Discussion

khernandezrt: If the US had a credit score, I wonder what it would be?

WD-42: This exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_ra... USA is #18, below Taiwan and Above Qatar. Australia is #1.

trollbridge: Australia's credit rating is something of a matter of national pride.

arjie: This makes it sort of obvious how large the US welfare state is.Medicaid: 10%"Safety Net": 7.1%Social Security: 22.6%Medicare: 14.2%53.9% of the federal budget is spent on welfare. That seems roughly in line with most Western nations.

K0nserv: The US spends the most per capita[0] on healthcare in the world, all to receive a healthcare system that still requires lots of citizens to carry private insurance. I've never dug deep into why, but it sure is noteworthy.0: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health...

bko: This is great. I'd also recommend Covid money tracker. US printed nearly $12 trillion in response to Covid, something like 25% increase in money supply. And it is my contention that this has driven inflation (both asset - think meme stocks, rise in crypto etc - as well general levels that started to appear by 2022)https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/

phillipcarter: It has, as has similar efforts worldwide which also saw similar or worse levels of inflation. We were dealt a shit hand and the thinking was it's less pain overall compared to the alternative.That said, the amount of fraud that was perpetuated here without any follow-through on enforcement is ... extremely not good.

johnmlussier: Debt. Defense. Dole.

phillipcarter: Unfortunately, much of that gets dispersed into an unfathomably complex web of private and profit-seeking interests, with much less actually going to individual beneficiaries.

jimbokun: I don’t think that’s true. US government services generally have very low overhead.

throwanem: I can understand why zero isn't a valid entry, but it should be. That is an entirely plausible result for a federal and state income tax calculation. (It was the result of mine, this year.)

lastofthemojito: As a thought experiment, it'd be interesting to imagine how things would play out if each taxpayer could adjust little sliders on each category to allocate where they personally would like their taxes to go.Agencies could recommend funding levels, Congress could recommend an allocation and if a taxpayer didn't change it, that default would take effect. But if a taxpayer preferred, they could say, "no, I won't be funding DOD this year". Or space nerds might say "I'm sending 100% of my tax dollars to NASA!"Of course no one would likely choose to do boring stuff like paying interest on debt. So we'd probably end up with incredibly well-funded national parks and cool space missions, and also a crippling recession due to defaulting on the national debt.

einpoklum: I would guess that's a poor thought experiment, because most of us - myself included - don't have a good grasp of what various things cost to make work. And then when you look at the relative points on the sliders you think "Oh, but X is much more critical than Y, surely I can't spend so little on it relative to my spending on Y".Not to mention the complex semantics and effects of debt in sovereign finance, and actions like increasing or decreasing the money supply etc.

trollbridge: Social Security almost entirely flows to beneficiaries, as do programs like SNAP, where overhead is around 6-7% (admittedly, fraud might be a good bit higher than that); likewise Medicare is one of the most efficient systems at getting money directly to medical providers (although fraud might be a problem there too, estimates range from 10%-25%).

cultofmetatron: If only I could elect to send 4000 to NASA and not to enable israel's genocide in the middle east.

kamikazeturtles: I look forward to a website that tells me who to vote for based on my occupation, socioeconomic status, and who will be the most benefit to meThat will be the true death knell of democracy

patrickmay: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”― Alexis de Tocqueville

hyperhello: The people paid for that welfare for themselves. Everything that helps people is a scare word. They’re too entitled to welfare!

its_ethan: Hopefully people make this connection when they see it. It certainly feels like a lot of (vocal) people out there think the DoD gets like 70% of the federal budget.Heck, someone else has replied to you saying "and still no healthcare" when literally 25% of a $7t budget goes to providing people healthcare... (that comment seems to have disappeared, maybe they actually read your comment lol)

Alupis: Yet, people still meme how unsupportive the US is to its people.The reality is the US operates the world's largest social services apparatus, including the world's largest public healthcare system.

johnmlussier: Welfare, defense, interest on debt. That’s it.

altruios: What would you rather have the government spend it's money on if not on the wellbeing/welfare of its citizens?

