6 ms·

Many Americans do not realize how much money the US government spends. When you include all three levels, it comes to $32K/person/year [0]. This is much higher

Many Americans do not realize how much money the US government spends. When you include all three levels, it comes to $32K/person/year [0]. This is much higher than countries that are considered "social democracies" such as Finland, France and Canada. If you look at wealthy blue cities like NYC or SF, the spending is on the order of $50K/p/y, comparable to Norway. It is not realistic to believe that we can become a nice wholesome European country if we just raise taxes a bit. The extra money will just be squandered and stolen. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_budget_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governmen...

xeromal 6mo ago
Is the amount proportional to the per capita income of the respective countries?
- icegreentea2 6mo ago
  If you do tax revenue as % of GDP, you get the US falling at about 25%, with the OECD average sitting around 35%.
fortran77 6mo ago
> When you include all three levels, it comes to $32K/person/year Which is why these calculators should tell people who pay less than $32K that they are getting supported by the 5% who pay most of the taxes...
- bdangubic 6mo ago
  we should also break it down by state and determine distribution of electoral college votes based on it
- georgemcbay 6mo ago
  > they are getting supported by the 5% who pay most of the taxes The same 5% who in many cases run massively profitable companies that pay their workers on the bottom so much less than a living wage that they are forced into tax-funded social safety net programs like SNAP to survive. That 5% can cry me a river about their tax burden.
jl6 6mo ago
I think many Americans do not realize how much is spent on debt interest payments, which are a tidy source of income for rich people.
- vslira 6mo ago
  I don’t think Americans would enjoy the alternative of defaulting on that debt, or the counterfactual of not having raised that debt in the first place But yeah, having to pay your debts do suck
  - browningstreet 6mo ago
    But they didn’t scream when that debt ballooned very recently. Debt payments and defense budget increases add up.
  - atmavatar 6mo ago
    > or the counterfactual of not having raised that debt in the first place I'm pretty sure most of us would enjoy a different timeline where we didn't sink over $1 trillion in the Iraq war or another $2 trillion on the F-35, where we didn't mindlessly increase the military budget every cycle, where Republican administrations didn't cut taxes on the wealthy every time they won the presidency in the last half century, or where the TSA and DHS weren't created.
    - Rekindle8090 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      - atmavatar 6mo ago
        What do you think debt means? Every item I mentioned either increased government spending or reduced its income, both of which contribute to increased deficits and debt. You're welcome to argue whether I'm correct that americans would be better off without any of them, but it's simple math that every single one of them contributed to our current debt.
slg 6mo ago
>It is not realistic to believe that we can become a nice wholesome European country if we just raise taxes a bit. This feels like a strawman. I can't recall ever hearing someone advocate for raising taxes and not changing a single other thing about the government. These ideas are all interconnected and someone advocating for increased taxes very likely has ideas about how spending should change too.
- bko 6mo ago
  That's like increasing your going out budget at the same time as moderating your excessive drinking. The more money that's up for grabs, the higher the incentives for fraud and general abuse. I think the people that believe in a more efficient welfare state should look to reallocate the money. No one would complain. Instead it's always the promise that just [X] more billion from [billionaire] and we could solve homelessness
  - slg 6mo ago
    >I think the people that believe in a more efficient welfare state should look to reallocate the money. No one would complain. Are you simply calling the entire government a "welfare state" or do you believe that something like military spending is off the table for making more efficient? Because people very obviously would complain about shifting military spending to social programs and military spending is almost certainly the biggest differentiator in spending between us and those "'social democracies' such as Finland, France and Canada" that OP was talking about.
    - phil21 6mo ago
      Military spending has been trending downwards the entire time I’ve been alive. All that’s happened is increased spending elsewhere and even more debt. With very little apparent improvement to those social services spending outcomes. Usually the the opposite. I might agree with cutting military spending if it’s an actual measurable impact to my finances. But I sure wouldn’t be for reallocating it to the black hole that is other federal spending. Fix the outcomes first. We already spend more on healthcare than most of those social democracies. Show me similar outcomes per dollar spent and then we can have a conversation about increasing it. Until then, it’s just more money funneled to the fraud and grift machine. Not that the military isn’t that too, but the difference to me is once you get the population “hooked” on such budgets you can never reduce it. The military is at least able to be reduced as shown in the past 30 years. Everything else is growing faster than those reductions. I would also be generally for cutting military budget if it was 100% reallocated to reducing the debt. But that’s almost impossible since money is fungible. TLDR; we’ve already tried reallocating and utterly failed at showing any reasonable outcomes.
zahlman 6mo ago
> It is not realistic to believe that we can become a nice wholesome European country if we just raise taxes a bit. The extra money will just be squandered and stolen. Why, in your view, doesn't the same thing happen to them?
- Teever 6mo ago
  Simply put the people in those countries who spend the money care about the people who gave them the money. They view themselves as stewards of these resources and genuinely want to spend them optimally to ensure the best return for everyone in society including future generations. That isn't the case in America and will never be the case. America is a failed state.
  - animal_spirits 6mo ago
    I would not put this on America being a failed state. Rather the more 'successful' European countries are far more homogenous in demographics than America ever will be. In Denmark, nearly everyone has the same cultural background and similar values, and are striving for a relatively unified vision/goal for the country. In America, there is such an overwhelming diversity in values and cultures, and added animosity between different groups of people that there is more infighting over government&private resources and less efficient use of them.
    - overfeed 6mo ago
      > Rather the more 'successful' European countries are far more homogenous in demographics than America ever will be. In Denmark, nearly everyone has the same cultural background and similar values, and are striving for a relatively unified vision/goal for the country. Can you explain this reasoning without implying American political leaders (or perhaps broader society) are racist? As a counterpoint France, Germany, Canada and Australia are far from homogeneous, but offer far stronger social safety nets than the US. IIRC, 1 in 4 Australians were born elsewhere.
      - 6mo ago
srslyTrying2hlp 6mo ago
[dead]

xeromal 6mo ago

Is the amount proportional to the per capita income of the respective countries?

