5 ms·

New public management and low taxation of the wealthy has been the bane of western society for almost 50 years.

by jaabe 8y ago

CryptoPunk 8y ago
Government spending as a percentage of GDP has grown rapidly over the last 50 years. Most of that growth has been in social welfare spending. Meanwhile, the effective tax rate that the rich pay has decreased only slightly since 50 years, despite a very large decrease in the top income bracket tax rate, due to fewer loopholes and deductions available in the tax code. Their relative contribution to total tax revenue has increased on account of growth in their share of national income.
- Retric 8y ago
  Depends greatly on how you count. Is the Veterans Administration under Defense, Heathcare, or social welfare? At what point does a highly targeted tax break count as spending? How about loans? Do you count debt interest as it’s own thing or part of what caused the debt in the first place etc etc. The US tax code and spending is designed to allow politicians to tell very specific narratives, making this stuff very difficult to measure objectively.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    No, the incease in social welfare spending has been overwhelming. The statistics on that are clear. It's a much more leftist/government-dependent society than it was in the 1950s. Just consider all of the social programs that exist today and didn't exist in the 1950s. The federal Department of Education didn't even exist then. Neither did the EPA or the OSHA.
    - aaronblohowiak 8y ago
      The big ones since the 50s are Medicare, Medicaid and COLA-adjusted Social Security.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Social Security has been cut over the last 50 years. We have an older population, but full benifits start much later. So, if your talking cash flows it looks one way, if your talking about what laws are on the books it’s a different story. The Social Security trust fund further complicates the issue.
        CryptoPunk 8y ago
        SSDI was very stringent in 1950. Today it costs over $140 billion a year and covers vastly more people. Numerous free service and cash transfer programs have been created since 1950, which has caused total spending on social welfare programs to increase dramatically: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov4/16fivethirtyeight-gov4-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
        Retric 8y ago
        Again that’s an oversimplification. States have moved people to SSDI while removing them from their own social programs. You really need to look at total government expenditure per person adjusted for gdp per person to see how things have changed over time. Tradional welfare programs really have been cut. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfare_Benefits_Payments_Graph.gif https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar.... Social Security and Medicare play different roles today vs 50 years ago, but they are just one slice of a larger picture. That includes an aging population and other demographics issues, but also ever shifting bureaucracy and social norms. We created welfare under the belief that single mothers should raise their kids, now norms have changed. Remember, the first Social Security recipients never paid into the program. It was created with the belief we should support the elderly, now people need to ‘pay into’ the system. Further SS was created in 1935, meaning once again the USA used to have a more progressive outlook.
        CryptoPunk 8y ago
        State social welfare spending has massively increased since 1950, both in real per capita terms, and as a percentage of GDP, so your narrative of states scaling back social programs is false. And states do not have the power to "move people to SSDI". Eligibility is determined by the federal government, and the federal government has expanded eligibility over the last 70 years. All broad-based measures of social welfarism show it has massively increased since 1950. I really don't understand how you can look at the spending statistics and claim social programs in general have been cut. >>Tradional welfare programs really have been cut. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar.... Despite some instances of welfare reform and scale backs, the bigger picture, of total per capita welfare spending, and welfare spending as a percentage of GDP, shows welfare has been massively expanded: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov5/16fivethirtyeight-gov5-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
    - Retric 8y ago
      If you’re going to call the EPA a social program then you might as well include the FBI as it also helps the public. Arguably all government spending can fall under social welfare using the broadest definition. Which is what I am getting at. You need to clearly define what you mean. Vast numbers of multi millionaires receive social security and or Medicare benifits for example. So if you include them you’re not talking about aid for the poor. The FAA for example improves the general welfare of the US, but it’s solving a problem we simply did not have 100 years ago. It’s hard to say such an increase in spending is a bad thing.
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        No, I made the reference to the EPA to make the broader point that society has moved to a much more leftist/government-dominated mode since 1950. The rise of social welfare spending is one major part of that.
  - sien 8y ago
    For reference. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... 60% of US government spending is on Medicare and Health and Social Security. About 2.3 Trillion. Interest on debt 230 Billion.
    - nilskidoo 8y ago
      Counterargument: That is a blunt lie. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/259476-ex-gao-head-us-debt-is-three-times-more-than-you-think https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/259476-ex-... https://fpif.org/americas-global-military-bases-actually-undermine-national-security-heres-how/ https://fpif.org/americas-global-military-bases-actually-und... I'd imagine maintaining ownership of 95% of all military bases on the planet costs a little more than the 15 bucks per month my mom got in food stamps.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Just Federal interest on debt in 2018 was $523,017,301,446.12 or 523 Billion. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.ht... To get 230 Billion you must first ignore state and local debt a rather significant number, then ignore over half of Federal Interest. So, I am not sure where you’re getting that number from. Which gets back to my point, the way you do the calculation makes a huge difference in what the numbers look like. Only consider interest over the inflation rate and boom it suddenly looks vastly smaller.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  What is social welfare? Is that an official term?
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    It's a technical term. It means any kind of cash transfer or social service provided at the taxpayer's expense primarily to assist low income individuals.
    - erikpukinskis 8y ago
      So it doesn't count if it's assistance for the wealthy? Seems like an odd distinction.
dang 8y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're all the same, therefore uninteresting, therefore off topic here. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19296446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19296446.

