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

261–270 of 359 posts

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

#261

Post by erikpukinskis »

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 think there are players who expressly want the U.S. government not to have a surplus, due to the political connections/ramifictions/control debt can bring.

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

#263

Post by [deleted] »

tgb29 wrote: post #255
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…

Tax all churches on donations and property assets and use these revenues to fund Social Security. The Constitution grants the Pope and his equivalents the freedom of religion; not the freedom to avoid taxes owed to the Federal Government.

[deleted]

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

#264

Post by hackuser »

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.

> 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

I don't agree that is ideal. Ideally, everyone makes an equal sacrifice. What is an equal sacrifice?

* Everyone could pay the exact same amount of tax, let's say $15K. But that is not equal sacrifice; some people can afford $15K much more easily than others (especially those who don't have $15K).

* Everyone could pay the same percentage of their income, let's say 17%. That also is not equal sacrifice: If you earn $1 million, you can afford to give up 17% of it much more easily than if you earn $10,000.

* Tiered progressive tax rates: These can be equal, if calibrated effectively. It will never be perfect and always up for debate, but it can be done pretty well.

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

#265

Post by hackuser »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #261
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 think there are players who expressly want the U.S. government not to have a surplus, due to the political connections/ramifictions/control debt can bring.

Yes. Look up 'Starve the Beast'.

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

#266

Post by hackuser »

seanlinehan wrote: post #8

Here is a NYT article that explains what USAFacts.org is: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/business/dealbook/steve-b... > On Tuesday, Mr. Ballmer plans to make public a database and a report that he and a small army of economists, professors and other professionals have been assembling as part of a stealth start-up over the last three years called USAFacts. The database is perhaps the first nonpartisan effort to cr…

Discussed here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14136081

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

#267

Post by clarkmoody »

btym wrote: post #258

What's with the spikes every tenth year on the "population changes" graphs? http://usafacts.org/us-population

The US Census is taken each decade. It's probably an artifact related to that: better data on Census years, worse data otherwise.

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

#268

Post by weaksauce »

Cshelton wrote: post #219
weaksauce wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is still regressive. A truly progressive tax system would be similar to what we have now but with much fewer deductions that the affluent can use to lower their effective tax rate. (Oft cited that warren buffet has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary because of all the deductions and loopholes.) Not to mention that there is a huge misunderstanding of how progressive tax rates work. A very affluent busi…

The point that the businessman was trying to make is not that he misunderstands how marginal tax rates work, but for the next dollar I'm going to earn, I now get to keep less. My incentive to earn the NEXT dollar is therefore less. This is exactly why we don't have a tax rate on the top bracket of 90% like in the Eisenhower era. It's not about being taxed on all your money when you make over that amount, it is, where…

Listen, I saw it and I know what he said. he said if he goes one dollar over 250k he would make less than if he had not gone over that threshold. this is complete bullshit and it was either an ignorant understanding of marginal tax rates or a deliberate way to obfuscate the issue with a national tv appearance where you can feign ignorance and most of the population doesn't understand tax rates.

He didn't say after 250k my motivation to work is gone because a smaller amount is returned to me.(iirc the tax rate wasn't that much more than it was before anyway) he said he would lose money if he went over that threshold of 250k.

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

#269

Post by perseusprime11 »

rqebmm wrote: post #252
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.

While you ARE technically correct, the alternative in the wild is progressive taxation. That makes flat taxation a de facto regressive tax, as it will be more regressive than the current taxation regime.

I think this whole tax debate misses an important point. Taxes are viewed as revenue in terms of budget and there is a business tendency to make more revenue to cover expenses. If you stop seeing Tax as a major source of revenue and start having Govt invest money in different ways to make money other than just taxes, we can start actually having a real debate around what is a fair tax rate for govt to cover their expenses and figure out a way to make it progressive.

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

#270

Post by zhengyi13 »

genericpseudo wrote: post #238
abeyer wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just to put things in simple terms, this $200B does not include money Apple made by selling iPhones in the US, right? It only includes money Apple made by selling iPhones in other countries? I don't get why we obsess so much over it. US economy is large enough. If they want to bring this money back to the US or they want to give money to their owners/stock holders, they can pay the tax at that time? I don't have a…

> As an American citizen, I'm still subject to federal income tax, even on income earned while I'm residing outside the country, for work done entirely outside the country, for a non-American employer. This is a really unusual part of the US tax code.

ICBW but I believe this applies only to income earned over a certain dollar amount - 80K USD, last I looked, and only at the rate of the delta, if that makes sense.

Oh hey, it's over $100K now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_earned_income_exclusio...

Post reply on HN