Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

The feth?
I said the government spends 5% of its income on the poor, as broken down by spending (remember half of the social security payouts were contributed by members), you've decided to include healthcare and pensions along with it.

No I didn’t . You really need to read things more carefully. The 28% is welfare and healthcare.
Welfare is for the poor. (Corporate tax breaks are welfare for the rich and that’s another category altogether). Health care is for the poor (I’m assuming this does not include the VA).

Oh okay so you're including Health spending as a subisdy for the poor (damn those needy bastards getting ill all the time). In that case spending 17% of your nations budget to help the poor is grossly innefficient. Assuming it only helps the bottom 20%, that's incredibly inefficient. I mean you'd need 85% of government spending to give healthcare to EVERYONE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
Right. Except this is about people complaining about their money being spent on other peoples' welfare, despite the fact that only 5% of government revenue is spent in this way.

5% of "other" people's money?

I don't see how you arrive at that number, only unemployment works that way.

Of the 11% spent on social security, 6% is paid for by the recipient anyway, hence 5%. That's my undersanding, anyway.

Joey wrote:
Of the 11% spent on social security, 6% is paid for by the recipient anyway, hence 5%. That's my undersanding, anyway.

Welfare and social security aren't the same thing.

There is no program called "Welfare" in the US, that's just a category in the graph fraz supplied.

Not good at math either I see. 28% is welfare and health care. That does not include social security. That’s double defense (14%) and does not include education (including, you know, poor people) of 15%


Now lets look at the UK. Oh wow they’re like, THE SAME. Evidently per Joey the UK is horrible horrible place too.
UK US
Welfare: 15% 11%
Health: 17% 17%
Education (federal) 12% 15%
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

Frazzled wrote:Not good at math either I see. 28% is welfare and health care. That does not include social security. That’s double defense (14%) and does not include education (including, you know, poor people) of 15%


Now lets look at the UK. Oh wow they’re like, THE SAME. Evidently per Joey the UK is horrible horrible place too.
UK US
Welfare: 15% 11%
Health: 17% 17%
Education (federal) 12% 15%
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

wh-
what?
What does that have to do with anything? Are you just determined to disagree with me on every single thing I say on the OT with the occasional "derp mountain lions derp"?
Someone was complaining about their taxes being paid to the poor via social welfare programs, I proved that is not true.
No one mentioned education, or healthcare. But for the record that healthcare spending in the UK treats our entire population, you have to spend 17% just to help the people who fall between the gaps.

Frazzled wrote:Not good at math either I see. 28% is welfare and health care. That does not include social security. That’s double defense (14%) and does not include education (including, you know, poor people) of 15%

Social security is spread across several categories of the graph you provided. For example, unemployment is technically part of social security.

This is part of what confused me before.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Not good at math either I see. 28% is welfare and health care. That does not include social security. That’s double defense (14%) and does not include education (including, you know, poor people) of 15%

Social security is spread across several categories of the graph you provided. For example, unemployment is technically part of social security.

This is part of what confused me before.

Mmm. Good note. Can you reference a better chart? I'm having difficulty getting a easily pulled information. its almost like they don't want you to know...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Not good at math either I see. 28% is welfare and health care. That does not include social security. That’s double defense (14%) and does not include education (including, you know, poor people) of 15%


Now lets look at the UK. Oh wow they’re like, THE SAME. Evidently per Joey the UK is horrible horrible place too.
UK US
Welfare: 15% 11%
Health: 17% 17%
Education (federal) 12% 15%
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

wh-
what?
What does that have to do with anything? Are you just determined to disagree with me on every single thing I say on the OT with the occasional "derp mountain lions derp"?
Someone was complaining about their taxes being paid to the poor via social welfare programs, I proved that is not true.
No one mentioned education, or healthcare. But for the record that healthcare spending in the UK treats our entire population, you have to spend 17% just to help the people who fall between the gaps.

then you went on and blew smoke out your ass about saying the US only spends 5% on the poor. Its a patently icorrect and appears to be a lie, since you're not correcting yourself.
EDIT: As to the mountain lion thing, well what can I say. I'm just so amazed to have conversed with a person who can break the neck of a mountain lion, naked and with just their bare hands. Its utterly fascinating to me, such that I can't help but be inspired by your self avowed mountain lion killing prowess every time we interact.

