Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by primitivesuave | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

primitivesuave

There is a US Treasury API endpoint [1] to see how much money actually comes in.

1. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/gift-contributions-...

View on HN

We need an API to block the government from spending more money.

It seems like voting for "fiscal conservatives" results in bigger spending.

Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions, which is the ultimate consequence of austerity?

The public infratructure shrinks, while the rich get richer, partially from paid bond interesets. And you would just sit there and think, "yea, thats the way"?

Do you really think spending and not taxation is the problem? Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullable people, voting for harmful demagogues, so you finally get the "financial conervatives" you want?

Why not both?

>Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions

A government spending less money does not equate to spending less money on public institutions. It can even mean spending more money on public institutions, assuming less money is spent on other things, such as unproductive wealth transfers.

> as unproductive wealth transfers.

Do you mean progressive taxation here, or something else?

Spending that will not benefit citizens in the future.

So benefits i guess? Or pensions? Sounds like you want the government to only spend money on capital projects which is reasonable, but it'll be very difficult to get there from here, given all the benefits/transfers that governments engage in.

Yes, especially in democracies with flattened and top heavy population histograms, since the young will never be able to outvote the old.

Ah ok, I see where you're coming from. Very difficult to achieve this in a democracy though, so probably productivity increases and wealth taxes will be needed to fill this gap.

>Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullible people...

Assuming the implication is that a well funded state managed education results in a population more resistant to (state?) propaganda; How would this be measured empirically?

I wonder if any countries have laws holding politicians to stick to their campaign promises.

Don't know about laws, especially since politicians can change those, but there are tools.

Common items used in woodworking and agriculture can be very useful: carving knives, axes, pitchforks and branding irons. Generally a big group of people holding their tools of trade in front of the palace/parliament/penthouse has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia.

> [...] has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia.

But now, the other side has surveilance, tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, drones, and very profitable incarceration facilities.

The other side is not even 0.0001% of the population. Cops, military, firemen, they are all working class, like us. The veil drops when you realize we are ALL working class: the police, military, software engineers, firemen, nurses, doctors, lawyers, miners, farmers, teachers.

The other side has nothing. We operate the farms, the weapons, the hospitals, the IT infrastructure, the surveillance, the army, the transportation, the bullets, the drones and the incarceration facilities. The other side contributes nothing, does nothing, and if they continue on their current path, history has shown again and again that they will be reduced to nothing.

lovely words but also just wishful thinking / fantasy which why the other side never wins anything

I’m more interested in laws that punish lying

It seems you are more in need of an API to block the government to willingly reduce their income. The US spending per capita isn't that high compared to other developed countries, the US problem is the repeated decisions to have the wealthy citizens not contribute in proportion to their wealth.

Yes that has been the case since at least Reagan. The deficits go up under republicans more than democrats. The fiscal conservatism is a marketing ploy.

Paper from 2004 on the topic: https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files...

Paper from 2022 on the topic:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01603477.2022.20...

Wikipage with just economic indicators by party:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...

That’s awesome.

There are some very wealthy people that make a great show of demanding to pay higher taxes. Here’s a mechanism for them to demonstrate sincerity.

"If you want more taxes and are rich, just donate to treasury argument" again.

We want systemic changes, not patrons.

Taxes are for equity and fairness. Taxes are compulsory, donations are voluntary.

Taxes are payment for being for being rich.

Donations are taxes for being a good person.

Great rant: David Mitchell on Tax Avoidance from The Last Leg https://youtu.be/xc8epam4NyY?t=150

Then Mitchell being more serious: You can't blame the rich for paying as little tax as possible. I do the same https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/31/david-...

I see it more like the wealthy want to maintain their relative position. They want others to have to pay to buy the things they want. They’ll still be just as wealthy, relatively, but they’ll also get the governmental changes they seek.

It’s not about getting the societal changes. If it were, they wouldn’t mind paying for it themselves. It’s about making others pay.

This doesn't make any sense. When people say this they mean they want more social spending and they are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The budget is what it is, the administration has made it clear that keeping the deficit low has nothing to do with the level of social spending they are willing to do. Sending money won't really do anything.

Demanding all wealthier people have a greater tax liability and not sacrificing one’s self is logically consistent and expected behavior.

If I am playing a game, and others do not want to ally with me, I am not going to make myself lose. But I can still signal that I am open to an alliance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com