A receipt for your taxes (if you're American)


Off-Topic Discussions


Got this from a paper from www.thirdway.org and thought it interesting enough to share.

Its basically a reciept, like in a grocery store but for the median US taxpayer. For those not familiar with statistics median is the middle - so half of Americans paid more then this and half of Americans paid less. Its like the more common mean (usually just called the average) but is used when you want to eliminate extremes. So the average American makes much more then this but that average is driven up by a small but significant number of people making truly obscene amounts of money.

-----------

Bill and provides them the exact contribution they made towards twenty to thirty budget items of interest.

Below is an example of what a receipt might look like for a typical taxpayer with a 2009 U.S. median income of $34,140, who paid $5,400 in federal income tax and FICA. It is very easy to generate and extremely informative to taxpayers.

What You Paid For
2009 tax receipt for a taxpayer earning $34,140 and paying $5,400 in federal income tax and FICA (selected items)

Social Security..................................$1,040.70
Medicare.........................................$625.51
Medicaid.........................................$385.28
Interest on the National Debt....................$287.03
Combat Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan........$229.17
Military Personnel...............................$192.79
Veteran’s Benefits...............................$74.65
Federal Highways.................................$63.89
Health care research (NIH).......................$46.54
Foreign Aid......................................$46.08
Education Funding for Low Income K-12 Students...$38.17
Military Retirement Benefits.....................$32.60
Pell Grants for Low Income College Students......$29.75
NASA Space Program...............................$28.09
Internal Revenue Service.........................$17.69
Environmental Clean Up (EPA).....................$11.67
The FBI..........................................$11.21
Head Start.......................................$10.91
Public Housing...................................$10.50
National Parks...................................$4.27
Drug Enforcement Agency..........................$3.14
Amtrak...........................................$2.23
Smithsonian Museum...............................$1.12
Funding for the Arts.............................$0.24
Salaries and benefits for members of Congress....$0.19

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

I have never been one opposed to taxation to fund public programs, but when it's broken down like that, I am even less angered by the government "taking my money." I might wish a few of those elements were rearranged in terms of what percentage of my hypothetical $5,400 they get, but it's actually really refreshing to see that at least some of the money I'm paying is going to fund low income education, foreign aid, health research, NASA, and the arts, even if more of it is going to fund a few wars I don't agree with.


The problem with this "receipt" is that it tells you what money was spent on but doesn't tell you what you actually get for that money (i.e. the effect of the spending). Taxpayers need to know what was achieved with their money, not just where it was spent.

On a somewhat related note, here's a detailed image of where government spends money:

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/


Johnny Norris wrote:

The problem with this "receipt" is that it tells you what money was spent on but doesn't tell you what you actually get for that money (i.e. the effect of the spending). Taxpayers need to know what was achieved with their money, not just where it was spent.

On a somewhat related note, here's a detailed image of where government spends money:

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

The problem with 'what was achieved' is that its a very subjective concept. For example if I say that the national parks where kept at the standard they had the year before then does that mean nothing was achieved? Or a lot? That would depend on on your view of the state of the national parks and whether you thought you where getting good value for your money.

Simple details, like how much you personally use National Parks, come into play. Especially when we get to something like the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve - obviously very few Americans 'use' that national park so its value is tied up in the individuals subjective value of the 'worth' of Polar Bears. Value Polar Bears highly and it was money well spent, if you don't value Polar Bears then its a colossal waste.

The above table tells you where your money actually went - its up to you as an individual to decide, more or less line by line, if you personally felt this was money well spent or not.

The Wall poster is neat but be aware that it represents just the discretionary spending portion of the governments taxes, roughly a third of the total budget.


Hmm...I just took a calculator to this list and its comes to $3205.09 so a good 40% of the taxes go to other things (I guess thats what they meant by selected items). Thats unfortunate as I thought it was comprehensive - but I note that I don't see the justice department on the list or federal prisons. So its a partial list.

