Posts Tagged ‘Taxation’

Where did your tax dollars go?

Posted on April 14, 2014 at 11.57 am
11th 2 p.m.

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. — Mark Twain

Last year I shared this image, the Heritage Foundation‘s chart for 2012 explaining where your tax dollar goes. It got almost 800 notes, because it’s a great graphic way to demonstrate what our government does with our money. I noticed this morning that it was getting a few additional reblogs thanks to today being Tax Day, so I thought I’d share an updated chart.

As it turned out, I’d already found and saved the very similar chart for 2013 made by the National Priorities Project (NPP), the graphic at the top of this post. When I uploaded it, I took a minute to compare the two versions. Both Heritage’s image for 2012 and NPP’s image for 2013 use the same clever design, but I immediately noticed that the similarities stop there. And when I dug up Heritage’s chart for 2013 and NPP’s far more chaotic version from 2012, the differences became even more telling.

See, all these charts are informative, but they’re made with different agendas in mind.Heritage is a conservative think tank, and as the ACA (Obamacare) has gone into effect since their 2012 graphic, their focus has shifted even more strongly to highlighting entitlement spending. Note that big bracket they’ve added, and how “Income security, Veterans’ benefits” was retitled “Income security and other benefits,” a subtle shift which will make that spending feel more wasteful to Heritage’s typically anti-welfare, pro-military audience. Military spending, meanwhile, is dubbed “National defense” — a label I’d say isn’t quite accurate in our age of endless war — and calculated in a way which makes it seem quite small compared to the social programs.

Then there’s the NPP, which is a nonpartisan transparency organization that leans left. In both of their charts, military spending is labeled as just that, and it’s also calculated in a way which makes it the largest portion of the budget. Veterans’ benefits, health care spending, unemployment benefits, housing benefits, and food benefits are all chopped up into different sections, making social welfare spending look like a smaller slice of the pie than it really is. (The interest on the national debt also plays a much larger role in NPP’s charts than Heritage’s, a difference which I presume comes from Heritage’s use of “net interest.”)

So what’s the takeaway here? Well, there are a few:

1. No matter which chart you use, one thing is clear: Our government spends a heck of a lot of money that we don’t have.

2. The vast bulk of it goes to military spending and entitlement programs. Within each of those categories, there is plenty of corporate welfare, crony capitalism, and corruption of all sorts.

3. While I don’t believe any of these charts were intentionally designed to be deceptive (there are multiple, legitimate ways to slice up these spending categories), each presents the information with a certain bias. Bias is NOT a bad thing (see more on that here), but it can be dangerous if we’re not aware of its presence. Last year, I posted Heritage’s chart uncritically. I don’t think anything too terrible happened as a result, but looking at their updated chart this year (especially compared to NPP’s differently-biased graphics) indicates that was not the best choice.

4. ALWAYS use multiple sources. Last year I didn’t look for other sources on this, because the proportions are generally correct. It’s typically fairly safe to think of Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and military spending each taking about 25% of our spending, with the rest going to other programs and interest on the debt. That’s a very rough estimate, but it’s a good guide to see if charts like these are anywhere close to reality.

Beyond that general estimate, though, we need more sources. Unless you’re a math and budget genius, check multiple versions of these calculations, which inevitably simplify very complex information into a very small space.

Personally, I think this graphic, though least visually interesting, is probably the most valuable. It’s from the Tax Foundation, which is more interested in lowering taxes and spending overall than making any particular part of the spending look more ominous than it is (note: it’s all pretty ominous). This chart slices up $100 instead of $1, but the idea is the same. And here you’ll note something of a mediating position which lines up pretty closely with my 25% x 3 approximation.

The White House, the New York TimesCNBC, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and plenty of other organizations with widely varying agendas have put out their own versions of these charts. Being able to find and compare these different calculations is a huge advantage of the internet.

So, where do your tax dollars go? Well, you figure it out. Probably somewhere you don’t like. Happy Tax Day…or something like that.

Taxing like it’s 1999

Posted on December 14, 2012 at 3.04 pm

</p>
<p>There is a lot of talk about going back to Clinton-era tax rates to achieve fiscal solvency. But how about going back to Clinton-era spending levels, too? [&#8230;]<br />
When Clinton left office in January 2001, total spending was close to $2 trillion, and the federal government registered a surplus of $142 billion in real terms. In fiscal 2012, federal spending was $3.2 trillion, and our deficit was $1.1 trillion.</p>
<p>I was a kid when Clinton was in office, but I was old enough to remember lots of anger at &#8220;Slick Willy.&#8221; Now, I&#8217;d wager, there are quite a few erstwhile Clinton haters who are suddenly feeling nostalgic for the late 90s.<br />
I don&#8217;t want taxes to go up, of course, but for this much of a spending cut it just might be worth it. More info here.

There is a lot of talk about going back to Clinton-era tax rates to achieve fiscal solvency. But how about going back to Clinton-era spending levels, too? […]

When Clinton left office in January 2001, total spending was close to $2 trillion, and the federal government registered a surplus of $142 billion in real terms. In fiscal 2012, federal spending was $3.2 trillion, and our deficit was $1.1 trillion.

I was a kid when Clinton was in office, but I was old enough to remember lots of anger at “Slick Willy.” Now, I’d wager, there are quite a few erstwhile Clinton haters who are suddenly feeling nostalgic for the late 90s.

I don’t want taxes to go up, of course, but for this much of a spending cut it just might be worth it. More info here.

Render unto Caesar

Posted on February 5, 2011 at 7.34 pm

Q. What do you say when people pull out “render unto Caesar” in support of forced taxation? — trueliberty, from tumblr.

A. This is a good follow-up question to the post I recently made about the implications of Romans 13 for the Christian libertarian.  I think my answer will be quite similar to what I wrote there, but let me first make a few more personal notes on the matter.

Especially since I’ve begun supporting myself and thus paying taxes in earnest, if you will, I’ve thought a lot about tax evasion.  I’m sure anyone who looks at the chunk the government takes out of each paycheck has.  But it’s not just — or even, to be honest, primarily — because I’d like to keep more of my money that I’ve pondered ways to get around paying taxes:  I’m not merely upset about how much money the government takes; I’m upset about what it does with it.  I do not wish to fund aggressive war and the killing of civilians.

In fact, not only do I not want to fund the American war machine, I feel kind of immoral doing it.  Wouldn’t the moral — nay, the Christian — response be to refuse to pay taxes?

But I kept coming back to the “render unto Caesar” passage.  The Roman empire was far worse in its abuses of life and liberty than the American government, but here’s Jesus saying not to fight The Man over taxes.  What?!

(more…)