KumaBear: Well never missed a payment in its lifetime might make it pretty high even with high debt income ratio

trollbridge: One of the most generous welfare states with one of the best safety nets. I' not really aware of any place better. Maybe one of the small countries like Lichtenstein.

GiorgioG: Interest on the national debt is by far the largest share. Both political parties spend like drunken sailors.

cucumber3732842: Drunken sailors don't spent more than they earn, for the most part.

kube-system: It does.Standard & Poor's: AA+Moody's: Aa1

patrickthebold: Somewhat off topic, but I've always wanted to know _who_ gets my tax dollars more than what they were spent on. For example, a middle class salary to someone building bombs in Ohio is different than a wealthy investor who owns shares in some educational company that provides standardized tests to local public schools.

alexb_: https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/agencyClick down into a federal account and then change the drop down over the chart to "Recipient".

einpoklum: The distribution itself does not tell you much; you have to normalize by the share of GDP (or some other measure of production/activity) that the federal budget constitutes.

mikepurvis: Given that reality, I wonder why it is that spending in this category seems to be so much less effective in the US relative to other nations? Why is the US #22 in general quality of life [1], and the bottom of many rankings of health system performance [2]?Speaking as a Canadian, I wonder if at least part of it is the attitude that investments in these areas are "welfare" and not simply a part of the portfolio of essential services that are delivered by the state to citizens?[1]: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-...[2]: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...

fhdkweig: It may just be my cynicism talking, but it seems that it comes down to the power of lobbyists. In the US, the healthcare companies control the government. Elsewhere, the government controls the healthcare companies.

jimbokun: I think lack of enforcement was a deliberate decision to get the money out faster.If each claim was investigated closely before paying out, it may have resulted in higher unemployment and lower economic output.

yohannparis: That is the sad part, your money is wasted. You guys pay roughly as much in welfare, but get a tenth of it back.

fimoreth: I always think as an individual I would like this. But at scale I worry it would incentivize each department to advertise themselves to the public, which seems to me like a waste of funds. I already dislike the reelection cycle (politicians incentivized to always be fundraising) and would hate to see that happen per department.

janalsncm: Whatever hypothetical law allowed individual citizens to allocate funds could also ban departments from advertising or misrepresenting what they do.

munk-a: Thank gosh we didn't just have a huge scandal where DHS secretary Kristi Noem spent 220 million on advertising.

spwa4: It does:S&P: "AA+ with stable outlook"Moody's: "Aa1 stable"DBRS: "AAA stable"In terms of FICO scores this would be ~820 or so. The US won't have any problem any time soon getting some more private sector money.Which is just the tiniest bit worse than Germany, but not much. And it's a lot higher than France.

janalsncm: Shouldn’t the “defense” line item be called “war” now since the department has been renamed? It’s more accurate anyways.

ForHackernews: A big chunk of the "defense" budget is also healthcare and benefits for veterans.

silentsea90: "crippling recession due to defaulting" - we will just borrow more as usual. Not like our taxes are enough to fund the nation in any year (war or no war).

babypuncher: Eventually the lenders will stop lending. That's what leads to the defaulting scenario in the first place.

ryandvm: I feel like legislation that resulted in every taxpayer getting an itemized receipt like this would be hugely popular and a massive PR win for the representatives that sponsored it.I can only conclude that the reason it hasn't been done is because they don't actually want you to know.

Apreche: I really wish we would get away from this line of thinking. For state and local governments, yes, your taxes are put into accounts and are then spent according to the budget.For the federal government, no. Money that is paid in taxes is effectively eliminated. The total number of dollars that exist in circulation is reduced. When the federal government spends money, it is creating all new money. It can’t run out. It’s not your tax money that is being spent.

waynecochran: I would be more likely to share this w others if the domain name didn't have an f-bomb in it. It doesn't bother me that much, but I really don't want to share it in certain circles...

kacy: Hey Wayne, I bought wheretheheckdidmytaxesgo.com and will make it live after work today. Sorry about the profanity! It’s just how I felt after seeing the stats firsthand :)

duped: > I've never dug deep into whyThe wealthy people that run insurance companies bribe our politicians to keep it that way.