The Exchange

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Hmm...I just took a calculator to this list and its comes to $3205.09 so a good 40% of the taxes go to other things (I guess thats what they meant by selected items). Thats unfortunate as I thought it was comprehensive - but I note that I don't see the justice department on the list or federal prisons. So its a partial list.

The remaining $2000 goes to Black Ops, and spying on you.


yellowdingo wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Hmm...I just took a calculator to this list and its comes to $3205.09 so a good 40% of the taxes go to other things (I guess thats what they meant by selected items). Thats unfortunate as I thought it was comprehensive - but I note that I don't see the justice department on the list or federal prisons. So its a partial list.
The remaining $2000 goes to Black Ops, and spying on you.

Actually, it goes to *ME*!

Mwaha-mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


Well I found another web site that more or less explained why the rest of the list is not included. Basically the web site would break down exactly how mush went to each department...the kicker is that the list runs to 134 pages each with 10 or 15 entries. The vast majority of them only get a small sum of change but there are a lot...more then could be included in any kind of reasonable receipt.


I think it would be really interesting to see which of these areas would still be funded if taxes were voluntary, and you could choose which areas to pay for.


AvalonXQ wrote:
I think it would be really interesting to see which of these areas would still be funded if taxes were voluntary, and you could choose which areas to pay for.

This sounds a lot like your "everyone votes for every issue, and majority rules" suggestion, which I also wouln't want to live under. Seriously, if taxes were voluntary, do you really think we'd have enough funding for anything? (roads, police, fire, Medicare, schools, national defense -- all gone). Even if the same total amount was required, and everyone just got to pick what to fund, most people would check off like the first 3-4 things they spotted on page 1 of the list of 20,000,000 things needing funding, and the rest would automatically fail for lack of patience.

An example: say some critical program isn't in the spotlight, and it's on page 5,632 of the itemized list of "where you want your taxes to go." Say it only costs $30,000. You can either rely on the two people who know about it to donate $5,000 each of their taxes towards it (and then it never gets off the ground), or you can just go ahead and charge everyone 1/100 of a cent (and the program is funded).

The fun part is figuring out which of the 1/100-cent programs really don't lead anywhere, and which ones have tangible benefits down the line. THAT'S the trick that no one has figured out yet.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Seriously, if taxes were voluntary, do you really think we'd have enough funding for anything?

I think we'd have enough funding for everything important.

And I think it would stop general apathy from wasting money and bloating government, which is what happens now.
If people wouldn't voluntarily pay for things, we shouldn't be taxing them to pay for those things.


AvalonXQ wrote:
I think we'd have enough funding for everything important.

Just an example: the atomic bomb was top secret. It was invented, built, delivered, and dropped using tax dollars, and it ended WWII for us. Under your idea, since no one would know about it, no one would therefore be able to vote to fund it, and we'd still be fighting island-to-island in the Pacific. Today, there would be no trials or detention for terrorism suspects (usually national security secrets, and hence not things you'd know about to vote for), so would we have to let them all go? Indeed, all specific military operations would have to be discontinued -- we can't advertise in advance that we need funding for 20,000 more Abrams tanks for Town X in Bartubistan without letting everyone know what we plan on doing there.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
This sounds a lot like your "everyone votes for every issue, and majority rules" suggestion, which I also wouln't want to live under.

Does it change your opinion if there's an efficient proxy system in place?


AvalonXQ wrote:
Does it change your opinion if there's an efficient proxy system in place?

It changes my opinion if and only if that proxy system is forced to protect the rights and needs of everyone, not just the most popular ones.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
I think we'd have enough funding for everything important.
Just an example: the atomic bomb was top secret. It was invented, built, delivered, and dropped using tax dollars, and it ended WWII for us. Under your idea, since no one would know about it, no one would therefore be able to vote to fund it, and we'd still be fighting island-to-island in the Pacific.

