4 ms·

That's because our government (referring to the USA) is extraordinarily inefficient with taxpayer money. My tax rate in NYC was something like 36% (not countin

That's because our government (referring to the USA) is extraordinarily inefficient with taxpayer money. My tax rate in NYC was something like 36% (not counting student loan payments and healthcare premiums), but where was this money going? We're paying practically the same tax rate as countries with universal healthcare, free/affordable universities, and strong safety nets, but we have none of the above. In my 5 years in NYC I saw the subway get progressively worse every year, while the homeless population exploded. I felt like that money might as well be getting flushed down the toilet. If I could more tangibly see where that money is going, then I'd probably feel differently. I think taxpayers should have some agency in choosing where their taxpayer money goes. Andrew Yang proposed something like this, and I love the idea: > "Each American should be able to direct 1% of their taxes to a specific project. During Revenue Day, these projects will be highlighted, showing what, exactly, America’s money was able to accomplish during the previous year. Initial profiles of the next year’s projects will also be announced so people can get excited for them." [1] I wouldn't mind paying taxes in the U.S. if I felt like they were being productively used. It's hard to feel that way. [1] https://www.yang2020.com/policies/making-taxes-fun/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/making-taxes-fun/

baggy_trough 7y ago
It would be far better for the average citizen if the tax receipts were burnt in a giant dumpster rather than further the malignant tumor of a state that we are afflicted with.
- DrScientist 7y ago
  Perhaps - but are the reasons for the US government dysfunction - because: 1. it has too much government 'civil service' ? 2. or too much private and corporate emasculation of effective government? ie the very sentiments you echo are directly supporting the agenda of 2 and not 1.
  - baggy_trough 7y ago
    I view it as the inevitable growth of a self perpetuating bureaucracy over decades in the absence of any significant constraining force.
zamfi 7y ago
I'm assuming that 36% doesn't include you and "your employer's" payroll tax of 15.3% of your income, which nominally goes to social security and medicare but really ends up in the general fund. You are indeed paying over 50% of your income -- the same, or more, in tax as our higher-development neighbors! I'm not sure if you knew where the money was going you'd feel much better about it. For one, it's not necessarily about inefficiency, but that is part of it. For all the hate for the NHS (foreign, that is, most of the UK apparently feels love), the UK spends about $171B (USD) to provide healthcare for 66 million people. The Federal government here spends $600B to provide healthcare for 44 million people (via Medicare). It's not the same population of course -- Medicare is heavily involved in end-of-life care. But then if you include even just federal spending on Medicaid, you end up with $1T spent to provide care to 110 million people. At UK spending rates, $1T could provide medical care for the whole US population. Yes, if we had the same healthcare spending profile as the UK's NHS, we could provide healthcare for all, pay no more than we do now in taxes, and meanwhile eliminate private insurers and the hefty premiums individuals and their employers currently pay today. But the main thing that separates us from our HDI neighbors is military spending. The USA allocates $600-800B/year to the DoD and VA (healthcare for vets). By some measures the wars in the Middle East since 2001 have cost nearly $7T. I'm not here to argue about the value of wars, but it's pretty clear that the primary focus of American conflict in the Middle East is oil. I'm not making a claim one way or the other that the USA is going to war just for oil, but it's also pretty clear that if the world were not purchasing ungodly amounts of the stuff pumped from the desert, the folks the US armed forces have been fighting would not have the kind of resources they do, and I'm pretty sure these wars would have cost much less -- if they'd happened at all. That seems like a huge tangent, except that the $7T the US spent fighting oil-funded adversaries literally could today buy every driving-age American a Tesla Model 3. We could have eliminated almost 50% of domestic oil consumption, and perhaps shifted the world's power structure in a way that better serves what the DoD probably considers American interests, compared with the unending wars we currently have. Would that have been better? Maybe we'll do it next time.

baggy_trough 7y ago

It would be far better for the average citizen if the tax receipts were burnt in a giant dumpster rather than further the malignant tumor of a state that we are afflicted with.

DrScientist 7y ago
Perhaps - but are the reasons for the US government dysfunction - because: 1. it has too much government 'civil service' ? 2. or too much private and corporate emasculation of effective government? ie the very sentiments you echo are directly supporting the agenda of 2 and not 1.
- baggy_trough 7y ago
  I view it as the inevitable growth of a self perpetuating bureaucracy over decades in the absence of any significant constraining force.

zamfi 7y ago

I'm assuming that 36% doesn't include you and "your employer's" payroll tax of 15.3% of your income, which nominally goes to social security and medicare but really ends up in the general fund. You are indeed paying over 50% of your income -- the same, or more, in tax as our higher-development neighbors! I'm not sure if you knew where the money was going you'd feel much better about it. For one, it's not necessarily about inefficiency, but that is part of it. For all the hate for the NHS (foreign, that is, most of the UK apparently feels love), the UK spends about $171B (USD) to provide healthcare for 66 million people. The Federal government here spends $600B to provide healthcare for 44 million people (via Medicare). It's not the same population of course -- Medicare is heavily involved in end-of-life care. But then if you include even just federal spending on Medicaid, you end up with $1T spent to provide care to 110 million people. At UK spending rates, $1T could provide medical care for the whole US population. Yes, if we had the same healthcare spending profile as the UK's NHS, we could provide healthcare for all, pay no more than we do now in taxes, and meanwhile eliminate private insurers and the hefty premiums individuals and their employers currently pay today. But the main thing that separates us from our HDI neighbors is military spending. The USA allocates $600-800B/year to the DoD and VA (healthcare for vets). By some measures the wars in the Middle East since 2001 have cost nearly $7T. I'm not here to argue about the value of wars, but it's pretty clear that the primary focus of American conflict in the Middle East is oil. I'm not making a claim one way or the other that the USA is going to war just for oil, but it's also pretty clear that if the world were not purchasing ungodly amounts of the stuff pumped from the desert, the folks the US armed forces have been fighting would not have the kind of resources they do, and I'm pretty sure these wars would have cost much less -- if they'd happened at all. That seems like a huge tangent, except that the $7T the US spent fighting oil-funded adversaries literally could today buy every driving-age American a Tesla Model 3. We could have eliminated almost 50% of domestic oil consumption, and perhaps shifted the world's power structure in a way that better serves what the DoD probably considers American interests, compared with the unending wars we currently have. Would that have been better? Maybe we'll do it next time.