3 ms·

Sorry, I don't know anything about the US, but according to this one 2020 pie chart [1], 15% of the federal budget was spent on pensions/social security, and 12

by creata 4y ago

Sorry, I don't know anything about the US, but according to this one 2020 pie chart [1], 15% of the federal budget was spent on pensions/social security, and 12% was spent on welfare (the "Other" is "Agriculture, Energy, General Government Services, and International Affairs"). That doesn't add up to "more than half", so can you clarify? Edit: and, I suppose, it's a little weird to insinuate that welfare programs aren't "useful activities". [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Govern...

lumb63 4y ago
My apologies. You’re right, my math was off. I based my data off that exact chart and counted “healthcare”, “social security”, and “welfare” in my statement and just had my math incorrect. The healthcare is Medicare/Medicaid which workers pay into to give themselves health insurance in old age and for the disabled, etc. Social security works similarly. I suppose it is unfair to classify them as not “useful activities”. I just think that they’re by definition negative for society. Individuals can get higher rates of return in private accounts than they can in the governments coffers. They don’t have to pay as high of administrative fees (since they are the administrators). From the perspective of people who are always having wealth redistributed away from them, these programs are unlikely to be perceived as “useful”, is what I meant. I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. EDIT: now that I think about it, there is another dimension to this. It’s not fair to say the above about high income earners without mentioning that a portion of US spending is financed entirely by debt and has been for many years. We are forcing future generations to subsidize our present-day spending. This is some of why there is a common anti-boomer sentiment amongst millennials: they prospered racking up the national debt, ignoring climate change, etc., and millennials are left to foot the bill. I’d imagine this causes a non-negligible anti-government lean to some younger folks.
- chongli 4y ago
  I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. Don’t libertarians drive on public roads? Don’t they shower and do laundry with water from public utilities? Don’t they shop at Walmart where the employees are subsidized by welfare? I’m sure plenty of libertarians own businesses whose foot traffic is brought to their door on public sidewalks and roads. This is what is meant by the cat quote. All of the infrastructure of society is paid for by public spending. Libertarians ignore all this and complain about misappropriation and government waste. Very few libertarians talk about what it would really be like to live in an “anarcho-capitalist paradise”. The answer is it wouldn’t exist for long. Pay a private corporation for everything the government does and it becomes the new government. Don’t be surprised when it starts pushing you around. I think the reality is that most libertarians don’t want that. They want to benefit from the status quo but find ways to escape paying for it. That’s fine, everyone does that to some extent. It’s just annoying when they get so self-righteous about it.
  - lumb63 4y ago
    I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. For the upper half of taxpayers who pay 97% of the cost of those public goods, they’re losing. Regarding subsidization of low-income earners by welfare, I see it as a moot point. The cost of their labor has been artificially decreased by the presence of the welfare system. Society as a whole still pays the cost of that labor, just Walmart gets to get away with not being the one paying it. I am also yet to meet even the hardest-core of libertarians who don’t believe the government has business funding roads. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are separate things for a reason.
    - chongli 4y ago
      I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. I’m talking about the same thing. If you’re a business owner, you’re getting far more out of infrastructure and stable government than an average person. Without all of that, you have no business at all! I am also yet to meet even the hardest-core of libertarians who don’t believe the government has business funding roads. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are separate things for a reason. Of course not! Because anarcho-capitalists are principled in their stance. Libertarians just want to get rid of anything they, personally, don’t benefit from directly. In other words, they want to tear up the social contract. It’s not a valid philosophy at all, it’s just naked hypocrisy.
      - lumb63 4y ago
        Assuming you believe prices represent value, then if you believe that high-income earners get more out of roads than they pay for them, either low income earners get less out of them than they pay for (regressive taxation), or the price of roads is simply too low. Either you think the premise is wrong, or I’m missing something.
        chongli 4y ago
        I'm not talking about income earners, I'm talking about business owners. You can be a billionaire owner while drawing a $1/yr salary. Steve Jobs was one famous example. He got far more benefit (net billions) out of the infrastructure of the US than an average person (who will not get anywhere near a billion in their lifetime). Percentages are misleading when it comes to economic status. Look at it this way. Say you have 2 people, one who works retail and earns $10/hr and pays 10% taxes, pocketing the other $9/hr. The other person owns $2 billion worth of stock and cashes it out and pays 12% capital gains tax, pocketing the remaining $1,760,000,000. Even though the billionaire paid higher tax as a percentage, they received far more benefit from having a safe, stable, secure society than the retail worker. Why do so many people with money choose to move to the US from 3rd world countries? Even when they could stay home and pay no taxes and live like kings due to their purchasing power, they choose to come to the US where their wealth instantly shrinks (lower purchasing power) before even paying a cent in taxes. It's because they recognize the enormous benefits of low corruption, security, safety, education, health care, and infrastructure that the US has that their home country lacked.
- mattigames 4y ago
  Americans pay way way more for healthcare than any other country _because_ the prices of the medical resources are in private hands, in complete opossition to your claim that they would get "higher rates of return in private accounts": https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019 https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2... , and you can easily find that the countries with the most control, e.g. Denmark have the best healthcare while disallowing for-profit enterprises in anything healthcare related.

