USA Facts – Federal, state, and local data from government sources • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by Cshelton » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 7:11 PM UTC

programbreeding wrote: post #151

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…

>A quick third take away seems to be the unprecedented rise in non-cash government aid (food stamps) during the Obama administration. The data is there, needs more analyzing of course. I'm not sure you can say it like that. It went up 2.13x from 1980 to 1990, 1.43x from 1990 to 2000, 1.93x from 2000 to 2010, and 1.07x from 2010 to 2015. There was a big jump of 1.93x from 2000 to 2010, but that is only 2 years of Obam…

You're right. I should have stated it differently when saying Obama. I only glanced at it at first too. And most likely, the jump during 2000 - 2010 is most likely attributed to the economic recession. Which was during the Obama administration. Despite why the recession happened, it was decided to increase it anyway at a higher rate than the previous decade.

Although it seems that state and local governments increased their non-cash gov aid spending a lot too during that time. I'm not sure what the breakdown on that is. Is it money given to the states by the Federal government?

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

#192

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 7:13 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #188

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…

SS will exhaust it's trust fund at some point, but it still has lots of revenue eery year. Last projection I saw was that if we do nothing to payroll tax or retirement age, we'd see a 20% reduction in payouts and it would remain solvent indefinitely. Seems like it only needs adjustments to keep working fine.

> SS will exhaust it's trust fund at some point

Or not. Current projection by the Social Security Trustees are that the OASI trust fund will be exhausted between, IIRC, 2030 and never; the DI fund between 2020 and never (there's two separate trust funds involved.)

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

#193

Post by rplst8 » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 7:14 PM UTC

What the heck is this?

http://usafacts.org/metrics/11699

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

#194

Post by moondrops » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 7:16 PM UTC

justanotheratom wrote: post #178

There is a Visas granted metric. But it is not clear if that is just any type of visa? I would be interested in number of citizenships granted. http://usafacts.org/metrics/25906

you're in luck :D

that exists under the metric "naturalizations", which describes the process of acquiring citizenship.

http://usafacts.org/metrics/13058

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

#195

Post by cnnsucks » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 7:19 PM UTC

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.

"Can you explain the obsession people have with the Constitution?"

It's the foundational document of the most powerful, prosperous nation in the history of the species. Things like that attract allegiance. It would be strange if it didn't.

"It seems like some people believe all new laws shouldn't exist if they're not in the Constitution."

Your "some people" straw man is likely fictional, or at least very rare. Laws that conflict with the constitution can be struct down via Judicial Review. Otherwise new laws are entirely compatible with the constitution. The US and its various states have no difficulty producing reams of new laws that survive the constitution just fine.

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

#196

Post by Cshelton » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 7:21 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #149

Cshelton wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What I meant by the proportion of tax paid is the same at any income level is under a flat tax scenario, leaving out all tax rules today of exemptions/credits.

If the rate is 10%, the proportion of tax is the same, whether you make $10 or $1 million, you are still paying 10% of your income.

Yes, the effective tax rate collected. The reference you provided only supports my claim. It looks like the effective tax rate, which is the actual rate collected by the IRS is around 20% since 1979. I'd have to find it, but if you take the data all the way back to the New Deal, the effective tax rate is around 17%. Most likely due to it being easier to "hide" income back then.

Regardless, the effective tax rate has stayed around 17-22% over almost the last century, despite the large differences in the tax rates at different brackets. Remember, the top rate during the Eisenhower administration was 90%. Yet the effective tax rate average was unchanged.

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

#197

Post by runeks » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 7:28 PM UTC

shmageggy wrote: post #127

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…

> Lastly, it seems that Government revenue for Federal and State/Local has actually increased pretty linearly with the population. 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 Feder…

> If raising top end bracket taxes didn't increase overall income, then it must be the case that it reduced the tax burden on lower incomes [...]

This logic is not sound. Another option is that the wealthy hire accountants in order to avoid paying 90%+ tax on anything. Paying an accountant $1000/hr is almost nothing if it can save you millions of dollars in taxes.

So rather than reduce the tax burden on lower-income families, it's possible it just increased the income of accountants.

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

#198

Post by bobwaycott » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 7:30 PM UTC

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…

The basic point in simplest form is that the less money a person earns, the greater the impact of paying 20% of their income in taxes is in terms of real dollars left to live on.

A family earning $50K will have $40K left after federal taxes to live on. A family earning $250K will have $200K left to live on. One of these families is hurt more than the other by a flat tax. This is what is meant when a flat tax is criticized as being regressive.

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

#199

Post by Cshelton » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 7:34 PM UTC

stdbrouw wrote: post #162

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…

You spent five minutes looking at some charts and can now confidently state that (1) the media has got it all wrong and that (2) you've figured out how to avoid deficits, how taxes should really work and the problem with social security. The word "hubris" comes to mind.

Ok, I'll bite... briefly.

A.) I spent more than five minutes. Regardless, I stated at "at a glance".

B.) I did not say the media has it all wrong. I said many things, NOT ALL, perpetuated by both sides in the media are different than the data from government sources. I don't think anybody would argue that both sides, especially recently, have had media reports that sketch and bend the truth. And both sides just claim the other is "fake news".

C.) I never said I figured out how to avoid deficits. I stated a problem, which is running a deficit perpetually is not sustainable. I'd love to hear a solution if you have one.

D.) For taxes, I once again stated an observation from the report, which supports the idea of a simplified tax system. No, I didn't lay out my full economic tax plan suggesting what to do. If you read one of the other comments, their is a link about historical effective tax rates, go check that out. That, along with the tax revenue by the federal government, is why I made my statement.

And finally yeah, the problem with social security is many faceted. But from a selfish, personal reason... highly unlikely any of the money I'm paying in right now will EVER come back to me. So yeah, I believe it's a problem.

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

#200

Post by lelandbatey » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 7:35 PM UTC

xienze wrote: post #131

Joeri wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice a 20% flat tax on all people and corporations without exceptions and deductions would be more progressive than the current system. The wealthy pay very little taxes.

A couple things... The parent is talking about "progressive" as in "the tax gets progressively higher as you make more money", not in the "social justice" sense. The flat tax being regressive means that the poor would have to actually pay more in taxes than they do now, which is very little. That's seen as a bad thing. Obviously there are solutions to that in flat tax proposals. Second, "the wealthy pay very little t…

So, I'm looking at the actual IRS spreadsheet of Income Tax for the year 2014, which you can find here: https://www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical...

The IRS is so nice as to provide exactly the metric we're looking for, which is:

For the group of people making $XXX per year or more, what percent of all income in the US does this group earn, and what percent of all income tax does this group pay?

Here's the groups you mentioned:

    +------------------+------------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
    | Income group     | Percent of tax returns | Percent of total US | Percent of total US      |
    |                  | in this group          | taxable income      | Income Tax owed          |
    |                  |                        | earned by group     | by group (after credits) |
    +------------------+------------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
    | $200,000 or more | 4.20%                  | 41.90%              | 57.50%                   |
    +------------------+------------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
    | $100,000 or more | 16.00%                 | 67.90%              | 79.50%                   |
    +------------------+------------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+

So yes you can see that those who earn high amounts pay taxes at greater rates than those who earn smaller amounts. However, it's not as though those earning $250k+ a year are only earning 25% of money earned by people in the US but are paying 50% of the taxes. Instead, they're payed around 40% of all the income and pay around 57% of all the taxes.