Frazzled wrote:
Mmm. Good note. Can you reference a better chart? I'm having difficulty getting a easily pulled information. its almost like they don't want you to know...

I could make one, but I usually charge for that kind of effort.

There's this, but...



...20% seems awfully low. Most estimates I see are in the 24-5% range.

Yea that seems low but it just may be that SS mushrooms in the next few years. All those darn old people!

Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

broodstar wrote:

sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.

broodstar wrote:First we say that those who right the budget have to submit it 1 year in advance or no taxes will be collected. The last census put the population of the united states at 311 million, of that number 21% (65.3 million) of the population was age 15 and under also 16% (50 million) of the population was age 60 and over. So if we have 196 million left of the taxable population. and now we simply do spending over population.

So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.

What about people for whom paying $3500 is great hardship? Minimum wage full time is only about $15K at 40 hours, and most minimum wage full time jobs realistically only give 32-35 hours for 12-13K. And given that medical insurance at that leve costs an average of $100-150 per two week pay period, now thier take-home pay after taxes comes down to around 6K per year... before even considering the manditory premiums for SSDI. Can you live on $500 per month? In most places your rent alone is going to be that much.

Personally, I think we make one deduction out of cost of living. This is the amount of money it costs to survive in your general location; including rent/started morgage; reasonable inexpensive food; heating, electicity, and phone; resonable expense for transport (in areas with bad mass transit options this would be starter car payments, gas, and insurance, in areas with good mass transit this would be enough to pay for monthly passes), and a small extra bit for clothes and et cetera (call it $20 a month per person). This is NOT intended to be a 'lap of luxury' lifestyle, nor even a 'comfortably well off' one; this is 'just enough to survive.' And having a $5,000,000 dollar house and a $100,000 dollar car is NOT 'just enough to survive', regardless of where you live; after all LA includes Compton, not just Beverly Hills.

One more deduction, MEDICAL INSURANCE AND EXPENSES (this would be individualized per person), and you're done. Subtract these two from your gross income and there is your taxable income. Then a flat tax percentage across the board. Will 10% cover what the fed needs? 20%? The census bureau would have to determine that.

Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.

Chongara wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.

No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.

Chongara wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.

Do you remember 1979 when Nixon instituted price fixing on gas to "help consumers with energy costs". And what did that lead to energy companies could afford to produce the fuel at the price it was being sold for, so the companies started laying off the workers. So A policy designed to reduce energy cost, create an energy shortage. One thing I've learned while on this planet is with the exception of defense the government doesn't really do anything really well.

broodstar wrote:

Chongara wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.

Do you remember 1979 when Nixon instituted price fixing on gas to "help consumers with energy costs". And what did that lead to energy companies could afford to produce the fuel at the price it was being sold for, so the companies started laying off the workers. So A policy designed to reduce energy cost, create an energy shortage. One thing I've learned while on this planet is with the exception of defense the government doesn't really do anything really well.

Funny how America and Somalia are the only two countries on earth who think that way.
It doesn't bother you that literally every other country on earth goes to efforts to alleviate the suffering of its less fortunate citizens?

Lets say the government wanted to spend $1.4 trillion dollars need year, the dividend would be $7142.86 for each person between the ages of 15 and 60. And that my friends is when the effect of government spending is staring you in the face.

This is pure class warfare and would not fly. So let's play with this like the government is want to do.

About 50% of the population has problems whether it is physical, psychological or being plain poor. So let's get some votes and exclude 98 million.
Then we will go on the news and state that we are going to make up the difference by "taxing the rich."
Then we figure out that the 1% (1.96 million) are not going to donate to our cause if we hit them for what the 98 million we are letting off the hook. (over $700000 each)
So we finagle it so that if you are not in the exempt category, you are "rich" and now you have a base load of $14000+ per person.

This is a problem as the $14000 hit is too little on those on the high end of the income spectrum but absolutely debilitating to the bottom guy who is not exempt. So say the cut off point is $24000 for a family of 4 doesn't have to pay anything. Now anyone who makes 24001 to 38000 is screwed because they are making more than the exempt "poor line" but have to suck it up and pay the $14000.

This is middle class warfare. And while we don't get a tax "bill" like this, this is in effect what is happening today with our complicated tax code.