I disagree. I think government propoganda was very effective in WWII. If the government had asked for X millions in "secret military research," they would have gotten it. In fact, I'd expect that in the early 1940's most people would have checked off the "my share for all military funding" option without even bothering to check itemized categories.

More generally, there are certainly ways to have secret and top secret government projects even with voluntary funding.
Of course, if people generally don't think the government SHOULD have "secret research", they won't fund it. And if people don't want to pay for secret research I don't think we should do it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Does it change your opinion if there's an efficient proxy system in place?
It changes my opinion if and only if that proxy system is forced to protect the rights and needs of everyone, not just the most popular ones.

I'm talking about a very efficient voluntary proxy system -- I can give you the ability to cast my vote. Generally, or on specific categories of legislation.


AvalonXQ wrote:
I'm talking about a very efficient voluntary proxy system -- I can give you the ability to cast my vote. Generally, or on specific categories of legislation.

I'm against mob rule. Economically or legislatively; directly or by proxy. That's why I live in a Constitutional republic.

Liberty's Edge

I wonder how it would shake out if they told us what we owe (you have to pay it) and we decided how it was divided.

A check box would be provided for "standard distribution" so you would not have to go through all 134 pages.

And about the Manhattan project... I think I could be a little prouder as an American to know that a nuclear weapon had never been used in anger on a civilian population in my name.


Sigil wrote:
And about the Manhattan project... I think I could be a little prouder as an American to know that a nuclear weapon had never been used in anger on a civilian population in my name.

I don't believe there was "anger" involved in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. What makes you believe there was?

Liberty's Edge

Military slang... A weapon that is used as a weapon (instead of in a test or accident or something) is said to be used in anger. Thus the warheads detonated in the Bikini Atoll were not used in anger.

Liberty's Edge

Sigil wrote:
I think I could be a little prouder as an American to know that a nuclear weapon had never been used in anger on a civilian population in my name.

Yeah, I'm still not convinced that ending WWII was worth the cost...luckily for me, I'm not the guy that had to make those decisions.


Found a handy graph on the budget breakdown. Apparently only 2 cents on the dollar get put towards R&D.


Sigil wrote:

I wonder how it would shake out if they told us what we owe (you have to pay it) and we decided how it was divided.

A check box would be provided for "standard distribution" so you would not have to go through all 134 pages.

I think the problem here is that firemen and nurses become really well funded but the water in your home town kills three people (and makes a dozen sick) when it turns out that if you don't pay to have the water checked and treated constantly then there really is no difference between the chance of getting Cholera here and the same occurring in Nigeria (where its a significant health hazard).

We actually had this in southern Ontario. A line by line cut of the budget chopped a bunch from the water department as it was really not sexy and it was, mistakenly, presumed safe. Four people died and a lot of people got sick when a Cholera outbreak reminded everyone that the only difference between the first world and the third world essentially is that the first world pays for the a bureaucracy to oversee boring but important things like our water and insures that its safe.

Its not that budget cuts can't be done - but the average voter is really not qualified to choose what does and what does not get funded.

Sovereign Court

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Its not that budget cuts can't be done - but the average voter is really not qualified to choose what does and what does not get funded.

The genius of representative democracy is that it allows us to recognise our own limitations.

Making those decisions is a full-time job.

The problems come when it's treated like a part-time job by people whose full-time job is electioneering.

And the cynicism comes because nobody notices when the diplomat prevents a confrontation, the clever police-chief prevents a dangerous situation from developing, funding is diverted to stop an ailing community from sinking into deprivation... We only notice when things slide and then someone turns up with a puffed-out chest kicking ass and taking names. We don't notice the guy in the town/city/county/state/country next door who faced similar conditions and prevented things from going wrong in the first place.

Dark Archive

No one puts in doubt the veracity of this breakdown?

And about the "fact" of the atomic bombing of cities as the cause of the end of WWII. No one puts in doubt the veracity of this?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

ESCORPIO wrote:

No one puts in doubt the veracity of this breakdown?

