6 ms·

Because it's enlightened self-interest. I personally love paying taxes that go to these functions because they keep people in homes and off streets, they keep

by r00fus 2y ago

Because it's enlightened self-interest. I personally love paying taxes that go to these functions because they keep people in homes and off streets, they keep people from dying early. You may like the stench of death and despair all around you - I sure don't want to live in that world.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
How much are you willing to pay for this? If Congress voted for 50% taxation and could somehow prove to you that it was all going to care for those less fortunate than you, would you be okay with that? 75%? 90%? What quality of life are you aiming for the recipients? Do they each get a cot in a shelter? Their own room? Their own apartment or house? Do they get it with no strings attached or do they have to try to improve their own lot while the taxpayer helps them? How long do we want to extend lives for? Surely we all agree on medication and life-saving care for children. Should a 95 year old get hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend their lives for 6 months? These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now.
- Bjartr 2y ago
  These are questions with long standing answers arrived at iteratively over decades. Should those answers continue to be questioned and iterated upon? Absolutely. Is throwing the baby out with the bathwater all at once while crying "taxes bad!" likely to be an iteration that results in net improvement to American society? Probably not.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    These questions have not been answered, that's why Americans just voted for someone who vowed to decrease spending
    - Bjartr 2y ago
      It's not like we rolled dice to get the spending we had. Decisions were made based on information available. There are detailed explanations available for all sorts of spending. Refusing to seek that out isn't the same as it not existing. That's not to say the decisions were perfect, far from it. But thinking we can arrive at better outcomes by just throwing it all away and ignoring all we've learned is the height of insecurity and arrogance, not a sign of strength. Edit: > that's why Americans just voted for someone who vowed to decrease spending The number of people that voted as they did that would switch their vote if only someone would explain where their taxes went in more detail is extremely small.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        New information is available, we've incorporated it and decided the spending isn't worth the cost. We will find a new equilibrium. It will likely not be 0 spending and will hopefully not be the spending regime we have today.
        Bjartr 2y ago
        Yep, and we could have gotten there with a lot fewer people being hurt in the process.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        In theory, maybe? In reality, no it has never worked before.
        jaybrendansmith 2y ago
        I'm sure this what your gut told you. Why don't you explain the plan to the rest of us, using facts. This is a technical site. Last time I checked, 25% of the current debt is caused by the current guy conducting the largest wealth transfer in history from the young to the old. But somehow that translates to "Fed government too big." Try selling that to people that don't read, anyone here can read the CBO reports.
    - ribadeo 2y ago
      You don't have the data nor the right to claim WHY 1% marginally preferred candidate x to candidate y.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        I don't have the right to make a claim on an internet opinion board?
- gazpacho 2y ago
  I would gladly pay 75% taxes if they went to the right thing. I’d rather be at the mean income wise in a society with low inequality than in the top percentile of a society that has large inequality. I’ve been both. I can agree that overspending is not a good thing, but I don’t think the solution is cutting out public programs altogether, I think we should focus on making those programs efficient, eg not making them a charity for multinational corporations that are in great part owned by the very states we consider our “enemies”. Maybe we shouldn’t be lining the pockets of the oil and gas industry, big pharma, etc and instead be lining the pockets of the American people with value through education, opportunity, etc.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    What's the right thing? Are you sure that you and I agree on that? Do you and Elon Musk agree? The tax pool is taken from everyone. In practice, I believe you would find a 50% tax distasteful because it's pretty much guaranteed that it's not going to be spent exactly as you direct. What used to happen before vast income tax regimes and welfare states arose was that people who were wealthy would donate huge amounts of money to charities that did what they thought were the right thing. Even the working class donated 10-20% of their income to charities that did the right thing. The way you guarantee that money is spent on the right thing is by having the power to spend it, which means lower taxes.
    - roboror 2y ago
      What specific time period and location before "vast income tax regimes and welfare states" are you talking about? And who gave money to what?
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        I'm referring to much of the Western world prior to 1950, and you see this behavior in the middle east today (obviously, they disagree with you about "the right thing"). This is usually enforced socially, by communities and churches. The social safety net that governments provide today used to be a function of community charities and churches. Even modern healthcare has an analogue here.
- cemerick 2y ago
