new term if you'd like. But you've strongly implied you think the two types of spending aren't different. That's not Orwellian -- that's you simply not understanding freshman high school civics. You also claimed that "discretionary spending" is a term the left made up. Are you going to post a citation for that, or admit you were wrong?