11 ms·

Ultimately this indicates that people aren’t satisfied with the returns on taxation. I’m all for supporting a government that supports the people. From my per

• jedmeyers 8y ago
  > What we get in the U.S. is the most advanced warfare system ever. You get this in Canada as well, they just don’t pay for it - US taxpayers do.
  • blhack 8y ago
    Most of Europe, and most of Asia too.
  • endorphone 8y ago
    In WWII Canada had the world's fourth largest air force, fifth largest navy. Canada was involved in WWII more than two years before the United States joined. You keep the military for the times, or at least most countries outside of the United States and its absolutely outrageous military spend does. If you think the US went to Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam for Canada (or countless exercises throughout the rest of the world, usually to prop up whatever the favored dictator was, and to promote US interests), or that Canada owes US taxpayers for that, you're profoundly mistaken (though Canada went heavily into Afghanistan for the United States, the single time NATO was actually invoked for defense).
  • alpinewinter 8y ago
    The US exports variants of a lot of military hardware for sure, but it still keeps the cream of the crop tucked away, such as the F-22. Don't think for a second the US military hasn't planned for having to wage war against a country that it's outfitted with it's own technology. Many exported items have reduced capabilities, and lack the communications systems that allow information sharing between all military assets. Information at the front line is what wins battles.
    • tjr225 8y ago
      Do you have any sort of evidence for these claims? This all sounds a little bit wild and "feely."
• rootusrootus 8y ago
  I would say it is dissatisfaction with the government's contract with the citizenry, combined with recent evidence suggesting that a good chunk, say half, of the population has no interest in progressing. So people who can leave for somewhere that more closely aligns with their values are doing just that. I have family here and I love the United States, I'm staying, and I hope we can make some more progress, but I totally understand why some people don't want to wait that long.
  • umvi 8y ago
    > combined with recent evidence suggesting that a good chunk, say half, of the population has no interest in progressing Different people have different definitions of "progress". Your definition of progress might not align with mine. That doesn't mean I am not interested in progress, just that I believe we should be progressing in a different (possibly even diametrical) direction than you believe we should be progressing.
    • skrowl 8y ago
      Clearly OP means agreeing with his agenda here. Anything contrary to his agenda is not progress, but going backwards. "around half" is a veiled hit on people who voted for President Trump.
      • rootusrootus 8y ago
        No, I just mean progress. We have data, we could be using it to improve. But instead, we watch other countries leapfrog us in quantifiable ways while we point fingers at each other and accuse 'the other side' of being the real problem. And we are so enamored with ourselves being special that we won't even consider ideas from other countries which have successfully dealt with similar problems. It is very frustrating. And I don't care which side politically you are on, you are only part of the problem from my perspective if you care more about winning than actually making better policy.
    • eli_gottlieb 8y ago
      That's fine to say, but it ignores the problem of minority rule. If we all take a big vote, and most people want Progress(A), you don't have the ethical right to jump up and down or put a gun to the rest of our heads insisting that we instead do Progress(B). Maybe Progress(B) is a lovely thing for you. The rest of us, however, don't like it very much, and didn't vote for it.
• sgjohnson 8y ago
  Israel’s warfare system is far more advanced than the US. Paid for by the US taxpayer of course.
  • uncoder0 8y ago
    When is the last time Israel was able to project power thousands of miles from it's border for nearly two decades? They have cool toys no doubt but, not really compares to our arsenal in human history.
    • expathacker 8y ago
      Considering Israel is increasingly succeeding in making it illegal for Americans to protest them, I would answer your question with, "A minute ago?"
      • crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        This is a very strange area to discuss. And given the grayed out text, you've already been downmodded. I had this, err, debate on Reddit recently. I am against the actions Israel is taking against Palestine. I view it as an atrocity in its own right. (There, I said my part. Please hear the rest out.) From that, I said I was against the actions of violence. However I was attacked and called an antisemite. And it wasn't one person. It was quite a few. Something is going on, in that criticizing bad actions makes me construed as some sort of a hater (read: racist, sexist, ageist, nationalist, etc). Obviously this also has other broad implications. If I disagree with practices of X, means I somehow hate X, even if I don't. I also see that similar viewpoint bandied here at HN, primarily with the once-a-month article about women and tech (which devolves into flamewars and large swaths of comments being disconnected by dang). What's going on here? It's certainly a phenomenon which I'm seeing accelerated. Is this the growing pains of having hypercommunication across the world? Is this the problem of having up-to-the-second news?
        • cazum 8y ago
          Watch "The Lobby" by The Electronic Intifada. It will shed a lot of light onto what you're describing.
• uncoder0 8y ago
  We really need to address the absolute cost of healthcare in this country before we can make any progress on nationalizing any portion of it. The pure costs are outrageous. We spend ~$10,000 per capita in 2017 vs ~$6,000 in Norway which has a similar per capita GDP. (PPP adjusted https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-relative-size-wealth-u-s-spends-disproportionate-amount-health https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...)