  > Surely we all agree on medication and life-saving care for children. That is absolutely not a given. The currently in-power minority earnestly believe that people are only due the level of healthcare they can personally fund and afford, period. > These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now. Which Americans? There's no grand debate happening right now, just a table-flipping tantrum. It's a fun exercise to do the chin-stroking thing of asking about efficiency and tax rates and so on, but it's so disconnected from the reality of the federal budget that it's hard to believe it's anything other than a cynical tactic. Military spending is the overwhelming majority of non-discretionary spending, and there are effectively no limits to it. Meanwhile, extremely high-leverage foreign aid (like the HIV-related treatments that have been mentioned) are always first on the chopping block, along with things like school lunches and early childhood education that have been demonstrated to be effectively free in terms of how much spending on remediating bad outcomes later in peoples' lives.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    The "grand debate" happened, Americans voted, and now the guy who won is delivering on his campaign promises. Whether you agree with Trump or not, this should not be a surprising outcome. He told us he was going to do this. >Military spending is the overwhelming majority of non-discretionary spending This is so wildly wrong and easily disproven that I really can't take the rest of what you say seriously.
    - UncleMeat 2y ago
      But he isn't. This isn't framed as a "we need to bring down costs and stop paying for things and that's just going to be hard" initiative. This is framed as a mechanism of eliminating DEI programs. In the US spending is controlled by Congress. The Congress was voted on by the people. The idea that Trump throwing bombs into the federal budget is democracy but following Congress' passed budget isn't is ridiculous.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        The idea you have is nice, but congress doesn't pass real budgets any more. That means that there is a lot more ability to make the money slosh around.
- op00to 2y ago
  50% of billionaires wealth? Hell yeah.
- 1659447091 2y ago
  > would you be okay with that? 75%? 90%? Why ask about raising individual American taxes while turning a blind eye to Trump gunning at lower corp taxes even more than he already had? And we know it will happen because he gets it done, for America *cough oilarchs* I would be okay with Trump raising the corporate tax rate, instead of saving some 296 of the largest US companies $240B in taxes between 2018-2021[0]. Though this time should be even more, right? He's going to take it to a whole new level of lowest tax rate for Corporates than "any nation on earth". Can't wait for him to lower the tax burden on Big Corp even more, Those C-suites, investors, have such a hard life scrapping by the way they do. No wonder they can't afford better wages for the workers. Let's keep the tax burden on the middle class where it belongs so we can Make America Great Again. [0] https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/ https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-...
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  > These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now. No they’re actually not. You made those questions up as absurd examples, and they’re absurd.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Llama! I was wondering when you'd show up. We comment on all the same stories
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      <3
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  These FUD arguments are ridiculous. Americans are already paying far more in privatised taxation - tribute - to healthcare companies, landlords, fossil fuel companies, and loan sharks of various kinds - than they would pay with higher federal tax rates investing in R&D, infrastructure, education, clean energy, and public health. There's nothing hypothetical about pointing out that the billionaire economy is massively distorted and extractive, and is caused huge public harm which will literally remain visible for geological timescales.
TeaBrain 2y ago
>I personally love paying taxes that go to these functions An issue with this is that it isn't just current tax payers and tax revenues that are paying for this federal spending, but a ballooning debt due to a budget deficit. The brunt of this debt's interest burden is going to fall on the future tax payer. Edit: To be clear, I'm not passing judgment on whether this pausing action was warranted. I'm only responding to the part of the user's comment implying that federal spending is being paid for by current taxes, when it is not necessarily. As a decent chunk is paid for by debt, some of the current federal spending will be the responsibility of future tax payers, including those who cannot yet vote, as these future tax payers will be the ones paying off the interest.
- Balgair 2y ago
  I mean, the playbook here is pretty well used: Create an emergency that wasn't there (cut all the fed aid and grants, muck up the government, etc) Make a solution that will fix it (the soon to be tax bill, also the secretary positions and other stuff) Stuff that solution with every policy candy you can (pro-life, tax cuts, guns for tots, funding catholic schools, etc. It's going to be a conservative jelly doughnut) Due to the emergency, we must pass this bill (ram through the tax bill asap, no need to read the thing, blame the slackers, etc) Declare victory, hope that helps reelection EDIT: To be clear, I don't think that's what is going through the new admin's heads. At best, I think it's more of a 'pull things out of the engine until it stalls, then put things back in and hope it runs again' kinda thing. But more likely, it seems they really haven't a clue what they are doing. All those people in the first admin that put country in front of self are gone this time around, and it shows.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
dutchbookmaker 2y ago