I truly would like to see a flat tax rate with no tax breaks for anything. I think this is the best way to incentivise getting a good paying job while not creating tax loopholes that only the rich can afford or qualify for. Hit me for 10% and know if I make 10000 dollars you get 1000 and if I make 1 million dollars I owe you 100000.

Of course this will never happen because it guarantees no need for the IRS, H&R Block, or any tax lawyer. Too many out of a job.

Joey wrote:

broodstar wrote:

Chongara wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.

Do you remember 1979 when Nixon instituted price fixing on gas to "help consumers with energy costs". And what did that lead to energy companies could afford to produce the fuel at the price it was being sold for, so the companies started laying off the workers. So A policy designed to reduce energy cost, create an energy shortage. One thing I've learned while on this planet is with the exception of defense the government doesn't really do anything really well.

Funny how America and Somalia are the only two countries on earth who think that way.
It doesn't bother you that literally every other country on earth goes to efforts to alleviate the suffering of its less fortunate citizens?

And we do as well, or has that math thing not sunk in for you yet?

Frazzled wrote:
And we do as well, or has that math thing not sunk in for you yet?

Lol. By the same logic you used above, 99.9999% of all government spending is NOT spent on you. So everyone should be annoyed.
Miright?

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
And we do as well, or has that math thing not sunk in for you yet?

Lol. By the same logic you used above, 99.9999% of all government spending is NOT spent on you. So everyone should be annoyed.
Miright?

As the Terminator would say: Wrong.

Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.

No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.

Is that written on the dark side of the moon or something? Who says that.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.

No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.

Is that written on the dark side of the moon or something? Who says that.

Who says what?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.

No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.

Is that written on the dark side of the moon or something? Who says that.

Who says what?

Pink Floyd for one.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.

No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.

Is that written on the dark side of the moon or something? Who says that.

Lots of people. It's hardly a rare view in my experience.

Chongara wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.

The top six us budget expenditures.

833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?

Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.

No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.

Is that written on the dark side of the moon or something? Who says that.

Lots of people. It's hardly a rare view in my experience.

But repetition doesn't make something legal or natural law as frazzled seems to be implying.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

But repetition doesn't make something legal or natural law as frazzled seems to be implying.

I'm not repeating or implying anything. What exactly are you going on about?

Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.

We can but dream.

Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.

Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.

Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.

Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.

And despite such crushing socialism corporate profits are the highest they have ever been and people are flocking to dividends as a way to cheat on their taxes. What do other countries do for tax structures relating to investment payouts? I know it's not nearly so contentious an issue in europe or the asias.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.

And despite such crushing socialism corporate profits are the highest they have ever been and people are flocking to dividends as a way to cheat on their taxes. What do other countries do for tax structures relating to investment payouts? I know it's not nearly so contentious an issue in europe or the asias.

How are receiving dividends cheating on your taxes?

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.

We can but dream.

Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.

Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.

Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.

And businesses don't pay tax, they pass them on to the consumer through raises in price, so when you tax a business you are actually taxing yourself. Once you realize that I'll talk to you about why I don't tax businesses.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.

And despite such crushing socialism corporate profits are the highest they have ever been and people are flocking to dividends as a way to cheat on their taxes. What do other countries do for tax structures relating to investment payouts? I know it's not nearly so contentious an issue in europe or the asias.

How are receiving dividends cheating on your taxes?

Its an income stream that individuals are taxed at often times half what other Americans are going to have to pay for their own income. It's generates further income disparities as those with means are vastly more likely to receive excessive income from dividend payouts while the havenots are left paying higher taxes and working for their income.

So yeah, you don't have a job? You have a trust fund? You pay half the taxes of the next dude? Thats a legal form of tax evasion. Ignoring when people will pay themselves through dividends to avoid taxes entirely, it's just bad social engineering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.

We can but dream.

Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.

Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.

Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.

And businesses don't pay tax, they pass them on to the consumer through raises in price, so when you tax a business you are actually taxing yourself. Once you realize that I'll talk to you about why I don't tax businesses.

Thats a beautiful cup full of koolaid you just handed out. I mean, if it was simply going to consumers and everything else was maintained upper management pay wouldn't have skyrocketed in the past 20 years! Clearly the tax rates are whats directing the gravy train in U.S. corporate boardrooms (well, the companies that actually pay the taxes anyway. That numbers surprisingly small.)