  • assblaster 8y ago
    Actually that's not that bad for the United States since the obesity rate in the US is 4x that of Norway. If the US got its obesity rate under control, we could save a lot of money (less hypertension, less diabetes).
    • imnotlost 8y ago
      The US health care system is a very well run billing machine with average (compared to other developed nations) health outcomes as a lucky side-effect. I pay $6000+/year in health insurance in the US + deductibles + co-pays + + + and I don't even know if they'll cover me when shit really hits the fan - but hey, I'll get a flu shot "for free". Check profit margins for companies in the health care space, they're pretty good.
    • skh 8y ago
      Do you have any studies that you can point to that support this view? It’s OK if you can’t or don’t. I’ve heard this point of view often but it doesn’t jive with my anecdotal experience.
      • assblaster 8y ago
        Diabetes and hypertension both increase the risks of coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, renal disease, peripheral vascular disease, blindness, heart chamber enlargement and failure, localized infections, decreased wound healing requiring increased post-op surveillance and complications, obstructive sleep apnea (obesity) and its associated problems including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure. As you can see, obesity is a leading risk for all these problems. We need to fix obesity.
• cowpig 8y ago
  Somehow I doubt that most people are thinking of where they want to live in terms of "returns on taxation"
  • daenz 8y ago
    Maybe not directly, but that's the cause. Most people want to live somewhere clean, with low crime, good infrastructure, and jobs. Most cities have tax-funded programs for all of those things. If they aren't on par, then there's two culprits: a) not enough tax dollars, b) taxes aren't being used effectively. Personally, I think it's almost always the latter. You can look at the historical effectiveness of most programs, and coincidentally, they seem to get less effective as more money becomes available.
    • muzz 8y ago
      There are other things that governments do besides tax and spend. Things like individual and civil rights and freedoms, etc.
      • max76 8y ago
        The United States doesn't have a monopoly on liberty and civil rights. 45% of all countries are "free" using The United State's own definition of the term [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House
        • muzz 8y ago
          Indeed, seeking particular rights and freedoms might be a reason to live outside the United States.
  • howard941 8y ago
    It's not clear where the emphasis on taxation is coming from. It's not in the underlying article and the polling shows only two wealth categories. Based on the data it's age that determines whether or not to leave the US, which makes sense since there'd be shallower roots to leave behind.
• maxerickson 8y ago
  Federal healthcare spending is much larger than military spending: https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_... (from https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... ) It's unfortunate the chart includes social security, which isn't quite tax and spend the way most of the rest of the federal budget is.
  • the_watcher 8y ago
    To most people, Social Security is seen as a tax, since it comes out of your paycheck in the form of a "Social Security Tax".
    • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      It's also an unusually regressive tax, because it's flat rate, which isn't that bad if what it funds is progressively delivered (i.e. paid out the same to everyone rather than based on how much income you had), but it isn't. And then on top of that there is an income cap above which you don't pay any more.
      • kortilla 8y ago
        It’s paid out based on how much you contributed. Flat rate doesn’t mean everyone pays the same thing, it means same percentage.
        • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
          That's the problem. Progressive means taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It's possible to do that with flat taxes when they pay for a uniform benefit, so everyone pays 20% and everyone receives $10,000, because paying 20% is $50,000 for someone with a lot and $5000 for someone with a little. Social security doesn't do that. The rich get back everything they put in. Or more when you were forced to put money into social security and then couldn't use it for healthcare, then receive nothing because you don't live long enough, while the rich people who outlive you get the money you paid.
• ergothus 8y ago
  While I agree with the general sentiment, I think this stresses an emphasis on taxes that isn't right. Do you think these people would still be unsatisfied if the tax rate was 0%? I do. Dissatisfaction with the govt does not necessarily mean dissatisfaction with the return on the investment of taxes. I want kids to be educated, people to be healthy, and that desire doesn't change if my tax rate is 0% or 80%. Sure, there's a point at which I think that taxes aren't the answer, but the root desire is not about taxes, they are merely a means to an end. Many of the libertarian-leaning folks here will have a very different view of the above, but I think that would be apples and oranges - they view govt as either inefficient or unjust, but the issues in this article are different, about effectiveness and functioning.
  • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Dissatisfaction with the govt does not necessarily mean dissatisfaction with the return on the investment of taxes. I want kids to be educated, people to be healthy, and that desire doesn't change if my tax rate is 0% or 80%. Sure, there's a point at which I think that taxes aren't the answer, but the root desire is not about taxes, they are merely a means to an end. The issue is about efficiency. If you pay $2000 in taxes, you want to be getting >=$2000 in value for it. If you have to pay $5000, the value needs to be >=$5000. The problem in the US is that government efficiency is a disgrace. We spend more on the military than most other countries combined and get... what, oil? We already have oil. And we need less of it, not more. Our healthcare costs are outrageous and rather than do anything at all to actually address the cost, we just keep increasing the amount of tax money that gets thrown at it -- which only raises the costs further. Social security is designed to sound progressive when it's really a transfer of wealth from poor to rich (because the rich live longer), and which deprives the poor of money during their working years that they could have used to send their children to college and other investments in the future, intentionally making the choice to retire later or rely on that investment they could (and now can't) make in their children to support them in their old age. Or for that matter have just invested the same money in a major index ETF, which has always had better long-term returns than social security to begin with. If we were getting what we're getting now and paying half the taxes then everything would be fine, because then you don't have free healthcare but you do have the amount of money it costs to buy healthcare. It would also be fine if we were paying what we are now but getting twice as much. But we're not.
• king_panic 8y ago
  Consider that most, if not all, of these developed nations can afford the services you listed because America has vowed to protect them with it's military power. We spend on military force so they don't have to. The money they save is used for the services you listed. We could renegotiate, which is what President Trump is doing, yet Id guess Americans want to have the worlds largest and most advanced military. "He with the biggest stick" mentality.
  • normal_man 8y ago
    We spend on military to protect our economic and imperial interests abroad, and no other reason.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
• axaxs 8y ago
  I think this hits the nail on the head. I don't like our healthcare system, daycare like school system, lack of mass transit, and defense spending. In theory, of course I'd like to move to another country that better serves its citizens. Will I? Very doubtful. But as long as the government fails its people, a lot of them are going to -want- to leave.
• greesil 8y ago
  I agree that we don't get a good return on the taxes we pay. But, defense spending is about 1/6 of the federal budget at around 3% of GDP. For comparison medicare/medicaid combined is about 5% of GDP. Apparently France spends 4% of GDP on healthcare total, not just for old people. I think the biggest problem with our system is not necessarily that defense spending is so high, but that our healthcare system is so inefficient.
  • megaman8 8y ago
    much of the defense spending is hidden in other areas: like Dept of energy, dept of veteran affairs, homeland security, etc. So it's a lot bigger than it looks.
    • tannerwj 8y ago
      Where could I see numbers on this?
      • skh 8y ago
        Isn’t the CIA, NSA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard (which is not part of the Pentagon), etc. all part of national defense? You can look up the public portion of their budgets online. The VA should be counted too since it’s a cost of national defense.
        • muzz 8y ago
          Also things like interest on the amount of debt used to fight wars
          • greesil 8y ago
            Probably dwarfed by borrowing required for the tax cut now.
  • jazzyk 8y ago
    Your conclusion is correct, your numbers are not - the spending gap is much higher (which supports your point even better) US spending is over 18%, almost double the cost in France. Even the oh-so-expensive Switzerland spends ~12% of its GDP on healthcare. https://www.statista.com/statistics/184968/us-health-expenditure-as-percent-of-gdp-since-1960/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/184968/us-health-expendi... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-spending/u-s-health-spending-twice-other-countries-with-worse-results-idUSKCN1GP2YN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-spending/u-s-healt...
• benmarten 8y ago
  I disagree for the opportunities we have here and the amount of taxes we pay it's pretty great!
• tick_tock_tick 8y ago
  People contently use this false dichotomy around military spending to avoid acknowledging that we spend just as much or more on health care and other social services per capita as the other western nations. How we spend that money is just horribly inefficient! We can have both the most advanced military and a solid social system if we can figure out how to get our social spending return on investment close to other western nation. Universal Health care would be a big step. Other stuff to look at is collapsing the number of social services agencies down to a more reasonable numbers, not removing the benefits. Actually auditing our system to figure out what is and what is not working rather then allocating money based on political appearances.
  • skh 8y ago
    There was no false dichotomy in what I wrote. Our return on taxation is a horrible healthcare system and an extremely effective military. I mentioned nothing about level of spending. I mentioned the returns on said spending. Of corse we could have a powerful military and a good healthcare system but we don’t. We have the former but not the latter.
    • kortilla 8y ago
      It’s an implied false dichotomy. There is no reason to mention the military spending otherwise.
      • skh 8y ago
        I didn’t mention military spending or any other spending. I mentioned returns on taxation. What we get in return for our taxes in the U.S. is an overly expensive healthcare system, overly expensive education system, etc. and the only thing that really shines is the military. Hence, I’m disatisfied with the returns on taxation.