I don't know what you think is going to happen if we don't get spending under control. It is beyond me how younger people especially are not rioting in the streets with the amount of money that the government has been spending.
- roboror 2y ago
  The problem isn't spending, the problem is the rich don't pay nearly enough taxes.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Sure maybe? but more important to me is to lower my own tax burden
    - 1659447091 2y ago
      But, more importantly, the thing important to Trump is lowering the corporate tax burden. Even more than he already had.
    - truckerbill 2y ago
      If you are competing for resources with billionaires, who's taxes also go down, you are losing money.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        By that logic I am better off with lower taxes, since the government is a trillionare and moving the money to billionares is progressive.
        truckerbill 2y ago
        The government is accountable (in theory). The government is a different kind of entity with different behaviour to a single human, or even a corporation. Your argument is a semantic one and was not made in good faith I think... But if the government acted more selfishly , like a corporation (it's heading that way), then yes you are also competing with the government in certain areas. It partly depends if the billionaires in question and your semi-fictional idea of government are colluding directly. In which case you would be competing with a n-trillion dollars of capital for things like housing, some of which is controlled by billionaire beneficiaries. Essentially government monopolies are what you might be worried about, which do exist. In reality the government also spends some of its money on infrastructure and other common-goods, which creates common wealth. The government (with central banks) also creates money so the idea of direct competition (which makes no sense to me outside of something like sovereignty over large amounts of land / mineral wealth / taxable subjects ) isn't so relevant.
joemazerino 2y ago
Feel free to donate to the charity of your choosing then. Forcing citizens to donate to only state approved movements seems coercive.
- yndoendo 2y ago
  Didn't that drive the 1950 & 1960s in the USA? Taxing the rich and giving to the working class to build bridges, schools, GI homes, ... Isn't that classified as the most stable economy in their history? The only decades where the stock market was stable? How do you know your taxes are not going where they should? Do you wish for them not to be used to help the sick, the poor, and the vulnerable? Was DARPA's tax payer investment in ARPNET worth it or DOD with GPS? I'm not saying there is abuse in the system, any should be found and dealt with. Nor saying spending should stays the same, money needs to move improve the health, well-being and wealth of non-rich.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    The biggest boom and gains in the US arguably happened after the Civil War and before WW1, during which federal tax burden was something like 2% and there was no income tax.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      Not on a per-capita basis. Real GDP growth per-capita rose 2.2x* between 1866-1913. That's smaller than say, the period starting after WW2, 1946-1993 which as 2.5x. Even post-WW1 1919-1966, it went up by roughly the same as post-civil war, 2.2x - and that period includes a depression and heavy income taxes. Given how much easier it is to double a small economy than a large one, the fact post-WW2 period beat it is doubly impressive. Also one should note there was actually an income tax from 1861-1872. * Using Maddison Project estimates of real GDP
      - ty6853 2y ago
        That is strong evidence post WW2 is a competing nomination. At 2.2 vs 2.5 it is probably down into the noise if they are estimates, especially ones from 1800s. This why I did not provide any quantitative comparison. Down into the noise on a winner, I think I'll take the one with much lower taxes and far lower incarceration rate as my preferred template to break the tie.
ObscureMind 2y ago
[flagged]
- ty6853 2y ago
  I've put these points up many times on online forums and it is a sure way to get ad hominemed to oblivion, and if that doesn't discredit you then you're banned or flagged. It's simply not allowed opinion. I remember when everyone was calling for public daycare/preschool. I posted an address for anyone who felt it was their duty to pay for daycare of others to send the money for my child. I received nothing but curses. What they really meant was everyone else would pay and they would receive.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    No, it’s that welfare programs reduce crime and improve the livelihoods of the entire population, and they have flow on benefits to the economy by increasing workforce participation and lifting education levels where more advanced products and services can remain on shore (subsequently also increasing government revenue). Instead, the US does not invest in its people, and fears the immigrants that will do the jobs they aren’t willing to endure or study for. Compare to Asia, where universal education and healthcare are valued at the cultural level and it’s clear why they have sophisticated economies and why jobs have shifted there. The US only holds its position as long as it holds it’s hegemony on global capital, but it also holds record amounts of debt vs GDP, and disruptions like Deepseek are a reminder of where most of the talent in the world comes from. Capital and geopolitical dominance alone isn’t going to save the country. To make America great again, you have to invest in the people. (And if America isn’t the people, what exactly is it to you?)
    - netsharc 2y ago
      > And if America isn’t the people, what exactly is it to you? Not grandparent commenter, but I wanted to make the snark comment that maybe America is now just the blustering violence, at home and exported, and that even bullets are more protected than kids.
  - 2y ago

