Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpursley | Hacker News Reader

> how effective the state is at spending the money

Exactly! I'm okay with higher taxes as long as the jurisdictions who collect them are good stewards of the money. First, governments must prove to me that they can efficiency provide promised services before convincing me to hand over more.

How is it that other nations/jurisdictions can have lower taxes than the USA, but still manage to provide for universal healthcare, free education, and a well funded military (Russia with a 13% flat tax and Singapore with a 22% top rate come to mind)?

I just don't understand where the tax money is going in the USA at both federal and state levels. Why do we get such low value for our tax revenue? Also, my problem with tax systems is they are often about "punishment" and politics instead of providing government services...

View on HN

> Russia with a 13% flat tax

That's a common misconception. Yes, personal tax rate is 13%, but your employer will have to pay for health insurance (5.1), social services (2.9), and pension fund (22). Overall, you get closer to 43% flat tax rate.

The big difference is - you never see these moneys in the first place. Your paycheck is a net pay, all deducts are applied by the accounting department and only 13% rate is widely advertised as one the lowest in the world.

Interesting, thanks for pointing this out.

I have been considering becoming a Russian resident (and eventually citizen ~ yes, crazy). Do you know if self-employed people are liable for the other taxes you mentioned?

There are several tax schemes available and depending on your situation (who pays your bills, employees, etc) you might be eligible for "УСН - упрощенная система налогообложения" (simplified tax system). You'll pay 6% from your income + 15% from your profit. Here's an article you might find interesting (in Russian of course): https://www.moedelo.org/club/article-knowledge/individualnyj...

Спасибо!

> How is it that other nations/jurisdictions can have lower taxes than the USA

The US has substantially lower tax burden (share of GDP in taxes) than the OECD average, about 1/4 of GDP collared to about 1/3 as the OECD average.

> Russia with a 13% flat tax

Russia has a 13% flat income tax, but also has a national VAT (with different rates, not sure what the overall average is), and a social insurance tax that is regressive and has a rate of 26% up to about 3/4 of the median income.

Singapore is in many ways the anti-America: it's a tiny low-freedom centrally planned one-party state. It earns a good deal of its money from transhipment and being a commercial hub. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32028693

Russia is a petro-state run by the Mafia.

Sure, those systems aren't perfect. I'm sure there's better examples (Switzerland, Uruguay).

But they still manage to provide a situation where you're not stuck paying student loans for decades or go bankrupt because you happen to get sick. Why can't the USA, a nation with higher levels of freedom and transparency, provide the same despite collecting more tax revenue? I'm not convinced higher taxes is the answer; there's an efficiency problem. Solve that, then we can talk about raising taxes.

>I just don't understand where the tax money is going in the USA at both federal and state levels.

You can find it online with a simple Google search. Pensions, medicare and social security are the bulk of the spending.

Two out of the three of those are deferred compensation and linked to earlier wage deductions.

Unless I'm mistaken and the national debt is actually the national assets, the money is obtained through taxes now rather than taxes before.

> Unless I'm mistaken and the national debt is actually the national assets, the money is obtained through taxes now rather than taxes before.

Well, the part of the national debt at issue (at least as regards Social Security and Medicare) is also part of the national assets; since “intragovernmental debt” sits on both sides of the balance sheet.

All three are linked to earlier wage deductions, though one of them is in an extremely course grained way.

> Pensions, medicare and social security are the bulk of the spending.

In aggregate, less than half, even if you add Medicaid and other public health spending on top of Medicare, so not the bulk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com