Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlotOfReading | Hacker News Reader

In the US, you get social security, medicare/medicaid, the world's most powerful military, transportation infrastructure, education, fire departments, VA benefits, and hundreds of other things. You might not value any of it, but that's the parent's point: You aren't getting nothing, you're getting a lot of expensive things you don't value for your taxes. It's a completely different type of discussion to have and one that's much more amenable to productive discussion.

View on HN

I will not receive social security or medicare/medicaid, as they are actively being gutted today. Our military goes on adventures I have never supported (Iraq? Afghanistan?). I am not entitled to VA benefits.

My education was trash. I’ll grant you fire depts & transportation, though the transport stuff isn’t at all properly invested in. I don’t care to make car companies more money.

These are all the same as nothing to me. You can split hairs and say I am getting something not nothing, but that doesn’t change the lived experience of being poor, sick, and badly educated in the wealthiest nation.

This world doesn’t exist for people like me— it exists for all you folks.

And boy, lemme tell ya… I would be super happy to burn your world to the ground, and I say that with horror in my eyes as I look at the fires that Elon is starting.

Just because you don't support the decisions about how the military is deployed doesn't mean you don't benefit from its existence. Being an American citizen already comes out of the box with a bunch of benefits, and I'm unaware of any place with a similar standard of living that has lower taxes overall.

but are you sure if those standards of living are because of striving economy and hardworking people or because of military adventures?

who is "all you folks"? Kinda, how do you say, too vague to be useful?

and I'm sorry you were poor, sick, and badly educated, but the closest thing to "don't do that" was the American Rescue Plan's permanent child tax credit which cut child poverty in half and oh god wait that's a scheme in a huge bill and I've already lost everyone because that's still too complicated and now it's gone.

That's the problem. Every time you repeat the cynical meme that nothing can be done and all taxes are wasted and everything you sap strength from the progress that can be made when we actually pull in the same direction: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2019/09/26/the-offi... (see the image: https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=8...)

Slightly pedantic nit:

I know you're pointing out what "taxes" get you, but most people look at the tax brackets for income taxes and correlate that with the level of government services they receive.

It's important to note that income taxes do not fund Social Security and Medicare. These are funded through FICA taxes, paid 7.65% from the individual and the employer match of another 7.65%. That's why if you are self-employed (or do 1099 work on the side), you pay self employment taxes, which is both halves to the tune of 15.3%.

So people actually pay their income tax (less the standard or itemized deductions) on the stairstep up to the top bracket IN ADDITION to FICA.

Not passing judgment on whether it's an equitable deal for everyone involved, but we do get taxed pretty heavily. Especially when you throw state income taxes (for those states that have them) and property taxes into the mix.

Income taxes absolutely do fund Social Security and Medicare. Those programs would be even more insolvent on FICA taxes alone.

Excuse me, sir. Please don't just tell me I'm wrong without doing some research.

SS: https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecuri...

How is Social Security financed?

Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $176,100 (in 2025), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent.

Total income, including interest, to the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds amounted to $1.351 trillion in 2023. ($1.233 trillion from net payroll tax contributions, $51 billion from taxation of benefits, and $67 billion in interest)

US Social Security Expenditures in 2023: $1.351 trillion.

Do you see income taxes in there other than those from recipients?

I won't dirty up this post further, but Medicare is likewise funded; like SS, income taxes on Social Security benefits do go partially to fund Medicare, as those people are generally program recipients. The final funding source is Part A premiums.

I don't mind banter or disagreements, but please do not tell me I'm wrong when you have not even bothered to look. Your gut feeling is not a good basis to dispute someone's premise.

You left out the cost of medicare from that calculation: $1.02 trillion of outlays in 2023 per the CMS (CBO has $800 billion here). Medicare taxes were $350 billion in 2023 per the CBO. Where does the rest of that money come from?

Medicaid is another $600 billion and is also supposed to be supported by the Medicare tax.

Social Security is mostly covered by its ~12.5% regressive tax (an extortionate rate, IMO). Medicare is not. In 2023, Social Security, per the CBO, had a ~$200 billion shortfall also (draining the trust fund), but that's small potatoes compared to the >$1 trillion hole in medicare/medicaid that is being supported by your income taxes.

You linked a nice fact sheet, but the reality as shown by the group who actually oversees where the money goes is a bit different.

The irony here is that nowhere in my original post did I claim there was no commingling of funds.

In fact, I was trying to point out that our taxes were actually HIGHER than most people think due to FICA. Did I say these programs were covered?

My point was that they were taxed separately.

And to answer your question, the dirty little secret of government is that they raid the trust funds. Why else would the trust fund have interest income?

But it's not really from income taxes, it's from raising money through issuing debt.

I was not making the point you thought I was making.

Money is fungible, my friend. A dollar of tax income is equivalent to a dollar of debt.

The trust fund, to be clear, is only for social security. It is not for Medicare.

I should point out for full accuracy that Medicare part A also has a trust fund that is similarly draining (although this one is almost insolvent), but most of the programs in Medicare are not funded by the part A trust.

Final edit: The Medicare trust fund also has a generous contribution from "general revenue" of the government - aka tax dollars.

It's only fungible at the point of expenditure. Tax income is a dollar in hand that creates no liability; debt must be repaid with interest.

Not sure I get your second point- I am aware of what is meant by the trust fund; actually, I thought it was the only one- you enlightened me about Medicare's. (If you re-read my post, you will see my use of the plural "funds" in "trust funds" was referring to the money itself, not multiple funds).

Anyway, I see 12-years of reserves at current projections for the HI (Part A fund for Hospital services), while the SMI (Part B for Doctors and outpatient services) isn't even listed- this fund is the one that seems to be the dog. Wow. And it's not even close. Yowza.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum

I don't think it's fair to bring Medicaid into the discussion. There's no separate tax for it, and the vast majority of people don't receive it- it's a subsidy to the poor. If you'd like to discuss that I'd be happy to, but I'm more comfortable on fiscal realities than judging what amount to local humanitarian efforts; my opinions might not be well received because they are not particularly generous. Additionally, I think it is far outside the scope of my original point that people's taxes are much higher than they think.

I'll close on this note: I think it's important that people speak in specifics, especially in trying times. Both platitudes and demagoguery are damaging to the public discourse, as is information presented out of context and the substitution of opinion for fact.

I spoke out of my rear-end on Medicaid (you did kind of catch me out of left field), and I generally try not to do that. I did some more digging (unlike SSA, they are not very forthcoming), and I'll take my medicine.

Thanks for the eye opener. Take care.

Hijacking your comment to make a point, how complicated are we already getting? The point of "taxes are too high" is now "a specific tax is too high relative to the residual benefits mix after cutting out two huge benefits programs, if we hold the possibility of future transfers from outside the dedicated revenue streams out" which, again, already so much more complicated and still way less than necessary to actually get to the goal.

lots of taxes though yes

Senior citizens get Medicare SSN, impoverished get Medicaid. The military contractors make money from the military. I pay for a private school because it's the only single-sex option.

Sure, I get transportation and infrastructure. So do a whole ton of countries. We are the wealthiest country in the world. If all the average person will get is transportation and infrastructure, it can be improved from what it currently is.

SS and healthcare are the two most expensive parts and will likely always be, and the nature of healthcare is the average won't see anywhere near the amount of money they're spending. The social choice we've come to is we'll spend the money anyway because it's (in general) morally repulsive to let (most) medically-addressible suffering go on for want of money, so I'm not sure how we can get around that.

I'm not against paying for SS and Medicare, but there are tons of changes we could make that would benefit average Americans.

What are some you have in mind?

Decrease foreign aid. Instead of $25+B to Israel (just an example, sure there are tons of others), we can keep the money for ourselves.

> transportation infrastructure, education, fire departments,

Didn't recent events like LA fires demonstrate just how neglected those services are.

Having a better military in a war is great, but having overtly fat military industrial complex isn't that great.

Apparently you fell for the narrative that LA ran out of water because they preferred to save the environment. Just so you know, it didn't matter how much water was in any reservoirs. There was plenty of water. The two failures that happened were -- 100 MPH wind after drought conditions, and the fact that if you try to get water out of every fire hydrant in a large area you will run out of water pressure. The solution to water pressure is increasing the number of reservoirs so that each one services a smaller area. That is done with infrastructure improvements that require a government willing to fund them, and residents willing to accept them. 100 MPH winds + drought conditions + fire over a large area is not addressable without massive over-provisioning. You may want to reconsider where you get your news from, because it seems you are being misinformed.

The local reservoir that serviced the palisades was out of service for months due to a tear in its roof which had yet to be fixed. The repair, per a competent repair person, would have taken a week if they had done it. That's why the water pressure locally was so low. They had already done what you wanted, and increased the number of reservoirs, but the relevant one had been out of service for months. It can both be true that Trump is a bloviating liar and the LA government is incompetent.

It may be a bit more complicated than what a nameless "competent repair person" thought it should have been. Do you worship your news sources too?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reservoir-pacific-palis...

Are droughts, fires or fast winds unknown conditions in LA?

A government should be preparing for them. Doubly so a government that believes in climate change. Which was the opposite of what happened with firemen raising warnings but they falling on uninterested ears.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com