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

221–230 of 359 posts

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

#221

Post by imglorp »

vermontdevil wrote: post #217
_pastel wrote: post #208

Can anyone give me some intuition into why 77k people are employed by the Social Security Administration? [1] That's bigger than Google, and I didn't think their scope was that wide. [1] http://usafacts.org/government-finances/employment?compariso... under "Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity". The combined count is "n/a" - maybe that's because the State & Local count has some overlap with…

There are SSA offices all over the country that actually meet people. Lots of older voting public that demands this. Same reason why we still have post offices in tiny towns.

I think so too. I've been in one. Once the non-internet generation goes away, those offices can go away. Or fold it into the Postal system like they have done with passport applications.

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

#222

Post by dragonwriter »

abeyer wrote: post #216
schoen wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The flat tax is regressive. Strictly speaking, a flat tax is the border between progressive and regressive taxation and is neither progressive nor regressive.

I think that's only true in a very academic sense. Ideally you would want to exclude the expenses incurred to sustain a reasonable minimum quality of life and only consider taxation on income in excess of that. A truly flat tax rate is still regressive in the sense that it is a significantly higher burden on that expendable income at the lower end of the scale.

Even ignoring the disposal income question, it's regressive in utilitarian terms because money, like most commodities, has declining marginal utility, so taking 20% of $1,000,000 takes a lower percentage of the utility of that $1,000,000 than taking 20% of $100,000 does of the $100,000.

(A lot of analysis gets based on the misuse of $ as a flat measure of utility, which is deeply flawed.)

EDIT: more accurately, this subsumes and generalizes the disposable income issue, rather than ignoring it, since the concept of "necessities" that come out before income is "disposable" is really a simplification of the "low hanging fruit" of high-utility spending to a binary category, rather than a continuum.

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

#223

Post by ianai »

_pastel wrote: post #208

Can anyone give me some intuition into why 77k people are employed by the Social Security Administration? [1] That's bigger than Google, and I didn't think their scope was that wide. [1] http://usafacts.org/government-finances/employment?compariso... under "Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity". The combined count is "n/a" - maybe that's because the State & Local count has some overlap with…

They do a lot and in a regional, local way. Google doesn't have to have employees at every city or even in every state. Google also has a relatively narrow focus compared to the SSA. The SSA has to authoritatively interact in a timely manner to births, deaths, citizen naturalizations (term?), and probably a huge amount more. All social security payments come from them, after all.

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

#224

Post by burkaman »

vermontdevil wrote: post #217
_pastel wrote: post #208

Can anyone give me some intuition into why 77k people are employed by the Social Security Administration? [1] That's bigger than Google, and I didn't think their scope was that wide. [1] http://usafacts.org/government-finances/employment?compariso... under "Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity". The combined count is "n/a" - maybe that's because the State & Local count has some overlap with…

There are SSA offices all over the country that actually meet people. Lots of older voting public that demands this. Same reason why we still have post offices in tiny towns.

~1,230 field offices.

https://www.ssa.gov/org/

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

#225

Post by clairity »

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…

"My second takeaway at a glance is the giant problem that is Social Security. [...] A $405 B shortfall on SS in 2015. If that was at least half, we would actually not be running a deficit. We would have a budget surplus if we actually made Social Security/other Gov. retirement program replacement actually sustain itself perpetually."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

yes, the first step is to remove the cap on social security withholding, which would affect the top ~6%. that would take care of over $100B of that yearly deficit.

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

#226

Post by extra88 »

amscanne wrote: post #202
shmageggy wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> This seems like a pretty poor argument for a flat tax and in fact could be seen as an argument against it. 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 -- which is the entire point of progressive taxes. So progressive taxes work, let's keep them! Not necessarily. That would be true if the absolute $$$ collected were the sam…

In scenario 1, government collects $60 from $300 earned (20%). In scenario 2, government collects $62 from $260 earned (~24%).

In scenario 2, government has higher revenue, not lower.

If high earners had to exert themselves twice as much or otherwise expend twice the resources to earn $20 instead of $10, maybe ending up with $9 instead of $12 would be rational. Of course in the real world it rarely works that way, only a few are in a position to work less to earn fewer commissions or work less overtime to avoid entering a higher tax bracket. The brackets are also a lot more graduated, it's not like you could earn $19 and pay $1 tax.

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

#227

Post by tptacek »

Cshelton wrote: post #191
programbreeding wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 increase…

I don't understand your argument here either. "Jumps during 2000-2010 were due to 'the economic recession'. Which was during 'the Obama administration'"?

* There was more than one recession in the time period you're talking about.

* The Great Recession did not in fact start during the Obama administration.

* There was a recession at the beginning of Bush's term and at the end of it, but most of Bush's term occurred during the real estate bubble, during which there was no recession --- why would increases in benefits during that time be attributable to a recession?

* What does "despite why the recession happened" mean? The recession did not occur due to food stamps.

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

#228

Post by ianai »

imglorp wrote: post #221
vermontdevil wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are SSA offices all over the country that actually meet people. Lots of older voting public that demands this. Same reason why we still have post offices in tiny towns.

I think so too. I've been in one. Once the non-internet generation goes away, those offices can go away. Or fold it into the Postal system like they have done with passport applications.

Uh, I don't think it's a case of people being "non-internet". If the needed wires haven't been ran to your locality then you're not "going internet". Further, the postal service is still critical. We might not use it for every day letters anymore, but it service important functions that nothing else can.

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

#229

Post by cel1ne »

_pastel wrote: post #208

Can anyone give me some intuition into why 77k people are employed by the Social Security Administration? [1] That's bigger than Google, and I didn't think their scope was that wide. [1] http://usafacts.org/government-finances/employment?compariso... under "Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity". The combined count is "n/a" - maybe that's because the State & Local count has some overlap with…

Have you considered the thousands of problems those people have to solve? The many phone-calls they have do to get people to receive the benefits they are entitled to? Or prevent them from losing them? Google doesn't have to do any of that.

People working in the perimeter of "social work" for the state generally do a lot to help people, who, for whatever reason, are often sabotaging themselves.

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

#230

Post by tptacek »

programbreeding wrote: post #171
ariwilson wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those numbers inflation adjusted?

They are not. I took them directly from USAFacts[0], and according to their methodologies[1], they have not adjusted for inflation either. [0] http://usafacts.org/government-finances/spending?comparison=... [1] http://usafacts.org/methodology

Wait, none of these graphs are in constant dollars? How are we meant to read them?
Post reply on HN