Why your taxes are so high, part 2

Some people have short memories. They forget what happened the last time a VitriolBot badgered me for data to support my thesis.

Part one of this post was inspired in part by Brad whining about taxes. It was also inspired by the Point Whores who have been attacking the less fortunate in order to score cheap points on the JoeUser board.

I posited that American taxes are not nearly as low as they should be, partially on account of military spending. Military spending has increased because of Bush foreign policy.

So when I see people whinging about taxes and blaming welfare moms and the mentally ill for their onerous tax rates, I feel their anger is misdirected.

Here is a nice pretty picture supporting my thesis:



Notice how military spending accounts for almost eighty percent of the deficit.

Here are some sample quotes from a well researched and sourced article found here: Link

An August 2003 Congressional Budget Office estimate put the FY2004 deficit at $480 billion. This estimate did not include the recent request for $87 billion to occupy and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan next year, boosting the projected deficit to $567 billion. ..Nevertheless, the Bush Administration is pushing for another increase in military spending after a 17% rise this year (excluding costs in Iraq and Afghanistan). When these factors are included, next years' budget deficit is likely to exceed $600 billion. It will actually exceed $800 billion if the $200 billion borrowed from the Social Security Trust fund is counted as debt.

This deficit is so reckless that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently scolded the United States for fiscal irresponsibility, criticism normally directed at Third World regimes. Last February, a US Department of Treasury report said that income taxes must be raised 66% to balance the budget, yet no one took notice. Few Americans are concerned because corporate cheerleaders like Larry Kudlow at MSNBC and the young models at Fox News tell them everything is great. Many Americans think budget problems can be solved by just cutting welfare and foreign aid. However, if Congress eliminated all federal welfare programs, the military budget would still have to be cut to balance the budget.

While the rest of government can be trimmed, it is obvious that at least $100 billion must be cut from annual military budgets to help save the nation from hyperinflation or bankruptcy. This is not unreasonable since the annual military budget has grown by over $100 billion the past three years; a figure which does not include war costs in the Middle East. In addition, other federal government spending must be slashed, and Congress should scrutinized the outrageous request for $87 billion for colonial adventures in the Middle East; which is several times the annual GDP of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Another $55 billion will be requested early next year unless a fantasy plan succeeds in collecting that much from foreign contributions for the "war on terror." The entire world is perplexed as to why the US Government has asked them for funds and troops to rebuild Iraq after the USA defied the United Nations and international law to conduct an unprovoked bombing campaign and ground invasion.

(G)overnment spending diverts resources and skilled manpower away from America's economic engine. For example, some 200,000 military reservists have been diverted from productive tax paying employment in the private sector to tax absorbing work in the military.

Those in the rapidly growing government sector may feel immune to a faltering economy, yet they should remember that their pay and retirement benefits depend on a healthy economy to generate taxes. Federal workers and military personnel should be alarmed that 27 cents of each dollar they are paid next year was borrowed. ... What is truly alarming is the speed this deficit has grown, from a surplus when Bush took office to a record deficit three years later.

The only thing keeping the nation afloat is a huge trade deficit which pumps a half trillion in surplus dollars overseas, which is used to buy US treasury bonds. China/Hong Kong have $469 billion in foreign currency reserves (mostly US dollars), and lent the poor USA $41 billion last year through the purchase of US treasury bonds. China spent nearly as much on US treasury bonds as it did on its military last year, and billions of US tax dollars now flow to China as interest payments.

The biggest threat to the national security of the United States is exploding debt which will lead to hyperinflation.

If Americans truly care about US servicemen, they should demand higher taxes or reduced military spending to ensure that GIs receive the retirement benefits they expect. Its well past time for American military leaders to rein in plans for bigger budgets and eliminate some programs. Billions of dollars are wasted each year on future military programs when it is obvious there will never be enough money to produce all that equipment. Is it possible that military leaders in the United States can overcome their inbred service loyalty and do something patriotic? They should tell their President that unless taxes are raised, cutting military spending is advisable until the overall budget situation improves. Since the USA spends seven times more on its military than any other nation, a $100 billion a year cut will still allow the USA to spend five times more than anyone else.




25,059 views 42 replies
Reply #1 Top
Nobody appears willing or able to challenge my assertion. Good.