  • wwweston 8y ago
    > How we spend that money is just horribly inefficient! Well, it depends on what your goal is. If it's to improve population-wide health care outcomes, then yes, we do a worse job than many other first world nations. If it's to allow for a, ah, "vibrant" set of industries who can benefit from capturing social spending while providing mixed outcomes which we justify by enshrining the fundamental attribution error under the banner of "meritocracy" then perhaps we're being efficient after all.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• benj111 8y ago
  "aren’t satisfied with the returns on taxation" Ironic as American expats are still taxed, unless they give up citizenship. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-us-citizens-living-abroad-owe-us-tax.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-us-citizens-liv... https://www.americansabroad.org/us-taxes-abroad-for-dummies-update/ https://www.americansabroad.org/us-taxes-abroad-for-dummies-...
  • duaoebg 8y ago
    The reduction in tax is still substantial.
    • benj111 8y ago
      I've heard scare stories of dual nationals who have never been to the US being taxed. As far as I'm aware, its the only nation that taxes its citizens in that way.
    • muzz 8y ago
      How is there any reduction in tax if expats must still pay US taxes?
      • duaoebg 8y ago
        There is foreign earned income exclusion. Which stops at $100K but this is still a lot for many people. I’m not American so it’s not my problem, but it’s what I hear from other tax exiles. My parents are American but given the choice for me to become American I declined due to the whole tax issue.
      • walrus01 8y ago
        https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore... there is a "physical presence test" where you need to be resident outside the USA for 330 days or more a year. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion-physical-presence-test https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
• duaoebg 8y ago
  I’m a tax exile. It has been the best decision I have ever made. I now save 10x more money each year. More and more Americans are turning up every year doing the same thing. I love America but the idea of paying American taxes is just too much from a fiscal, moral, ideological point of view.
  • totalrobe 8y ago
    Where? Somewhere with decent jobs or do you need a remote gig?
    • duaoebg 8y ago
      I can’t say where I live as there are not enough expats here for me to stay anonymous but I can say work remotely for US companies.
• tivert 8y ago
  > Ultimately this indicates that people aren’t satisfied with the returns on taxation. No, not at all. In the US, it's not uncommon for partisans to threaten to "move to Canada" if the party they oppose wins the election. Here's are some examples (http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/election-move-canada-trump/ http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/election-move-canada-trump/). All this indicates is that some people are dissatisfied with the results of an election and the party and politicians who are in power.
• bliblah 8y ago
  I can't help but feel that is misguided because it sounds like the only solution is to lower taxes and make people happy. From my experience some of the reasons people in my circle have left / wish to leave the US are the following: - Race relations have become more divisive. If you speak spanish in certain parts of the country you are outright asked to provide proof of citizenship as though you are a second class citizenship. BLM has also made counter movements more bold with my black friends being harassed more by the police over trivial things. -Gun Violence. I live in Florida and have had two close calls with gun massacres in Parkland and Orlando. I am reaching the age where if I were to have kids I would have to make a cost/benefit analysis of their chances getting shot down in cold blood. - Politics have become more divisive than ever. I have friends on both sides of the political spectrum and it is becoming unbearable if you are anything but a left/right wing radical. Either way every election ensures that 50% of the population is outright mad at all times. -General Cultural Differences. In the US you need to have a car to get anywhere and opportunities for employment feel very limited outside the mega city centers which tend to be very car centric and have no real culture outside of a few museums. Obviously it would help if the government was better organized but I don't see how the points I raised would be solved outside of a huge shift in culture.
  • muzz 8y ago
    I've seen reasons listed and also: - Health Care. Before a few years ago, it was possible to be completely rejected by all carriers and not be able to buy it at any price. Even with insurance, a major illness or chronic condition can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions and wipe out a lifetime of savings.
  • skh 8y ago
    That’s a fair point. I guess underlying my view on return on taxation is a belief that government ought to be there to support people. If Americans en masse could be convinced that this is what government ought to be about then the shift in culture you speak of might come about. Maybe then the public debate would be about what is efficacious and not the vapid vituperation that currently pervades American political discourse.
• saosebastiao 8y ago
  I'm well into the ~16% mentioned in this article, and you hit exactly on the reason why. Other countries may pay 10-20% more for their governments, but they are getting 100-200% more value from it. We pay 4-10x the price of comparable first world countries for basic infrastructure like water, roads, and transit. We already pay more per capita for Medicare than most countries spend on universal health care. 15% of my earnings immediately go into a social welfare system that will be insolvent before I'm 50 years old. And even though our military has the best technology and funding in the world, we can't win wars against AK47s, IEDs, and Toyota Hiluxes. Paying taxes in the US is like throwing cash into a dumpster fire. The sad thing is that due to tax rules on expat earnings, I can't just vote with my feet, I have to vote with my citizenship. That may not be the end of the world (I'm already on the path to dual citizenship with an EU country), but its a bit like getting a divorce because your husband spends too much on beer: it has to get really bad before it gets to the point of divorce. And for me, it's almost there.