And about the "fact" of the atomic bombing of cities as the cause of the end of WWII. No one puts in doubt the veracity of this?

That would be like doubting the veracity of the Moon Landings.

Keep Fear Alive, America!

Dark Archive

What? The first question or the second one?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

ESCORPIO wrote:
What? The first question or the second one?

Yes.

Dark Archive

Lord Fyre wrote:
Yes.

I disagree then.


Sigil wrote:

I wonder how it would shake out if they told us what we owe (you have to pay it) and we decided how it was divided.

A check box would be provided for "standard distribution" so you would not have to go through all 134 pages.

And about the Manhattan project... I think I could be a little prouder as an American to know that a nuclear weapon had never been used in anger on a civilian population in my name.

I guess I am on the other end of that spectrum Sigil. I think that ending the war useing any means avaiable was called for. It had been 4 yrs of constant fighting, japans allies had all surrendered and it stood alone. They were fanatically loyal to their emporer at the time so if we had used just military targets that would not have broken their will to fight. We had to prove to their leader that surender was his only option if he wanted his people to not become extinct. The estimated death tolls for a mainland invasion would have mad D-Day look like nothing, we couldn't afford two or three more of those. We had to hit'em as we did.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

ESCORPIO wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Yes.
I disagree then.

If you didn't click on any of the links in my post, you might have missed the sarcasim. (For example: the link about the Moon Landings was about the conspiracy to Fake the Moon Landing.)

Dark Archive

Lord Fyre wrote:
If you didn't click on any of the links in my post, you might have missed the sarcasim. (For example: the link about the Moon Landings was about the conspiracy to Fake the Moon Landing.)

SARCASM: The great misunderstunded of the interwebs

Liberty's Edge

Steven Tindall wrote:
Sigil wrote:

I wonder how it would shake out if they told us what we owe (you have to pay it) and we decided how it was divided.

A check box would be provided for "standard distribution" so you would not have to go through all 134 pages.

And about the Manhattan project... I think I could be a little prouder as an American to know that a nuclear weapon had never been used in anger on a civilian population in my name.

I guess I am on the other end of that spectrum Sigil. I think that ending the war useing any means avaiable was called for. It had been 4 yrs of constant fighting, japans allies had all surrendered and it stood alone. They were fanatically loyal to their emporer at the time so if we had used just military targets that would not have broken their will to fight. We had to prove to their leader that surender was his only option if he wanted his people to not become extinct. The estimated death tolls for a mainland invasion would have mad D-Day look like nothing, we couldn't afford two or three more of those. We had to hit'em as we did.

Steven, I used to think about these events in the same way. My perspective now is different.

If a foreign power were to use a tactical nuclear weapon on a civilian population we would condemn that act. Similar arguements could be made, but in the end Subduing a population by killing civilians will always seem monsterous to me. For what it matters I am in favor of Iran not having nukes, but then I am in favor of the US leading by example and getting rid of its nukes as well. Just because we can does not mean that we should, and using massive violence on civilians may subdue a nation in the short run, but in a larger context it also legitimizes the practice.


Steven Tindall wrote:
Sigil wrote:

I wonder how it would shake out if they told us what we owe (you have to pay it) and we decided how it was divided.

A check box would be provided for "standard distribution" so you would not have to go through all 134 pages.

And about the Manhattan project... I think I could be a little prouder as an American to know that a nuclear weapon had never been used in anger on a civilian population in my name.

I guess I am on the other end of that spectrum Sigil. I think that ending the war useing any means avaiable was called for. It had been 4 yrs of constant fighting, japans allies had all surrendered and it stood alone. They were fanatically loyal to their emporer at the time so if we had used just military targets that would not have broken their will to fight. We had to prove to their leader that surender was his only option if he wanted his people to not become extinct. The estimated death tolls for a mainland invasion would have mad D-Day look like nothing, we couldn't afford two or three more of those. We had to hit'em as we did.