by r00fus 2y ago

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

How much are you willing to pay for this? If Congress voted for 50% taxation and could somehow prove to you that it was all going to care for those less fortunate than you, would you be okay with that? 75%? 90%? What quality of life are you aiming for the recipients? Do they each get a cot in a shelter? Their own room? Their own apartment or house? Do they get it with no strings attached or do they have to try to improve their own lot while the taxpayer helps them? How long do we want to extend lives for? Surely we all agree on medication and life-saving care for children. Should a 95 year old get hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend their lives for 6 months? These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now.

Bjartr 2y ago
These are questions with long standing answers arrived at iteratively over decades. Should those answers continue to be questioned and iterated upon? Absolutely. Is throwing the baby out with the bathwater all at once while crying "taxes bad!" likely to be an iteration that results in net improvement to American society? Probably not.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  These questions have not been answered, that's why Americans just voted for someone who vowed to decrease spending
  - Bjartr 2y ago
    It's not like we rolled dice to get the spending we had. Decisions were made based on information available. There are detailed explanations available for all sorts of spending. Refusing to seek that out isn't the same as it not existing. That's not to say the decisions were perfect, far from it. But thinking we can arrive at better outcomes by just throwing it all away and ignoring all we've learned is the height of insecurity and arrogance, not a sign of strength. Edit: > that's why Americans just voted for someone who vowed to decrease spending The number of people that voted as they did that would switch their vote if only someone would explain where their taxes went in more detail is extremely small.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      New information is available, we've incorporated it and decided the spending isn't worth the cost. We will find a new equilibrium. It will likely not be 0 spending and will hopefully not be the spending regime we have today.
      - Bjartr 2y ago
        Yep, and we could have gotten there with a lot fewer people being hurt in the process.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        In theory, maybe? In reality, no it has never worked before.
      - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
        I'm sure this what your gut told you. Why don't you explain the plan to the rest of us, using facts. This is a technical site. Last time I checked, 25% of the current debt is caused by the current guy conducting the largest wealth transfer in history from the young to the old. But somehow that translates to "Fed government too big." Try selling that to people that don't read, anyone here can read the CBO reports.
  - ribadeo 2y ago
    You don't have the data nor the right to claim WHY 1% marginally preferred candidate x to candidate y.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      I don't have the right to make a claim on an internet opinion board?
gazpacho 2y ago
I would gladly pay 75% taxes if they went to the right thing. I’d rather be at the mean income wise in a society with low inequality than in the top percentile of a society that has large inequality. I’ve been both. I can agree that overspending is not a good thing, but I don’t think the solution is cutting out public programs altogether, I think we should focus on making those programs efficient, eg not making them a charity for multinational corporations that are in great part owned by the very states we consider our “enemies”. Maybe we shouldn’t be lining the pockets of the oil and gas industry, big pharma, etc and instead be lining the pockets of the American people with value through education, opportunity, etc.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  What's the right thing? Are you sure that you and I agree on that? Do you and Elon Musk agree? The tax pool is taken from everyone. In practice, I believe you would find a 50% tax distasteful because it's pretty much guaranteed that it's not going to be spent exactly as you direct. What used to happen before vast income tax regimes and welfare states arose was that people who were wealthy would donate huge amounts of money to charities that did what they thought were the right thing. Even the working class donated 10-20% of their income to charities that did the right thing. The way you guarantee that money is spent on the right thing is by having the power to spend it, which means lower taxes.
  - roboror 2y ago
    What specific time period and location before "vast income tax regimes and welfare states" are you talking about? And who gave money to what?
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      I'm referring to much of the Western world prior to 1950, and you see this behavior in the middle east today (obviously, they disagree with you about "the right thing"). This is usually enforced socially, by communities and churches. The social safety net that governments provide today used to be a function of community charities and churches. Even modern healthcare has an analogue here.
cemerick 2y ago
> Surely we all agree on medication and life-saving care for children. That is absolutely not a given. The currently in-power minority earnestly believe that people are only due the level of healthcare they can personally fund and afford, period. > These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now. Which Americans? There's no grand debate happening right now, just a table-flipping tantrum. It's a fun exercise to do the chin-stroking thing of asking about efficiency and tax rates and so on, but it's so disconnected from the reality of the federal budget that it's hard to believe it's anything other than a cynical tactic. Military spending is the overwhelming majority of non-discretionary spending, and there are effectively no limits to it. Meanwhile, extremely high-leverage foreign aid (like the HIV-related treatments that have been mentioned) are always first on the chopping block, along with things like school lunches and early childhood education that have been demonstrated to be effectively free in terms of how much spending on remediating bad outcomes later in peoples' lives.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  The "grand debate" happened, Americans voted, and now the guy who won is delivering on his campaign promises. Whether you agree with Trump or not, this should not be a surprising outcome. He told us he was going to do this. >Military spending is the overwhelming majority of non-discretionary spending This is so wildly wrong and easily disproven that I really can't take the rest of what you say seriously.
  - UncleMeat 2y ago
    But he isn't. This isn't framed as a "we need to bring down costs and stop paying for things and that's just going to be hard" initiative. This is framed as a mechanism of eliminating DEI programs. In the US spending is controlled by Congress. The Congress was voted on by the people. The idea that Trump throwing bombs into the federal budget is democracy but following Congress' passed budget isn't is ridiculous.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      The idea you have is nice, but congress doesn't pass real budgets any more. That means that there is a lot more ability to make the money slosh around.
op00to 2y ago
50% of billionaires wealth? Hell yeah.
1659447091 2y ago
> would you be okay with that? 75%? 90%? Why ask about raising individual American taxes while turning a blind eye to Trump gunning at lower corp taxes even more than he already had? And we know it will happen because he gets it done, for America *cough oilarchs* I would be okay with Trump raising the corporate tax rate, instead of saving some 296 of the largest US companies $240B in taxes between 2018-2021[0]. Though this time should be even more, right? He's going to take it to a whole new level of lowest tax rate for Corporates than "any nation on earth". Can't wait for him to lower the tax burden on Big Corp even more, Those C-suites, investors, have such a hard life scrapping by the way they do. No wonder they can't afford better wages for the workers. Let's keep the tax burden on the middle class where it belongs so we can Make America Great Again. [0] https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/ https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-...
llamaimperative 2y ago
> These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now. No they’re actually not. You made those questions up as absurd examples, and they’re absurd.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Llama! I was wondering when you'd show up. We comment on all the same stories
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    <3
TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
These FUD arguments are ridiculous. Americans are already paying far more in privatised taxation - tribute - to healthcare companies, landlords, fossil fuel companies, and loan sharks of various kinds - than they would pay with higher federal tax rates investing in R&D, infrastructure, education, clean energy, and public health. There's nothing hypothetical about pointing out that the billionaire economy is massively distorted and extractive, and is caused huge public harm which will literally remain visible for geological timescales.