by creata 4y ago

lumb63 4y ago

My apologies. You’re right, my math was off. I based my data off that exact chart and counted “healthcare”, “social security”, and “welfare” in my statement and just had my math incorrect. The healthcare is Medicare/Medicaid which workers pay into to give themselves health insurance in old age and for the disabled, etc. Social security works similarly. I suppose it is unfair to classify them as not “useful activities”. I just think that they’re by definition negative for society. Individuals can get higher rates of return in private accounts than they can in the governments coffers. They don’t have to pay as high of administrative fees (since they are the administrators). From the perspective of people who are always having wealth redistributed away from them, these programs are unlikely to be perceived as “useful”, is what I meant. I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. EDIT: now that I think about it, there is another dimension to this. It’s not fair to say the above about high income earners without mentioning that a portion of US spending is financed entirely by debt and has been for many years. We are forcing future generations to subsidize our present-day spending. This is some of why there is a common anti-boomer sentiment amongst millennials: they prospered racking up the national debt, ignoring climate change, etc., and millennials are left to foot the bill. I’d imagine this causes a non-negligible anti-government lean to some younger folks.

chongli 4y ago
I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. Don’t libertarians drive on public roads? Don’t they shower and do laundry with water from public utilities? Don’t they shop at Walmart where the employees are subsidized by welfare? I’m sure plenty of libertarians own businesses whose foot traffic is brought to their door on public sidewalks and roads. This is what is meant by the cat quote. All of the infrastructure of society is paid for by public spending. Libertarians ignore all this and complain about misappropriation and government waste. Very few libertarians talk about what it would really be like to live in an “anarcho-capitalist paradise”. The answer is it wouldn’t exist for long. Pay a private corporation for everything the government does and it becomes the new government. Don’t be surprised when it starts pushing you around. I think the reality is that most libertarians don’t want that. They want to benefit from the status quo but find ways to escape paying for it. That’s fine, everyone does that to some extent. It’s just annoying when they get so self-righteous about it.
- lumb63 4y ago
  I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. For the upper half of taxpayers who pay 97% of the cost of those public goods, they’re losing. Regarding subsidization of low-income earners by welfare, I see it as a moot point. The cost of their labor has been artificially decreased by the presence of the welfare system. Society as a whole still pays the cost of that labor, just Walmart gets to get away with not being the one paying it. I am also yet to meet even the hardest-core of libertarians who don’t believe the government has business funding roads. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are separate things for a reason.
  - chongli 4y ago
    I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. I’m talking about the same thing. If you’re a business owner, you’re getting far more out of infrastructure and stable government than an average person. Without all of that, you have no business at all! I am also yet to meet even the hardest-core of libertarians who don’t believe the government has business funding roads. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are separate things for a reason. Of course not! Because anarcho-capitalists are principled in their stance. Libertarians just want to get rid of anything they, personally, don’t benefit from directly. In other words, they want to tear up the social contract. It’s not a valid philosophy at all, it’s just naked hypocrisy.
    - lumb63 4y ago
      Assuming you believe prices represent value, then if you believe that high-income earners get more out of roads than they pay for them, either low income earners get less out of them than they pay for (regressive taxation), or the price of roads is simply too low. Either you think the premise is wrong, or I’m missing something.
      - chongli 4y ago
        I'm not talking about income earners, I'm talking about business owners. You can be a billionaire owner while drawing a $1/yr salary. Steve Jobs was one famous example. He got far more benefit (net billions) out of the infrastructure of the US than an average person (who will not get anywhere near a billion in their lifetime). Percentages are misleading when it comes to economic status. Look at it this way. Say you have 2 people, one who works retail and earns $10/hr and pays 10% taxes, pocketing the other $9/hr. The other person owns $2 billion worth of stock and cashes it out and pays 12% capital gains tax, pocketing the remaining $1,760,000,000. Even though the billionaire paid higher tax as a percentage, they received far more benefit from having a safe, stable, secure society than the retail worker. Why do so many people with money choose to move to the US from 3rd world countries? Even when they could stay home and pay no taxes and live like kings due to their purchasing power, they choose to come to the US where their wealth instantly shrinks (lower purchasing power) before even paying a cent in taxes. It's because they recognize the enormous benefits of low corruption, security, safety, education, health care, and infrastructure that the US has that their home country lacked.
mattigames 4y ago
Americans pay way way more for healthcare than any other country _because_ the prices of the medical resources are in private hands, in complete opossition to your claim that they would get "higher rates of return in private accounts": https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019 https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2... , and you can easily find that the countries with the most control, e.g. Denmark have the best healthcare while disallowing for-profit enterprises in anything healthcare related.