Its unclear if the nuking was what actually caused the Japanese surrender. Bad as it was some of the firestorms to larger cities had actually been worse and the Japanese themselves no longer seemed to have a clear idea of what was going on in different parts of the country. Communications had really broken down.

Beyond this the cabinet meetings of the Japanese high command during the final days are really all about what the Russians would do. Japan had begun to pin its hopes on Russia basically forcing the Americans to stop, it was a slim hope but it was all they had left and they had begun to convince themselves that it was a possibility. When the Russians invaded Manchuria there really was no hope left at it appears, from interviews etc. regarding those meetings that this was much more significant to the Japanese surrender then the nukes.

Furthermore the Japanese had already more or less offered to surrender on the condition that the office of the Emperor remain inviolate. The Allies insisted on unconditional surrender, There is a reasonable chance that if that option had been explored the surrender could have come earlier - though the Japanese share a lot of the blame here for not being a lot more clear (because their high command was very divided).


Lord Fyre wrote:
If you didn't click on any of the links in my post, you might have missed the sarcasim. (For example: the link about the Moon Landings was about the conspiracy to Fake the Moon Landing.)

In truth, the moon landings WERE faked, but not for the reason you think. They had to be faked because the moon actually isn't even real. It's a holographic representation of the real moon, which was destroyed by time-travelling ninja robots thousands of years ago. The ensuing global upheaval is what destroyed Atlantis.

So no, the TTNR's have a hidden space station satlellite in place of the former moon. They use gravity projectors to simulate the moon's effects on the tides/etc, and occasional send down chunks from the debris field as "meteorites", but which actually contain nanobots programmed to infiltrate our communications system and provide the TTNR's with all of our eletronic communications, and Hulu'd episodes of Golden Girls.


Conspiracy Buff wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
If you didn't click on any of the links in my post, you might have missed the sarcasim. (For example: the link about the Moon Landings was about the conspiracy to Fake the Moon Landing.)

In truth, the moon landings WERE faked, but not for the reason you think. They had to be faked because the moon actually isn't even real. It's a holographic representation of the real moon, which was destroyed by time-travelling ninja robots thousands of years ago. The ensuing global upheaval is what destroyed Atlantis.

So no, the TTNR's have a hidden space station satlellite in place of the former moon. They use gravity projectors to simulate the moon's effects on the tides/etc, and occasional send down chunks from the debris field as "meteorites", but which actually contain nanobots programmed to infiltrate our communications system and provide the TTNR's with all of our eletronic communications, and Hulu'd episodes of Golden Girls.

You had me until you mentioned the Golden Girls.

I could believe that they'd want to watch episodes of "Matlock" or maybe even "Murder She Wrote", but the TTNR's wanting to watch the "Golden Girls"? HAHAHA
LOLwrong.

I should have seen this coming

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AvalonXQ wrote:


I disagree. I think government propoganda was very effective in WWII. If the government had asked for X millions in "secret military research," they would have gotten it. In fact, I'd expect that in the early 1940's most people would have checked off the "my share for all military funding" option without even bothering to check itemized categories.
More generally, there are certainly ways to have secret and top secret government projects even with voluntary funding.

They had to keep it secret for one very fundamental reason. The Atom Bomb was not created to end world war 2. It was maintained even though it was clear that the Axis bomb was a nonstarter for a very fundamental reason. The United States had planned on using exclusive posession of the Bomb as a stick of influence to throw it's weight on world policy as the "sole superpower." Strategic hints of this strategy were thrown at Krushchev at moments as an implied threat. Unfortunately by this time, the Russians had already gotten the goods on the Manhattan Project and the hints only served to confirm their paranoia on Western intentions.

The target for the Hiroshima bomb was not just the Japanese...but our Russian "Alies" as well. In fact there was considerable concern that the Japanese might fold out of the war before we got to try out our new toy.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / A receipt for your taxes (if you're American) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions