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

341–350 of 359 posts

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

#341

Post by mason240 »

tunesmith wrote: post #274
mason240 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Please resist the urge to argue that the trust fund doesn't exist. Except it doesn't. The only way to for SS to collect from the trust fund is from the general fund. That means that in order for SS to get $1 from the general fund: A) Raise non-SS taxes $1 to go into the general fund. B) Cut $1 of other spending from the general fund. C) Increase the deficit by $1

For the benefit of those who actually don't know, the reason this doesn't hold water is because: A) The trust fund is in surplus from payroll (FICA) taxes. B) The general fund is in deficit from income tax cuts. C) Most income tax cut benefits go to richer people. So if someone argues that trust fund doesn't exist, they are arguing that revenue from payroll taxes should finance tax cuts for those richer than them. Ef…

A) That surplus money was already been spent in the 1990s.

B) Not true or relevant.

B) Not true or relevant.

>So if someone argues that trust fund doesn't exist, they are arguing that revenue from payroll taxes should finance tax cuts for those richer than them. Effectively transferring money from poor to rich.

Again, not true at all. Notice how you can't actually answer the question I posed about how SS can actually get the money out of the trust "fund." The fund is empty and is quite literally only made of a IOUs from the general fund.

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

#342

Post by schoen »

kbenson wrote: post #339
LolWolf wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought progressive and regressive referred to convex and concave taxation curves, respectively (both monotonically increasing, of course). Then flat tax is exactly the border (i.e. a linear function).

While depending on background, that may be what some people think of as defining progressive and regressive taxes, and may indeed describe at a low level the concept that most people think of and even be the origination of the term, it's not the definition generally put forth currently[1][2] (which is, admittedly, very simplistic). That just goes to my point, which is that people aren't even necessarily in agreement…

I think these definitions are equivalent. If your marginal tax rate (at least sometimes) increases as you get more income, the curve of tax liability against income will be concave upwards. If it (at least sometimes) decreases, that curve will be concave downwards. Right?

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

#343

Post by tunesmith »

mason240 wrote: post #341
tunesmith wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the benefit of those who actually don't know, the reason this doesn't hold water is because: A) The trust fund is in surplus from payroll (FICA) taxes. B) The general fund is in deficit from income tax cuts. C) Most income tax cut benefits go to richer people. So if someone argues that trust fund doesn't exist, they are arguing that revenue from payroll taxes should finance tax cuts for those richer than them. Ef…

A) That surplus money was already been spent in the 1990s. B) Not true or relevant. B) Not true or relevant. >So if someone argues that trust fund doesn't exist, they are arguing that revenue from payroll taxes should finance tax cuts for those richer than them. Effectively transferring money from poor to rich. Again, not true at all. Notice how you can't actually answer the question I posed about how SS can actually…

Again, for the benefit of others, since this commenter has an agenda and won't be convinced - commenter also can't answer the question about how he can actually get money out of his own savings account. That account is empty and is quite literally only made of IOUs from the bank it is held at.

It's actually a lousy question because it proves nothing. Money is held in different accounts not because they are actually stored in physically different places, but because they are conceptually different, and because the concepts are not fungible. I do not (and in some cases cannot) transfer money between some of my different accounts at my brokerage even though all that money is ultimately in the same pool somewhere.

In the case of the general fund and the trust fund, the trust fund surplus money was not spend in the 90s or at any other time since the surplus started growing again; it remained in surplus, and - counting its interest income - it remains in growing surplus until about 2019, at which point that surplus starts being dipped into until 2034.

(Also note that historically, this has already happened. [1] There was a social security surplus, and then it got spent down partially in the late 70s, and then started growing again in the early 80s. Everyone got their checks.)

Why is this distinction necessary? Again, because the general fund has gone into deficit. People like mason240 try to pretend that it hasn't gone into deficit as much as it has, because the people that are advantaged by the general fund deficit have a higher tax base than the people that have paid into payroll tax (on average). So why do we make this distinction? To protect against the transfer of money from the poor to the rich. Why do people like mason240 insist otherwise? For not other reason than to keep that money, and to weaken social security.

[1]: https://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html

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

#344

Post by kbenson »

schoen wrote: post #342
kbenson wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While depending on background, that may be what some people think of as defining progressive and regressive taxes, and may indeed describe at a low level the concept that most people think of and even be the origination of the term, it's not the definition generally put forth currently[1][2] (which is, admittedly, very simplistic). That just goes to my point, which is that people aren't even necessarily in agreement…

I think these definitions are equivalent. If your marginal tax rate (at least sometimes) increases as you get more income, the curve of tax liability against income will be concave upwards. If it (at least sometimes) decreases, that curve will be concave downwards. Right?