TeaBrain 2y ago

>I personally love paying taxes that go to these functions An issue with this is that it isn't just current tax payers and tax revenues that are paying for this federal spending, but a ballooning debt due to a budget deficit. The brunt of this debt's interest burden is going to fall on the future tax payer. Edit: To be clear, I'm not passing judgment on whether this pausing action was warranted. I'm only responding to the part of the user's comment implying that federal spending is being paid for by current taxes, when it is not necessarily. As a decent chunk is paid for by debt, some of the current federal spending will be the responsibility of future tax payers, including those who cannot yet vote, as these future tax payers will be the ones paying off the interest.

Balgair 2y ago
I mean, the playbook here is pretty well used: Create an emergency that wasn't there (cut all the fed aid and grants, muck up the government, etc) Make a solution that will fix it (the soon to be tax bill, also the secretary positions and other stuff) Stuff that solution with every policy candy you can (pro-life, tax cuts, guns for tots, funding catholic schools, etc. It's going to be a conservative jelly doughnut) Due to the emergency, we must pass this bill (ram through the tax bill asap, no need to read the thing, blame the slackers, etc) Declare victory, hope that helps reelection EDIT: To be clear, I don't think that's what is going through the new admin's heads. At best, I think it's more of a 'pull things out of the engine until it stalls, then put things back in and hope it runs again' kinda thing. But more likely, it seems they really haven't a clue what they are doing. All those people in the first admin that put country in front of self are gone this time around, and it shows.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

dutchbookmaker 2y ago

I don't know what you think is going to happen if we don't get spending under control. It is beyond me how younger people especially are not rioting in the streets with the amount of money that the government has been spending.

roboror 2y ago
The problem isn't spending, the problem is the rich don't pay nearly enough taxes.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Sure maybe? but more important to me is to lower my own tax burden
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    But, more importantly, the thing important to Trump is lowering the corporate tax burden. Even more than he already had.
  - truckerbill 2y ago
    If you are competing for resources with billionaires, who's taxes also go down, you are losing money.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      By that logic I am better off with lower taxes, since the government is a trillionare and moving the money to billionares is progressive.
      - truckerbill 2y ago
        The government is accountable (in theory). The government is a different kind of entity with different behaviour to a single human, or even a corporation. Your argument is a semantic one and was not made in good faith I think... But if the government acted more selfishly , like a corporation (it's heading that way), then yes you are also competing with the government in certain areas. It partly depends if the billionaires in question and your semi-fictional idea of government are colluding directly. In which case you would be competing with a n-trillion dollars of capital for things like housing, some of which is controlled by billionaire beneficiaries. Essentially government monopolies are what you might be worried about, which do exist. In reality the government also spends some of its money on infrastructure and other common-goods, which creates common wealth. The government (with central banks) also creates money so the idea of direct competition (which makes no sense to me outside of something like sovereignty over large amounts of land / mineral wealth / taxable subjects ) isn't so relevant.

joemazerino 2y ago

Feel free to donate to the charity of your choosing then. Forcing citizens to donate to only state approved movements seems coercive.

yndoendo 2y ago
Didn't that drive the 1950 & 1960s in the USA? Taxing the rich and giving to the working class to build bridges, schools, GI homes, ... Isn't that classified as the most stable economy in their history? The only decades where the stock market was stable? How do you know your taxes are not going where they should? Do you wish for them not to be used to help the sick, the poor, and the vulnerable? Was DARPA's tax payer investment in ARPNET worth it or DOD with GPS? I'm not saying there is abuse in the system, any should be found and dealt with. Nor saying spending should stays the same, money needs to move improve the health, well-being and wealth of non-rich.
- ty6853 2y ago
  The biggest boom and gains in the US arguably happened after the Civil War and before WW1, during which federal tax burden was something like 2% and there was no income tax.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Not on a per-capita basis. Real GDP growth per-capita rose 2.2x* between 1866-1913. That's smaller than say, the period starting after WW2, 1946-1993 which as 2.5x. Even post-WW1 1919-1966, it went up by roughly the same as post-civil war, 2.2x - and that period includes a depression and heavy income taxes. Given how much easier it is to double a small economy than a large one, the fact post-WW2 period beat it is doubly impressive. Also one should note there was actually an income tax from 1861-1872. * Using Maddison Project estimates of real GDP
    - ty6853 2y ago
      That is strong evidence post WW2 is a competing nomination. At 2.2 vs 2.5 it is probably down into the noise if they are estimates, especially ones from 1800s. This why I did not provide any quantitative comparison. Down into the noise on a winner, I think I'll take the one with much lower taxes and far lower incarceration rate as my preferred template to break the tie.

ObscureMind 2y ago

[flagged]

ty6853 2y ago
I've put these points up many times on online forums and it is a sure way to get ad hominemed to oblivion, and if that doesn't discredit you then you're banned or flagged. It's simply not allowed opinion. I remember when everyone was calling for public daycare/preschool. I posted an address for anyone who felt it was their duty to pay for daycare of others to send the money for my child. I received nothing but curses. What they really meant was everyone else would pay and they would receive.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  No, it’s that welfare programs reduce crime and improve the livelihoods of the entire population, and they have flow on benefits to the economy by increasing workforce participation and lifting education levels where more advanced products and services can remain on shore (subsequently also increasing government revenue). Instead, the US does not invest in its people, and fears the immigrants that will do the jobs they aren’t willing to endure or study for. Compare to Asia, where universal education and healthcare are valued at the cultural level and it’s clear why they have sophisticated economies and why jobs have shifted there. The US only holds its position as long as it holds it’s hegemony on global capital, but it also holds record amounts of debt vs GDP, and disruptions like Deepseek are a reminder of where most of the talent in the world comes from. Capital and geopolitical dominance alone isn’t going to save the country. To make America great again, you have to invest in the people. (And if America isn’t the people, what exactly is it to you?)
  - netsharc 2y ago
    > And if America isn’t the people, what exactly is it to you? Not grandparent commenter, but I wanted to make the snark comment that maybe America is now just the blustering violence, at home and exported, and that even bullets are more protected than kids.
- 2y ago