Comment by solardev | Hacker News Reader

Comment by solardev | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You know, the US spends most of our government money on old people too (social security, medicare, etc.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/... We just get less bang for the buck for it because our healthcare and housing are so terribly inefficient and expensive, and we don't have a strong culture of familial support.

We can't build high speed rail either -- we can't even keep our low-speed rail running well -- and our answer to expensive healthcare is typically just "let them die, we can replace them" (immigration too, except we don't have to give our immigrants anything, just wink and pretend we hate them).

At the end of the day no society has it all figured out yet, but I'd love to live in a place with social services and a less hostile democracy so that all the citizens can work together to figure out next steps, instead of being dragged kicking and screaming by the rich. It's just a more collectivist mindset, not necessarily better or more right in any way.

> You know, the US spends most of our government money on old people too (social security, medicare, etc.).

My whole point was how these issues are less of an issue for US, again comparing with UK

US has better age demographic distribution than UK

The net tax burden on an average UK person is way higher compared to US while having worse average wages. Quick googling shows per capita income tax collected in US is $15K, while in UK it is $21K

GDP per capita of UK is $46K compared to US's 70K

If even after having high taxes, a country is having problem funding social services, then that's a big issue as the high taxes are meant to take care of that. US doesn't have this issue as taxes being lower, people can use the money not spent on tax on funding the social care things for themselves.

Also, overall US is still an attractive place for high earners so it will keep on attracting people from those segments which will boost its tax revenues and lead to decline of Europe. As while western Europe might be still a good place for people on median wages or below, USA might be much better for people on the other end

> US has better age demographic distribution than UK

I can believe that. Japan's even worse off, wonder what they're gonna do...

> The net tax burden on an average UK person is way higher compared to US while having worse average wages. Quick googling shows per capita income tax collected in US is $15K, while in UK it is $21K

It's a bit trickier than that, because some of the same services (like healthcare) are still paid by the typical consumer in the US, it just doesn't show up in their taxes. $6k/year might actually just cover the premiums for a small family (what you pay the insurer before you use any services). Using that healthcare would be way more expensive.

I think a fairer comparison would be discretionary income (disposable income minus cost of living expenses like housing, healthcare, food, education), etc. Unfortunately that data isn't easy to find, and definitions differ, but without considering all of those, it's not really apples-to-apples just to look at taxation rates.

The average person is more affected by "how much money do I have left to spend after the essentials" than "am I paying the government or a private company for these essentials".

> $6k/year might actually just cover the premiums for a small family (

This is not true anywhere in the US. The lowest premiums are ~$400 per person per month for bronze level insurance.

Lowest premiums for a family of four would be ~$2k per month plus annual deductible of $5k to $10k plus annual out of pocket maximum of ~$10k to $17k (legal limit).

This is incorrect.

At least until the end of 2024, insurance premiums are capped via subsidies (either paid directly, or as tax credits). The computation of the cap is extremely complex, but basically: you do not pay more than 8.3% of your household AGI for your state's 2nd most expensive silver-level insurance plan.

This is not widely talked about. It was a part of the ACA, but there was a salary cap somewhere near 100k/yr. The cap was removed during the COVID19 pandemic, and this currently runs to the end of 2024.

I used to pay $1300/month for my wife and I (in our late 50s); I currently pay $440/month (annual income approx $120k).

Interesting, does that only apply if you buy via healthcare.gov?

I see the full $30k+ in annual premiums that my employer plus I am paying in my W-2 (box 12 code DD), which is money that could have been cash compensation.

It does not apply (by my understanding) to employer-provided insurance. It does apply to all individually provided insurance whether purchased on exchange or not.

US GDP per capita is $80,000 for 2023, not $70k. It's nearly double that of France or Britain at this point, and rapidly running away from them both. It's now more than double that of Japan.

I think you are focusing on less important things.

Europe faces three big issues: demographic crisis, energy/resources dependency, and security vulnerability. US on the other hand will have good demographic outlook for most of this century, it is energy (including renewables) and resources rich, and separated by oceans from anyone who can threaten it.

High speed rail? Non-factor in a bigger picture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com