Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

usafacts.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 359 posts

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#141

Post by kzrdude »

xienze wrote: post #113
Cshelton wrote: post #106

I'm seeing many things (if this data is accurate, which assuming it is as it's from all government sources) and trends that go against a large percentage of what the media on both sides are perpetuating. That is my first takeaway at a glance. My second takeaway at a glance is the giant problem that is Social Security. It's been said over and over, and the aggregation of more data into charts comes to the same conclus…

> We would have a budget surplus if we actually made Social Security/other Gov. retirement program replacement actually sustain itself perpetually. What. A. Concept. The problem is that there are a lot of people who believe that SS isn't broken because you can simply increase retirement age, make people pay in more, and other assorted band-aids. SS will be "solvent" until it suddenly isn't, and people need to realize…

Retirement age must increase. People are living longer than when retirement pensions were first designed. It was easy to introduce, people weren't expected to live that long then and now they do.

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#142

Post by bigtimeidiot »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #32
coldtea wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the second chart half a million more people decide to die every 10th year? Or it's from another source that gives different metrics obtained every 10 years (e.g. from census) with some extrapolation? In any case, the differences are small in this instance over the long run, it's the lack of source and other metadata that its more troubling.

Why would it extrapolate 25% lower values on all other years? If the 10th years are the actual data points, the computed trend line through only census years shouldn't be so radically different from the drawn markers. In any case, the differences are small in this instance over the long run The differences in those years are _huge_.

>The differences in those years are _huge_.

They look similar to me. One has less granular data than the other. What exactly are you implying?

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#144

Post by pmarreck »

Cshelton wrote: post #106

I'm seeing many things (if this data is accurate, which assuming it is as it's from all government sources) and trends that go against a large percentage of what the media on both sides are perpetuating. That is my first takeaway at a glance. My second takeaway at a glance is the giant problem that is Social Security. It's been said over and over, and the aggregation of more data into charts comes to the same conclus…

I searched for "social security" and found nothing meaningful. Or social-security-related.

Search UI needs work, I guess

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#146

Post by dandare »

javajosh wrote: post #112
dandare wrote: post #70

Dear USA Facts team, we would like to offer you few hints for public spending visualizations based on our experience. We are the creators of https://us.wikibudgets.org/w/united-states-budget-2016 . - Government spending is only a small part of the public finance. People need to see all public organisations: states and cities, departments, offices, bureaus and agencies, schools, hospital and prisons and obviously all…

How deeply did you delve into the site? You should look at the "10-K 2017" report, linked at the bottom of the page, first. http://usafacts.org/resources/USAFacts_10-K_2017.PDF I believe this addresses (at least) your first two points. And moreover, it is a remarkable document because it reads something like an anatomical description of the organism. Your point about world finance is strange: That is not what this th…

Thanks for the feedback. IMHO the report is unreadable for most ordinary people. Also PDF is a very problematic format, difficult to search, impossible to scan-read, not always possible to copy/paste to a table. The data itself is not the problem, but the form factor is.

The other things are not meant to be a criticism, just suggestions for what the ideal solution could look like.

OG tags define what image and description Facebook shows when you share a link. If you are in a middle of an FB argument you want to reply with a specific fact, ideally with a picture and description, not a link to a perplexing PDF.

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#147

Post by brianberns »

peterwwillis wrote: post #81
marcgcombi wrote: post #46

And of course, USAFacts' interpretation of the responsibilities of government are right out of the liberal progressive manifesto... but I think that is the way the data need to be reported, because there is no Constitutional anchor-point for 2/3rds of what the US Federal Gov't actually does.

Can you explain the obsession people have with the Constitution? It seems like some people believe all new laws shouldn't exist if they're not in the Constitution.

I think there's a pretty good analogy to be made between legislation and software. The Constitution is the "operating system" of the US government, and the laws are "applications" that run on that OS. If an application attempts to do something not permitted by the OS, it should be an error.

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#148

Post by bitexploder »

ruffrey wrote: post #139

Graduation rate seems awfully low, at 59% in 2012. http://usafacts.org/metrics/34352 --I do not think this is accurate.-- Edit: this is the college graduation rate. I assumed it was high school. Page needs more info!

That is for higher education. You don't think that 41% of people drop out of college / post high school education? My gut says it seems correct.

Re: USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources

#149

Post by kbenson »

Cshelton wrote: post #128
rqebmm wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Despite all the different changes in the income tax rate/other progressive taxes. This supports an overhaul to the tax code to a more simple, flat tax system. From another data source outside this report, I'd have to find it, but historically, no matter the top bracket tax rate, the Federal government collects about 15-17 % income tax. Including when the top rate was 90%+. Even assuming that is true, it wouldn't ch…

Please explain how flat tax rate across any income level, while removing the current tax code, would be considered regressive? I have not heard that argument before. The proportion of tax paid is the same at any income level. Anything that would counteract any "regressive" tax system would have to happen on the personal income side. Which means better education, opportunities, etc., to increase income levels. I'd sup…

> Please explain how flat tax rate across any income level, while removing the current tax code, would be considered regressive? I have not heard that argument before.

It's regressive in that it causes the poor to pay more than they do now. With regard to taxes, progressive and regressive have specific meaning.

> The proportion of tax paid is the same at any income level.

I don't believe this is true. You'll have to back up a statement like that with references, rather than just repeating it continuously.

What you are talking about is the effective tax rate. That said, you might find this table of effective tax rates by quintile[1] interesting, as it directly disproves that point.

1: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average...

Post reply on HN