4 ms·

There is a US Treasury API endpoint [1] to see how much money actually comes in. 1. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/gift-contributions-reduce-debt-hel

There is a US Treasury API endpoint [1] to see how much money actually comes in. 1. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/gift-contributions-reduce-debt-held-by-public/gift-contributions-to-reduce-the-public-debt https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/gift-contributions-...

echelon 1y ago
We need an API to block the government from spending more money. It seems like voting for "fiscal conservatives" results in bigger spending.
- 74B5 1y ago
  Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions, which is the ultimate consequence of austerity? The public infratructure shrinks, while the rich get richer, partially from paid bond interesets. And you would just sit there and think, "yea, thats the way"? Do you really think spending and not taxation is the problem? Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullable people, voting for harmful demagogues, so you finally get the "financial conervatives" you want?
  - arealaccount 1y ago
    Why not both?
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    >Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions A government spending less money does not equate to spending less money on public institutions. It can even mean spending more money on public institutions, assuming less money is spent on other things, such as unproductive wealth transfers.
    - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
      > as unproductive wealth transfers. Do you mean progressive taxation here, or something else?
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Spending that will not benefit citizens in the future.
        disgruntledphd2 1y ago
        So benefits i guess? Or pensions? Sounds like you want the government to only spend money on capital projects which is reasonable, but it'll be very difficult to get there from here, given all the benefits/transfers that governments engage in.
        lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Yes, especially in democracies with flattened and top heavy population histograms, since the young will never be able to outvote the old.
        disgruntledphd2 1y ago
        Ah ok, I see where you're coming from. Very difficult to achieve this in a democracy though, so probably productivity increases and wealth taxes will be needed to fill this gap.
  - palmfacehn 1y ago
    >Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullible people... Assuming the implication is that a well funded state managed education results in a population more resistant to (state?) propaganda; How would this be measured empirically?
- HPsquared 1y ago
  I wonder if any countries have laws holding politicians to stick to their campaign promises.
  - ath3nd 1y ago
    Don't know about laws, especially since politicians can change those, but there are tools. Common items used in woodworking and agriculture can be very useful: carving knives, axes, pitchforks and branding irons. Generally a big group of people holding their tools of trade in front of the palace/parliament/penthouse has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia.
    - M95D 1y ago
      > [...] has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia. But now, the other side has surveilance, tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, drones, and very profitable incarceration facilities.
      - ath3nd 1y ago
        The other side is not even 0.0001% of the population. Cops, military, firemen, they are all working class, like us. The veil drops when you realize we are ALL working class: the police, military, software engineers, firemen, nurses, doctors, lawyers, miners, farmers, teachers. The other side has nothing. We operate the farms, the weapons, the hospitals, the IT infrastructure, the surveillance, the army, the transportation, the bullets, the drones and the incarceration facilities. The other side contributes nothing, does nothing, and if they continue on their current path, history has shown again and again that they will be reduced to nothing.
        bdangubic 1y ago
        lovely words but also just wishful thinking / fantasy which why the other side never wins anything
  - Henchman21 1y ago
- bildung 1y ago
  It seems you are more in need of an API to block the government to willingly reduce their income. The US spending per capita isn't that high compared to other developed countries, the US problem is the repeated decisions to have the wealthy citizens not contribute in proportion to their wealth.
- roxolotl 1y ago
  Yes that has been the case since at least Reagan. The deficits go up under republicans more than democrats. The fiscal conservatism is a marketing ploy. Paper from 2004 on the topic: https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/CES_deficit_draft.pdf https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files... Paper from 2022 on the topic: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01603477.2022.2094276 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01603477.2022.20... Wikipage with just economic indicators by party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party?wprov=sfti1#Job_creation_by_U.S._presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...
RickJWagner 1y ago
That’s awesome. There are some very wealthy people that make a great show of demanding to pay higher taxes. Here’s a mechanism for them to demonstrate sincerity.
- nabla9 1y ago
  "If you want more taxes and are rich, just donate to treasury argument" again. We want systemic changes, not patrons. Taxes are for equity and fairness. Taxes are compulsory, donations are voluntary. Taxes are payment for being for being rich. Donations are taxes for being a good person. Great rant: David Mitchell on Tax Avoidance from The Last Leg https://youtu.be/xc8epam4NyY?t=150 https://youtu.be/xc8epam4NyY?t=150 Then Mitchell being more serious: You can't blame the rich for paying as little tax as possible. I do the same https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/31/david-mitchell-george-osborne-tax https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/31/david-...
  - mathiaspoint 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - nabla9 1y ago
      You want maximize collected tax, fairness & equity, and incentives. This means: 1. convex effective tax curve when income increases. 2. curve is progressive (increasing) to adjust for diminishing marginal utility of income and wealth. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/072815/what-marginal-utility-income.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/072815/what-margina... The emphasis on effective. Meaning: (income - taxes + benefits) curve is smooth and no tax avoidance. Incentives for the poor, the middle and and the rich. Then you fight over what level the is (political question). Big tax jumps (suggested by the left) or linear tax (suggested by right) don't hack it.
      - mathiaspoint 1y ago
        [flagged]

echelon 1y ago

We need an API to block the government from spending more money. It seems like voting for "fiscal conservatives" results in bigger spending.

74B5 1y ago
Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions, which is the ultimate consequence of austerity? The public infratructure shrinks, while the rich get richer, partially from paid bond interesets. And you would just sit there and think, "yea, thats the way"? Do you really think spending and not taxation is the problem? Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullable people, voting for harmful demagogues, so you finally get the "financial conervatives" you want?
- arealaccount 1y ago
  Why not both?
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  >Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions A government spending less money does not equate to spending less money on public institutions. It can even mean spending more money on public institutions, assuming less money is spent on other things, such as unproductive wealth transfers.
  - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
    > as unproductive wealth transfers. Do you mean progressive taxation here, or something else?
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      Spending that will not benefit citizens in the future.
      - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
        So benefits i guess? Or pensions? Sounds like you want the government to only spend money on capital projects which is reasonable, but it'll be very difficult to get there from here, given all the benefits/transfers that governments engage in.
        lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Yes, especially in democracies with flattened and top heavy population histograms, since the young will never be able to outvote the old.
        disgruntledphd2 1y ago
        Ah ok, I see where you're coming from. Very difficult to achieve this in a democracy though, so probably productivity increases and wealth taxes will be needed to fill this gap.
- palmfacehn 1y ago
  >Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullible people... Assuming the implication is that a well funded state managed education results in a population more resistant to (state?) propaganda; How would this be measured empirically?
HPsquared 1y ago
I wonder if any countries have laws holding politicians to stick to their campaign promises.
- ath3nd 1y ago
  Don't know about laws, especially since politicians can change those, but there are tools. Common items used in woodworking and agriculture can be very useful: carving knives, axes, pitchforks and branding irons. Generally a big group of people holding their tools of trade in front of the palace/parliament/penthouse has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia.
  - M95D 1y ago
    > [...] has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia. But now, the other side has surveilance, tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, drones, and very profitable incarceration facilities.
    - ath3nd 1y ago
      The other side is not even 0.0001% of the population. Cops, military, firemen, they are all working class, like us. The veil drops when you realize we are ALL working class: the police, military, software engineers, firemen, nurses, doctors, lawyers, miners, farmers, teachers. The other side has nothing. We operate the farms, the weapons, the hospitals, the IT infrastructure, the surveillance, the army, the transportation, the bullets, the drones and the incarceration facilities. The other side contributes nothing, does nothing, and if they continue on their current path, history has shown again and again that they will be reduced to nothing.
      - bdangubic 1y ago
        lovely words but also just wishful thinking / fantasy which why the other side never wins anything
- Henchman21 1y ago
bildung 1y ago
It seems you are more in need of an API to block the government to willingly reduce their income. The US spending per capita isn't that high compared to other developed countries, the US problem is the repeated decisions to have the wealthy citizens not contribute in proportion to their wealth.
roxolotl 1y ago
Yes that has been the case since at least Reagan. The deficits go up under republicans more than democrats. The fiscal conservatism is a marketing ploy. Paper from 2004 on the topic: https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/CES_deficit_draft.pdf https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files... Paper from 2022 on the topic: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01603477.2022.2094276 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01603477.2022.20... Wikipage with just economic indicators by party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party?wprov=sfti1#Job_creation_by_U.S._presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...

RickJWagner 1y ago

That’s awesome. There are some very wealthy people that make a great show of demanding to pay higher taxes. Here’s a mechanism for them to demonstrate sincerity.

nabla9 1y ago
"If you want more taxes and are rich, just donate to treasury argument" again. We want systemic changes, not patrons. Taxes are for equity and fairness. Taxes are compulsory, donations are voluntary. Taxes are payment for being for being rich. Donations are taxes for being a good person. Great rant: David Mitchell on Tax Avoidance from The Last Leg https://youtu.be/xc8epam4NyY?t=150 https://youtu.be/xc8epam4NyY?t=150 Then Mitchell being more serious: You can't blame the rich for paying as little tax as possible. I do the same https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/31/david-mitchell-george-osborne-tax https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/31/david-...
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - nabla9 1y ago
    You want maximize collected tax, fairness & equity, and incentives. This means: 1. convex effective tax curve when income increases. 2. curve is progressive (increasing) to adjust for diminishing marginal utility of income and wealth. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/072815/what-marginal-utility-income.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/072815/what-margina... The emphasis on effective. Meaning: (income - taxes + benefits) curve is smooth and no tax avoidance. Incentives for the poor, the middle and and the rich. Then you fight over what level the is (political question). Big tax jumps (suggested by the left) or linear tax (suggested by right) don't hack it.
    - mathiaspoint 1y ago
      [flagged]