New public management and low taxation of the wealthy has been the bane of western society for almost 50 years.

by jaabe 8y ago

New public management and low taxation of the wealthy has been the bane of western society for almost 50 years.

Government spending as a percentage of GDP has grown rapidly over the last 50 years. Most of that growth has been in social welfare spending. Meanwhile, the effective tax rate that the rich pay has decreased only slightly since 50 years, despite a very large decrease in the top income bracket tax rate, due to fewer loopholes and deductions available in the tax code. Their relative contribution to total tax revenue has increased on account of growth in their share of national income.

Retric 8y ago
Depends greatly on how you count. Is the Veterans Administration under Defense, Heathcare, or social welfare? At what point does a highly targeted tax break count as spending? How about loans? Do you count debt interest as it’s own thing or part of what caused the debt in the first place etc etc. The US tax code and spending is designed to allow politicians to tell very specific narratives, making this stuff very difficult to measure objectively.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  No, the incease in social welfare spending has been overwhelming. The statistics on that are clear. It's a much more leftist/government-dependent society than it was in the 1950s. Just consider all of the social programs that exist today and didn't exist in the 1950s. The federal Department of Education didn't even exist then. Neither did the EPA or the OSHA.
  - aaronblohowiak 8y ago
    The big ones since the 50s are Medicare, Medicaid and COLA-adjusted Social Security.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Social Security has been cut over the last 50 years. We have an older population, but full benifits start much later. So, if your talking cash flows it looks one way, if your talking about what laws are on the books it’s a different story. The Social Security trust fund further complicates the issue.
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        SSDI was very stringent in 1950. Today it costs over $140 billion a year and covers vastly more people. Numerous free service and cash transfer programs have been created since 1950, which has caused total spending on social welfare programs to increase dramatically: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov4/16fivethirtyeight-gov4-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
        Retric 8y ago
        Again that’s an oversimplification. States have moved people to SSDI while removing them from their own social programs. You really need to look at total government expenditure per person adjusted for gdp per person to see how things have changed over time. Tradional welfare programs really have been cut. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfare_Benefits_Payments_Graph.gif https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar.... Social Security and Medicare play different roles today vs 50 years ago, but they are just one slice of a larger picture. That includes an aging population and other demographics issues, but also ever shifting bureaucracy and social norms. We created welfare under the belief that single mothers should raise their kids, now norms have changed. Remember, the first Social Security recipients never paid into the program. It was created with the belief we should support the elderly, now people need to ‘pay into’ the system. Further SS was created in 1935, meaning once again the USA used to have a more progressive outlook.
        CryptoPunk 8y ago
        State social welfare spending has massively increased since 1950, both in real per capita terms, and as a percentage of GDP, so your narrative of states scaling back social programs is false. And states do not have the power to "move people to SSDI". Eligibility is determined by the federal government, and the federal government has expanded eligibility over the last 70 years. All broad-based measures of social welfarism show it has massively increased since 1950. I really don't understand how you can look at the spending statistics and claim social programs in general have been cut. >>Tradional welfare programs really have been cut. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar.... Despite some instances of welfare reform and scale backs, the bigger picture, of total per capita welfare spending, and welfare spending as a percentage of GDP, shows welfare has been massively expanded: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov5/16fivethirtyeight-gov5-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
  - Retric 8y ago
    If you’re going to call the EPA a social program then you might as well include the FBI as it also helps the public. Arguably all government spending can fall under social welfare using the broadest definition. Which is what I am getting at. You need to clearly define what you mean. Vast numbers of multi millionaires receive social security and or Medicare benifits for example. So if you include them you’re not talking about aid for the poor. The FAA for example improves the general welfare of the US, but it’s solving a problem we simply did not have 100 years ago. It’s hard to say such an increase in spending is a bad thing.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      No, I made the reference to the EPA to make the broader point that society has moved to a much more leftist/government-dominated mode since 1950. The rise of social welfare spending is one major part of that.
- sien 8y ago
  For reference. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... 60% of US government spending is on Medicare and Health and Social Security. About 2.3 Trillion. Interest on debt 230 Billion.
  - nilskidoo 8y ago
    Counterargument: That is a blunt lie. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/259476-ex-gao-head-us-debt-is-three-times-more-than-you-think https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/259476-ex-... https://fpif.org/americas-global-military-bases-actually-undermine-national-security-heres-how/ https://fpif.org/americas-global-military-bases-actually-und... I'd imagine maintaining ownership of 95% of all military bases on the planet costs a little more than the 15 bucks per month my mom got in food stamps.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Just Federal interest on debt in 2018 was $523,017,301,446.12 or 523 Billion. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.ht... To get 230 Billion you must first ignore state and local debt a rather significant number, then ignore over half of Federal Interest. So, I am not sure where you’re getting that number from. Which gets back to my point, the way you do the calculation makes a huge difference in what the numbers look like. Only consider interest over the inflation rate and boom it suddenly looks vastly smaller.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
What is social welfare? Is that an official term?
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  It's a technical term. It means any kind of cash transfer or social service provided at the taxpayer's expense primarily to assist low income individuals.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    So it doesn't count if it's assistance for the wealthy? Seems like an odd distinction.

dang 8y ago

Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're all the same, therefore uninteresting, therefore off topic here. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19296446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19296446.