Come November, please remember that a vote for Bush is a vote for higher spending, higher taxes, bad fiscal policy, and hyperinflation.
Reply #2 Top
No, you just forget that most Americans don't pay taxes at all. As you were told, and soon forgot, Brad doesn't whine about how much taxes we pay, but who pays the bulk of them.

People see stuff like this as what it is, propaganda. When it comes from "The Canadian", people care even less. You act like defense spending is just buying bombs, you forget that it also goes to provide pay and benefits to soldiers and veterans, millions of citizens that earned the money through service.

Again, Canada is no Utopia. Surely you can find some Canadian activism to occupy your writing. Your opinion on our nation isn't solicited, your participation in the system is just sideline criticism. Don't you think maybe you can find something that actually pertains to you to write about? Is life so dull?


Reply #3 Top


People see stuff like this as what it is, propaganda


Exactly. Logical posts with *accurate* data from this millenium are considered 'propaganda' here at JoeU. Vitriolic posts with data from another decade seems more to your taste.

You act like defense spending is just buying bombs, you forget that it also goes to provide pay and benefits to soldiers and veterans


No it does not. I guess you didn't read the article? Veteren spending is completely separate from these figures. So your statement is untrue.

Again, Canada is no Utopia.


My citizenship is irrelevent to the question at hand. I've told you this more than once.

I think I've given any American reading this a good reason not to vote Bush come November. Or at least look stupid in supporting the pro-tax, pro-spending Bush.

Your opinion on our nation isn't solicited


You guys can't take any criticism. Get thicker skin. It's gonna get a lot hotter between now and November.
Reply #4 Top
, no, things aren't gonna "heat up", not because of foreign opinion, anyway. You are one to talk about "vitriol", everything you write about America is snide and condescending, as I would imagine you, yourself are.

You don't even realize that the bulk of people you are talking to never pay taxes here, and those who do will have higher taxes under Kerry...

The fact is your post isn't gonna effect anything. People who would agree with you are already voting against Bush, and anyone voting for Bush would see you for what you are. Canadians would be insulted if we in the US decided we'd effect change in Canada, just as a hobby.

You do what you like, as long as you understand that between your antagonism and your statistical bias you aren't changing any minds. It is your time to waste. Your own politicians are probably damn happy you are so distracted.

You criticize with no tact, no diplomacy, and pretty much act just like what you accuse us of, a know-it-all nosing into other people's business as if you have a mandate from God. Feel free, but you have to see what light others take your "advice" in.

Reply #5 Top

Um....I don't see a rebuttal here. Perhaps you are intimidated because the numbers favour my position so solidly?

Read the article, it's a good one. And please, try to take a stab at rebutting my argument. If you're going to post here I'd prefer meaningful posts germane to the discussion at hand, rather than whining about how I'm being mean to you.
Reply #6 Top
I've offered rebuttal. The stats are smokescreen, something to divert people from the facts:


  1. America has really low taxes, they aren't "high" by any comparison

  2. Most people pay little or no taxes at all

  3. Taxes under Kerry can only go up. He'll increase spending, as he has promised, he'll revoke past tax cuts, as he has promised, and he'll add new taxes to decrease the deficit you're blathering on about.



So, if you are really worried about our taxes, Kerry is the last man for the job. If you are interested in defeating Bush, the last thing you want to start talking about is high taxes. You need to learn more about the mindset of the American public if you want to impose change from "above".

Reply #7 Top
America has really low taxes, they aren't "high" by any comparison


As proven by the post above, American tax rates are a mirage, a smokescreen if you will. They do not reflect actual govenment spending and cannot be realistically sustained. Today's deficit is tomorrow's tax hike. Did you read this part?

'This deficit is so reckless that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently scolded the United States for fiscal irresponsibility, criticism normally directed at Third World regimes. Last February, a US Department of Treasury report said that income taxes must be raised 66% to balance the budget.'

[
Taxes under Kerry can only go up. He'll increase spending, as he has promised, he'll revoke past tax cuts, as he has promised, and he'll add new taxes to decrease the deficit you're blathering on about.


Yes he'll probably increase spending, but not as much as Bush has. He'll have to raise taxes because they are unrealistically low to the point your economy is threatened with hyperinflation. And I don't 'blather', please take that attitude somewhere else.
Reply #8 Top
So, you really aren't concerned with our "high taxes", you just use the word as a flashpoint to get people's attention. Then you tell them why their taxes really need to be higher to please you and the IMF. Kerry is *not* gonna decrease spending. He has proposed a lot more spending and refused to commit to barely any cuts. You don't say anything about what Kerry will do, just what needs to be done.

So, if you want to do an honest anti-Bush piece, you have to base it on the comparison with Kerry's proposals. He is the only other alternative, and he doesn't fall into your grand plan either. It's like your bitty old aunt telling you what kind of woman to marry. If she doesn't exist, the advice is pretty useless. Go look at Kerry's proposals, go look at his voting record, go look at who lobbies him and gives to his campaign.

That is why pro-Kerry folks dwell on Bush so much, they have very little to say about their own candidate.
Reply #10 Top
Go look at Kerry's proposals, go look at his voting record,


That's not very good advice since of he looks at these two things he is just gonna get confused.
Reply #11 Top
That's not very good advice since of he looks at these two things he is just gonna get confused.


More personal attacks, completely unhelpful, uncalled for, and irrelevent to the debate.

I'd expect more from a propellorhead. But sometimes I forget not all progammers studied Poli Sci and Economics at university like me, though, so you can be forgiven for being too timid to step into the debate.
Reply #12 Top

That graph is highly misleading.

It totally removes Social Security spending, Medicaid spending, Medicare spending, and interest on the debt spending (except for admin costs).  It's propaganda.

Reply #13 Top

This is from http://draginol.joeuser.com/articlecomments.asp?s=1&AID=542

source: congressional budget office.

The article I link to (that I wrote awhile back) isn't about bitching about how much taxes Americans pay but the fact that half of Americans effectively pay no taxes but simply receive money from the other half.  That's not a fair system. I think every American should have to contribute *somethign* even if it's just a token amount into the system in exchange for receiving benefits.

Reply #14 Top
It totally removes Social Security spending, Medicaid spending, Medicare spending, and interest on the debt spending (except for admin costs). It's propaganda.


Yes Brad, it does remove those items. That's why it says in big letters discretionary spending. So it is not highly misleading, the figures are legit. Saying it's propaganda doesn't make it so. Saying it's highly misleading doesn't make it so.
Reply #15 Top

David, it isn't correct about discretionary spending either.  It totally ignores pensions (which it purposely leaves out, why? Because pensions are a big amount).

And medicaid and medicare ARE discreationary spending.

Your graph is pointless because it ignores most of the things governments spend money on.  In terms of "discretionary" spending what else would the government spend its money on? The primary purpose of the federal government is to provide a common defense.

If you want to lower the debt you have to go after things that we spend lots of money on like medicaid, medicare and social security.  My graph tells the whole story. Your graph is just propaganda.

If your premise is why our taxes are high, then you should include teh whole picture.

Reply #16 Top

This piechart actually helps prove my thesis. Notice how Welfare and Medicaid spending is equal to Defense spending....wait, that's not true...I just read that Bush hiked military spending last year alone by 17%, so this four year old data is inaccurate. But close enough for the sake of discussion.

Anyhoo, I posted data from 2003, you posted useless data from 1996 and somewhat less useless data from 2000, and you have the nerve to accuse me of propaganda and being misleading? Please, I'm asking you nicely, stop posting false, misleading data on my blog. Thanks.
Reply #17 Top

You posted partial data from 2003.  I posted a full picture from 2000. WHile the numbers have certainly changed slightly, it's still a reasonable picture.

Those of us who don't think the federal government should be in the welfare business are not going to be persuaded by the idea that it's bad we spend more on military than social security and medicare. 

If you don't like what I post, feel free to black list me. You certainly have that right. But I'm not going to simply ignore your misleading data and ignorant conclusions.

Reply #18 Top
Come November, please remember that a vote for Bush is a vote for higher spending, higher taxes, bad fiscal policy, and hyperinflation.


Still waiting for a rebuttal.......


Excuse me. As an American citizen who does, in fact, pay taxes - and a lot more than I'd like to - I'd consider BakerStreet's comments to be a very effective rebuttal. Considering the record of the two candidates - as well as your stated points:

1. ) Kerry's spending is likely to be higher than Bush's, as he will add a host of domestic spending without decreasing the military budget significantly. He CANNOT, for fear of appearing soft, and also to meet the military commitments that ANYONE in the Oval Office will have to meet in the next four years.

2. ) Kerry will push for higher taxes than Bush. That's pretty much a given. He will, of course, spin it as "rich Americans" (that's those of us who make about 30K a year or more, by the way!) being asked to pay their "fair share."

3. ) "Bad fiscal policy?!?" How, exactly, is it going to get BETTER with increased spending? Do you really think Kerry will be willing to raise taxes not only enough to cover his spending increases, but an additional 66% to cover the current shortfalls that you mention? That's your number, not mine. Better throw in extra spending for more police to stop the impending riots. More spending for jails to house the protesters. More tax increases to cover their lost tax contributions when they lose their jobs while in jail.

4. ) "Hyperinflation?" America's sense of altruism has led us to deficit-spend on a level approaching a pyramid game at least since the years of FDR. Can't afford social programs? Pay for 'em twenty years down the road. Can't afford a military? Do it next year. And, as we've done for decades, we're gambling that a growing economy will reduce the impact by the time it DOES arrive. Optimistic? Sure. But while it's hardly robust at the moment, our economy is strengthening. Check the numbers. The signs simply aren't there to justify a rabid spiral of inflation within the next four years.

I'm not blindly partisan. I've voted for more Democratic presidential candidates over the years than Republican ones, even if I currently consider myself somewhere right of center. But if you're going to attack Bush - which is all that your initial post appears to be aimed at - choosing "taxes" is a poor tactic if you're positing Kerry as the alternative. Why not trot out Perot? He always favored immediately balancing the budget, whatever the cost.

A vote for Bush is, in my opinion, at best a choice of the lesser of two evils. But it's obvious at even a cursory glance that it's hardly the economic doomsday that you pronounce it.
Reply #19 Top
He leaves out anything that would be comparable to defense spending so that defense spending looks huge, but OTHER people are posting innacuate data on his blog. Cute.

Again, you aren't posting what WE, the people you are talking about, should do about it. Kerry will not solve the problems you are mentioning, but that isn't the point is it. The Kerry campaign should just use the motto "Anyone but Bush!!!".

That's what people like you are basically saying with skewed statistics, skeeeery predictions, and dubious disdain from the IMF. You certianly can't say that Kerry is the solution, and as for your tax double-talk, he's going to increase the problem.
Reply #20 Top
I couldn't find the quote "vote Kerry" in David's blog, BakerStreet. Can you please explain why you feel that the upcoming election has significance in regards to current spending?
Reply #21 Top
"Can you please explain why you feel that the upcoming election has significance in regards to current spending?"


Other than his repeated mantra "It's gonna get a lot hotter between now and November.", one would assume that there is a POINT to criticism, i.e. something you can do about it. Since the only thing we can really do to change economic policy is elect other leaders, the only way we can address the complaints of this particular Canadian would be to elect a leader that suited him.

Since Kerry isn't gonna do what he is demanding be done, I'm not sure what he is suggesting we do.
Reply #22 Top
Maybe I should go harass people who have nice cars and demand they pay higher taxes. It is pretty much what he is doing. Telling us what we better do when none of us are really in the position to to it, and we have no voting options that would accomplish it.

Hey, Dave!! I demand you go settle the conflict in the MIddle East!! It is about as likely as any of us effecting change regarding next year's budget.
Reply #23 Top

When George Bush became president, the budget was in surplus. One reason why is because a Democrat in the White House raised taxes to realistic levels in order to clean up the mess left by Reagan ($200 billion annual defecits to create an illusion of prosperity) and Bush I (No new taxes).

Brad and Samurai have claimed that the deficit is no big deal. It is a big deal. Today's deficit is tomorrow's taxe hike. And the implications of a massive deficit extend beyond fiscal policy: billions of dollars now flow to China as interest on this debt, for example. Deficits cause upward pressure on interest rates. Higher interest rates kill economic growth and increase interest payments on existing debt. Deficits increase overall debt and interest payments on the debt: The USA will spend $323 billion for interest in 2004 on a $6.7 trillion national debt which will grow by another $600 billion next year.

The US must take in about $1.3 billion a day in foreign investment to finance its overseas debt. If that river of money falters or dries up, the difference must be made up by a decrease in the value of the US currency. That's known as "inflation". America needs to find buyers for it's debt; when it can't, the Federal Reserve has to print money, which is inflationary too.

I really shouldn't have to explain why deficits are bad. But then people who vote for Bush tend to be less intelligent. Here is a chart supporting that statement, showing average income and average IQ by state, and how that state voted.

Notice the near-perfect negative correlation between intelligence and voting for Bush:

Average income by state; source: '94 World Almanac:

(1) Connecticut..................113 $26,979 Gore
(2) Massachusetts..............111 $24,059 Gore
(3) New Jersey..................111 $26,457 Gore
(4) New York....................109 $23,534 Gore
(5) Rhode Island................107 $20,299 Gore
(6) Hawaii..........................106 $21,218 Gore
(7) Maryland......................105 $22,974 Gore
(8) New Hampshire............105 $22,934 Bush
(9) Illinois...........................104 $21,608 Gore
(10) Delaware....................103 $21,451 Gore
(11) Minnesota...................102 $20,049 Gore
(12) Vermont......................102 $18,834 Gore
(13) Washington.................102 $20,398 Gore
(14) California....................101 $21,278 Gore
(15) Pennsylvania...............101 $20,253 Gore
(16) Maine.........................100 $18,226 Gore
(17) Virginia.......................100 $20,629 Bush
(18) Wisconsin...................100 $18,727 Gore
(19) Colorado.....................99 $20,124 Bush
(20) Iowa............................99 $18,287 Gore
(21) Michigan......................99 $19,508 Gore
(22) Nevada........................99 $20,266 Bush
(23) Ohio............................99 $18,624 Bush
(24) Oregon........................99 $18,202 Gore
(25) Alaska.........................98 $21,603 Bush
(26) Florida.........................98 $19,397 Bush
(27) Missouri.......................98 $18,835 Bush
(28) Kansas.........................96 $19,376 Bush
(29) Nebraska.....................95 $19,084 Bush
(30) Arizona........................94 $17,119 Bush
(31) Indiana.........................94 $18,043 Bush
(32) Tennessee....................94 $17,341 Bush
(33) North Carolina.............93 $17,667 Bush
(34) West Virginia...............93 $15,065 Bush
(35) Arkansas.....................92 $15,439 Bush
(36) Georgia........................92 $18,130 Bush
(37) Kentucky.....................92 $16,534 Bush
(38) New Mexico................92 $15,353 Gore
(39) North Dakota...............92 $16,854 Bush
(40) Texas...........................92 $17,892 Bush
(41) Alabama.......................90 $16,220 Bush
(42) Louisiana......................90 $15,712 Bush
(43) Montana.......................90 $16,062 Bush
(44) Oklahoma.....................90 $16,198 Bush
(45) South Dakota................90 $16,558 Bush
(46) South Carolina..............89 $15,989 Bush
(47) Wyoming......................89 $17,423 Bush
(48) Idaho............................87 $16,067 Bush
(49) Utah.............................87 $15,325 Bush
(50) Mississippi....................85 $14,088 Bush





Reply #24 Top
"Notice the near-perfect negative correlation between intelligence and voting for Bush:"


OMG... lol, you are SUCH an ass... I'm sorry, but I simply can't think of another word... You are the most tactless, condescending, know it all I have ever had the misfortune of knowing at JU. Your pretense actually surpasses Sir Peter Maxwell.

Kerry's voting record is there, his plans for the country are there. None of them will make the changes you are demanding. Beyond that we have no further way to take the advice of our robot overlord to the north.


Reply #25 Top
Maybe I should go harass people who have nice cars and demand they pay higher taxes. It is pretty much what he is doing. Telling us what we better do when none of us are really in the position to to it, and we have no voting options that would accomplish it.

Hey, Dave!! I demand you go settle the conflict in the MIddle East!! It is about as likely as any of us effecting change regarding next year's budget.


Serious question: how old are you? Are you over 18? Because the above statement displays a level of maturity of a 15 year old, not an adult. I have a 'no argue policy' with childen on this site, so if you're under 18 just tell me now and I'll give you a free pass.