d_burfoot: Many Americans do not realize how much money the US government spends. When you include all three levels, it comes to $32K/person/year [0]. This is much higher than countries that are considered "social democracies" such as Finland, France and Canada. If you look at wealthy blue cities like NYC or SF, the spending is on the order of $50K/p/y, comparable to Norway.It is not realistic to believe that we can become a nice wholesome European country if we just raise taxes a bit. The extra money will just be squandered and stolen.[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governmen...

xeromal: Is the amount proportional to the per capita income of the respective countries?

pclowes: More and more I find my politics drifting towards whoever will balance the budget and pay down the deficit.Since that party doesn’t exist I am politically homeless.

kacy: fun fact, I discovered in this process: if the US just went back to 2019 spending (with 2025 tax revenue), there would be a $780B surplus.

kbelder: Just fixing federal budget growth to a figure slightly less than GDP growth would do the trick eventually. But we just can't bring ourselves to do it."Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

thatmf: The unbundling of "Veterans Benefits" from "National Defense" is such an American thing, as though the former would exist without the latter.

throwanem: "As though the latter...without the former."

jerlam: Organizations don't work well when their budget can change dramatically from one year to the next. There's no ability to take on long-term plans when another, popular department takes 50% of your budget, or someone in your PR department makes a gaffe. Long-term employees get laid off and won't return in a few years when your budget goes back up.

ambicapter: Could have the slider pull the budget in that direction over the course of 5-10 years, instead of having it reflected immediately in the next year.

SoftTalker: Sure. I'd set all mine to zero, and keep the money.

jmyeet: Now consider that the Defense budget is ~$1 trillion and the Department of Defense has never passed an audit [1] and the administration is seeking $1.5 trillion next year [2].[1]: https://www.taxpayer.net/budget-appropriations-tax/why-cant-...[2]: https://www.npr.org/2026/04/03/nx-s1-5772701/trump-budget-de...

ch4s3: The private insurance expenditure is part of that per capita number. US healthcare isn't "A system", its a number of interrelated systems that have lots of expensive hand-offs. We also spend a ton on lifestyles diseases because no one walks and culturally we eat like shit on average.

phillipcarter: > We also spend a ton on lifestyles diseases because no one walks and culturally we eat like shit on average.And there's a pretty straight line between that and government subsidies for sugar and processed foods in general, not to mention car-based infrastructure, although the latter doesn't stop other countries from not having crippling obesity rates.

TimorousBestie: And acknowledging the very obvious instances of regulatory capture that directly harm quality of life is political suicide for anyone with even the smallest amount of access to power.It’s hard getting normies to admit that if soft drinks weren’t so heavily subsidized by the government at every step of manufacture and distribution, there would be less overall obesity.

OkayPhysicist: The DoD was named such by the act of Congress that established it. The President does not have the authority to rename it, no matter how much he pouts about it.

9x39: Why would anyone listen to the tax crop? Farmers don't listen to the cows.

munk-a: Yup, Medicaid and SNAP are extremely efficient. Social Security is almost completely disbursement charges but those disbursements aren't means tested so even quite wealthy individuals receive them. Additionally you mentioned that Medicare gets money to medical providers but I suspect that was meant to mean medical insurance providers - rather than health care providers (like doctors) since the system is partially direct payments but mostly runs through intermediary privatized companies and, of extreme note here, is that Medicare is famously barred from cost negotiations so while our Canadian healthcare system can talk to a pharma manufacturer and tell them "The price for this drug is unreasonable, we won't cover it unless it's cost competitive to biosimilars" Medicare just needs to roll over and accept whatever made up numbers it's given.The benefits that are intended to go exclusively to the impoverished though, those are extremely means-tested and often have work requirements or other hoops to jump through.