icegreentea2 6mo ago
If you do tax revenue as % of GDP, you get the US falling at about 25%, with the OECD average sitting around 35%.

fortran77 6mo ago

> When you include all three levels, it comes to $32K/person/year Which is why these calculators should tell people who pay less than $32K that they are getting supported by the 5% who pay most of the taxes...

bdangubic 6mo ago
we should also break it down by state and determine distribution of electoral college votes based on it
georgemcbay 6mo ago
> they are getting supported by the 5% who pay most of the taxes The same 5% who in many cases run massively profitable companies that pay their workers on the bottom so much less than a living wage that they are forced into tax-funded social safety net programs like SNAP to survive. That 5% can cry me a river about their tax burden.

jl6 6mo ago

I think many Americans do not realize how much is spent on debt interest payments, which are a tidy source of income for rich people.

vslira 6mo ago
I don’t think Americans would enjoy the alternative of defaulting on that debt, or the counterfactual of not having raised that debt in the first place But yeah, having to pay your debts do suck
- browningstreet 6mo ago
  But they didn’t scream when that debt ballooned very recently. Debt payments and defense budget increases add up.
- atmavatar 6mo ago
  > or the counterfactual of not having raised that debt in the first place I'm pretty sure most of us would enjoy a different timeline where we didn't sink over $1 trillion in the Iraq war or another $2 trillion on the F-35, where we didn't mindlessly increase the military budget every cycle, where Republican administrations didn't cut taxes on the wealthy every time they won the presidency in the last half century, or where the TSA and DHS weren't created.
  - Rekindle8090 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - atmavatar 6mo ago
      What do you think debt means? Every item I mentioned either increased government spending or reduced its income, both of which contribute to increased deficits and debt. You're welcome to argue whether I'm correct that americans would be better off without any of them, but it's simple math that every single one of them contributed to our current debt.

slg 6mo ago

>It is not realistic to believe that we can become a nice wholesome European country if we just raise taxes a bit. This feels like a strawman. I can't recall ever hearing someone advocate for raising taxes and not changing a single other thing about the government. These ideas are all interconnected and someone advocating for increased taxes very likely has ideas about how spending should change too.

bko 6mo ago
That's like increasing your going out budget at the same time as moderating your excessive drinking. The more money that's up for grabs, the higher the incentives for fraud and general abuse. I think the people that believe in a more efficient welfare state should look to reallocate the money. No one would complain. Instead it's always the promise that just [X] more billion from [billionaire] and we could solve homelessness
- slg 6mo ago
  >I think the people that believe in a more efficient welfare state should look to reallocate the money. No one would complain. Are you simply calling the entire government a "welfare state" or do you believe that something like military spending is off the table for making more efficient? Because people very obviously would complain about shifting military spending to social programs and military spending is almost certainly the biggest differentiator in spending between us and those "'social democracies' such as Finland, France and Canada" that OP was talking about.
  - phil21 6mo ago
    Military spending has been trending downwards the entire time I’ve been alive. All that’s happened is increased spending elsewhere and even more debt. With very little apparent improvement to those social services spending outcomes. Usually the the opposite. I might agree with cutting military spending if it’s an actual measurable impact to my finances. But I sure wouldn’t be for reallocating it to the black hole that is other federal spending. Fix the outcomes first. We already spend more on healthcare than most of those social democracies. Show me similar outcomes per dollar spent and then we can have a conversation about increasing it. Until then, it’s just more money funneled to the fraud and grift machine. Not that the military isn’t that too, but the difference to me is once you get the population “hooked” on such budgets you can never reduce it. The military is at least able to be reduced as shown in the past 30 years. Everything else is growing faster than those reductions. I would also be generally for cutting military budget if it was 100% reallocated to reducing the debt. But that’s almost impossible since money is fungible. TLDR; we’ve already tried reallocating and utterly failed at showing any reasonable outcomes.

zahlman 6mo ago

> It is not realistic to believe that we can become a nice wholesome European country if we just raise taxes a bit. The extra money will just be squandered and stolen. Why, in your view, doesn't the same thing happen to them?

Teever 6mo ago
Simply put the people in those countries who spend the money care about the people who gave them the money. They view themselves as stewards of these resources and genuinely want to spend them optimally to ensure the best return for everyone in society including future generations. That isn't the case in America and will never be the case. America is a failed state.
- animal_spirits 6mo ago
  I would not put this on America being a failed state. Rather the more 'successful' European countries are far more homogenous in demographics than America ever will be. In Denmark, nearly everyone has the same cultural background and similar values, and are striving for a relatively unified vision/goal for the country. In America, there is such an overwhelming diversity in values and cultures, and added animosity between different groups of people that there is more infighting over government&private resources and less efficient use of them.
  - overfeed 6mo ago
    > Rather the more 'successful' European countries are far more homogenous in demographics than America ever will be. In Denmark, nearly everyone has the same cultural background and similar values, and are striving for a relatively unified vision/goal for the country. Can you explain this reasoning without implying American political leaders (or perhaps broader society) are racist? As a counterpoint France, Germany, Canada and Australia are far from homogeneous, but offer far stronger social safety nets than the US. IIRC, 1 in 4 Australians were born elsewhere.
    - 6mo ago

srslyTrying2hlp 6mo ago

[dead]