Almost. I think the concept inside many people's heads is simplified to the degree that it doesn't even need to describe a curve. A simple step function, for example (the simplest in this case being if you make less than $X, you pay nothing, otherwise Y%). In that manner, the concept is not approximating the curve, the curve is approximating the concept.

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

#345

Post by tunesmith »

hackuser wrote: post #331
tunesmith wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generally accepted that the value of money is roughly logarithmic as it increases. A logarithmic flat tax could look something like this: 1) Figure how many times poverty rate you make in revenue (2x, 3x, whatever) 2) Take the log base 10 3) Multiply by some flat constant that is the same for everyone, so that the total national amount taxed is how much the US needs. Last I checked, that flat constant would be a…

Thanks. > It's generally accepted that the value of money is roughly logarithmic as it increases I assume that is economic theory; do you remember whose or have any pointers to where I can read more?

I think it was Bernoulli that first talked about the logarithmic relationship of utility and value. That was back in the 1700's. I believe there have also been empirical studies that suggest that it holds up in experiments, etc.

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

#346

Post by code_duck »

ceejay wrote: post #164
code_duck wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense to me since there are other programs which exist specifically to provide food assistance.

Although that point of view appears to miss the point. It appears the inability to pay for food with the health budget would hide / obfuscate the data that might have otherwise shown a direct correlation between malnutrition and poor health. Sure you could read a study to get the same information, but unless your own data screams to you what the problem is it's not always easy to convince folks you should be doing an…

I don't blame the bureaucrat who denied this claim. While food is clearly required for your health, and there is a strong connection between healthy diet and general and specific health issues, including death, pharmacies don't dispense food. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that insurance would approve supplements, not food, for malnutrition since that is something traditionally associated with health care.

What would you say if the family was providing unhealthy food, and the doctor prescribed a year of vegetables from Medicaid? I agree, that would be a great program, but federal agencies can only do what they're specifically allowed to by law. I would imagine there is much data gathered on what conditions Medicare patients are suffering from, and i presume if malnutrition is common, that would be addressed in agency reports and in congress.

I'm not sure what data you're envisioning 'screaming' to responsible parties or what method they would be encountering this data by.

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

#347

Post by code_duck »

JoBrad wrote: post #301
code_duck wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense to me since there are other programs which exist specifically to provide food assistance.

Depending on the age of the child, those programs may only provide food for a certain amount of time, over the lifetime of the adult applying for the benefits. Or, if the adult has any property that increases their net worth over a certain amount, then they can't get the benefit at all.

That's true. But the appropriate programs should be created, budgeted, or extended to provide food appropriately, not to somehow mix basic daily nutrition with doctors, insurance and pharmacies.

If they found a medical relationship is more effective, great. But the answer is to budget and create appropriate rules for that first.

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

#350

Post by mason240 »

tunesmith wrote: post #343
mason240 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) That surplus money was already been spent in the 1990s. B) Not true or relevant. B) Not true or relevant. >So if someone argues that trust fund doesn't exist, they are arguing that revenue from payroll taxes should finance tax cuts for those richer than them. Effectively transferring money from poor to rich. Again, not true at all. Notice how you can't actually answer the question I posed about how SS can actually…

Again, for the benefit of others, since this commenter has an agenda and won't be convinced - commenter also can't answer the question about how he can actually get money out of his own savings account. That account is empty and is quite literally only made of IOUs from the bank it is held at. It's actually a lousy question because it proves nothing. Money is held in different accounts not because they are actually s…

>Again, for the benefit of others, since this commenter has an agenda and won't be convinced - commenter also can't answer the question about how he can actually get money out of his own savings account. That account is empty and is quite literally only made of IOUs from the bank it is held at.

These are two completely separate concepts, but if you insist on equating them, here we go:

Imagine you borrowed money to a business. That business then spent the money and gave you an IOU.

How is the business going to repay you when you want to withdraw? Like I said in my original comment, it will have to:

A) Raise their prices.

B) Cut spending (like employee benefits).

C) Borrow from somewhere else.

So much nonsense here in the rest of you comment. I think the best part is where you claim I have an agenda because I'm being factual, but you keep trying to shift the topic into taxing the rich.

Post reply on HN