RhysU: > Social Security is almost completely disbursement charges but those disbursements aren't means tested so even quite wealthy individuals receive them.Only to those who paid into the system and far less than they personally could have earned on investing the same dollars.

renewiltord: Yeah, one of the problems I have with taxes is that if I pay $100 into taxes I don’t get $100 of value back. Everyone should get at least as much as they put in back. Also, some other people should get more back. But we shouldn’t spend more than we make as a government.

cidd: If clinics and hospitals do not bill 1k dollars each visit, 100k+ for a simple surgery, and pharmacy does not sell medicine 10x the price, US gov't do not need that much allocation for healthcare.

mekdoonggi: They only bill that much because they need the average amount of money collected for a procedure to pencil.They get that cash price amount from a tiny amount of people, 70% of that price from private insurers, 30-60% from Medicare, less from Medicaid. Even then, they have to basically litigate the bills through private insurance appeals.If they had one payer which had a single reimbursement rate, they wouldn't have to do these shenanigans.

uticus: > Interest per Second - General - The U.S. pays $31,688/second in debt interest — $1,901,285 every minute. Your share of that: $3893.33 [plugged in "normal" amount], gone before it bought anything....I thought I was already sufficiently terrified by the debt numbers...

jl6: I think many Americans do not realize how much is spent on debt interest payments, which are a tidy source of income for rich people.

BurningFrog: Not sure if this is comforting or distressing, but it's the same in all welfare states.

zahlman: > Speaking as a Canadian, I wonder if at least part of it is the attitude that investments in these areas are "welfare" and not simply a part of the portfolio of essential services that are delivered by the state to citizens?Also speaking as a Canadian, I don't understand the distinction you're drawing.

ch4s3: A lot just gets sucked up by 3rd parties of all stripes. Only ~20% of hospitals are for profit institutions for example.

cucumber3732842: >Only ~20% of hospitals are for profit institutions for example.And the other 80% are little to no more efficient in terms of dollars input vs services rendered.

zahlman: > It is not realistic to believe that we can become a nice wholesome European country if we just raise taxes a bit. The extra money will just be squandered and stolen.Why, in your view, doesn't the same thing happen to them?

Teever: Simply put the people in those countries who spend the money care about the people who gave them the money.They view themselves as stewards of these resources and genuinely want to spend them optimally to ensure the best return for everyone in society including future generations.That isn't the case in America and will never be the case.America is a failed state.

fortran77: > When you include all three levels, it comes to $32K/person/yearWhich is why these calculators should tell people who pay less than $32K that they are getting supported by the 5% who pay most of the taxes...

bdangubic: we should also break it down by state and determine distribution of electoral college votes based on it

TheOtherHobbes: Taxes do not fund spending. This is a foundational myth of neoliberalism, closely related to the "A national economy is run like a household" myth.The alternative is Modern Monetary Theory, which states that the government and banking sector money creation fund spending, and governments cannot run out of currency.Taxes control the money supply and mop up excess funds, which controls inflation.Bonds set interest rates.Spending is a strategic and political choice, not something limited by "the deficit" - which is literally just the difference between spending choices and taxation choices.One very obvious tell is how Republicans make a lot of noise about the deficit and the debt, but always raise both when they're in office.Always. Why? Because they spend government money lavishly on themselves and their patrons, and cut taxes for themselves and their patrons.This doesn't "create jobs", it clogs up the system with sclerotic piles of cash that drive an extractive economy that sits on top of the productive economy most people live in.This is very different economically to stability spending - welfare, healthcare, and such - and investment spending, such as direct funding of education and R&D.In the MMT, the most significant drivers of inflation are corporate profiteering and supply shocks.Like oil crises. For example.

verall: This is also how I see it, and honestly it is hard to understand it any other way. In the current year, it seems very clear that governments can get away with incredible debt spending, as long as it's mostly in the right direction.

degrees57: Off on a bit of a tangent, I 100% agree with you, and that was probably the best feature of California's Prop 13 from 1978. After it passed, the projected income to Sacramento was rock-solid for decades. California doesn't have an income problem; it has a spending problem.Still, I would welcome the opportunity to let Sacramento know that, in my opinion, they spend too much on education and welfare and not enough on infrastructure.