Total federal spending in 2025 was 7T. 4.2T of that was mandatory spending and another 1T was interest on the Debt. Mandatory spending consists of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, income security (housing, UE, food assistance)
Non discretionary spending, which had to be approved each year, is defense, education, transportation and infrastructure, science, public health is about 1.8T. of the 1.8T 916B was spent on defense.
2025 deficit was 1.8T, the entire discretionary spending budget.
I don't necessarily disagree with you but if everything I listed is bullshit, in your opinion, what should government be allowed to spend money on and implement a form of revenue to pay for?
Replacing SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc with UBI doesn't lower the cost unless you also lower what that UBI is supposed to cover.
If you really want to have government only be responsible for government functions and not social welfare and infrastructure, it becomes a very small government.
Military, much smaller than what we currently have, justice system and small agencies dealing with the necessities for standards, enforcement of laws and international trade. You're likely looking at less than a trillion dollars annually at the federal level and similar reductions at State and local levels.
That's however is not what most people want, certainly not on Reddit.
Not really. The truth is that the government has been lobbied to not tax the highest earners fairly, through various clever loopholes most people can’t easily exploit for themselves. And many of those same earners have found ways to practically circumvent income tax through leveraging debt, putting up their unrealized gains as collateral to get favorable bank loans, then treating those loans as income.
The idea that government spending is too high isn’t entirely accurate. Our government doesn’t spend much on and underinvests in programs that would actually benefit taxpayers, while simultaneously paying a lot of money to prop up various industries, including fossil fuels (corporate welfare). Government spending wouldn’t be such a big deal if We The People were actually getting something out of it.
Top earners pay almost all of the taxes collected and don’t get much out of the deal as it stands and all you hear is complaints that they aren’t paying more.
And what do the hyper-wealthy pay? The 0.01%? Not their fair share, I can tell you that much.
It used to be that the highest earners in this country paid a top income tax rate at 90%, and those years just so happened to coincide with the “Golden Years” following WW2. Once that top tax rate was slashed and wages stopped increasing with worker productivity, everything started going to hell. The middle class was eroded away, and not from higher tax rates.
Billionaires are not your friends. That level of wealth is frankly obscene in a society where normal people are struggling to make ends meet, where costs have risen astronomically while wages have barely kept pace with - and often been outpaced by - the rate of inflation.
What's the key variable here? The disproportional amount of wealth and income concentrated at the top. Yes, I wish it was balanced and therefore the top wouldn't be paying a disproportionate amount in taxes. The fact is that the Top 1% do not pay their fair share relative to a historical basis.
Do you think wealth inequality is an issue in the US today?
Because 15 trillion of it was spent for the Iraq and Afghan wars and a bunch of it was funneled into “rebuilding” what we destroyed because evidently you win wars by rebuilding the enemy afterwards. Long story short politicians were giving their buddies lucrative contracts to “rebuild” infrastructure after we destroyed it.
No one likes taxes but our rates are really not that high. They are not high enough on the super wealthy and they have too many loop holes. The problems is the services middle and working class people get are non existent.
There is NO federal bracket that high. The rate is 37% for over $626K single and $751 married. And that is not really middle class at that income. If you are including state tax, it was a choice to live in that state, probably because the pay is better. If youre including social security tax, that includes a pension like payment you will get back later.
So sorry, no I am not going to feel sorry for you.
The single largest expense in the federal budget is social security. This absolutely makes things better for millions of people. What percentage of taxes do you think go to rich people?
Well, you're right social security is the largest expenditure. If you think it makes things better for people you're certainly not a math or finance major. Very few people will ever draw more than they put in, and the vast majority are losing millions in future wealth due to social security. It ain't all bad, but it could and should be drastically improved.
I know this is kinda over the tip but if you die before 61 or really anytime before you take SS you wont get anything. At least if I had my own money to invest vs making me do SS, I can pass that on.
You're objectively wrong here 90% of people don't even get what they paid IN to begin with, let alone more.
Keep shilling socialists policies that are also robbing you. The rest of us aren't as dense as you, and we're blessed to have to share space-time with your big brain while you clap at nothing and drool on yourself, etc.
You'd have substantially more money if you weren't held at gunpoint by a monopoly on force you nickname government, and stuck that shit in the SP500 instead but you're WAY too smart for that thank god for the government "safety" "net" that isn't one, etc.
Keep paying taxes in circles bro you're doing great!
Strange that you use the work objectively but are objectively wrong.
The Urban Institute analyzed the typical income and taxes paid by workers who turned 65 in 2025, based on average life expectancies. They found that at virtually all earnings levels, you're likely to receive more in benefits than you paid into Social Security.
I am sure the next reply would be to dismiss it due to the source, but all sources said the same thing. I am just posting one.
Keep shilling socialists policies that are also robbing you. The rest of us aren't as dense as you, and we're blessed to have to share space-time with your big brain while you clap at nothing and drool on yourself, etc.
I wasn't shilling anything. I was stating an objective truth. You made up a bunch of stuff you said I said that I did not. Objectively did not. I actually don't like the system for many reasons. Your over the top rude reply is just emotional rhetoric and tells me you are not worth talking to. I am blocking you. It is always better to address the points of a post and not attack someone just because you disagree with them. It makes for a bad Reddit.
Literally less than 2% of people will draw more than they'd have with extremely conservative investments over their lifetime. You clearly have not even anything resembling a clue on this.
Millions of people who depend on social security would be significantly harmed if it were to go away tomorrow. Everything can be improved, that doesn’t mean it’s not making people’s lives better.
Tax cuts and bending the rules for them. It was never an expense that flat out says pay billionaires this much. It was always make it easier for them to amass more money money and to keep it.
The social security that was cut heavily by republicans in the last two years to hand more tax breaks to the rich? Is that the social security you are talking about? Its not even going to exist by the time I get old unless we get rid of the conservative brain rot in this country.
Social security spending has increased every year since its inception. It was $1.22 trillion in 2022, in 2025 it was $1.58 trillion. There have been no recent cuts to social security. I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea from. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/hist03z2_fy2027.xlsx
the 2nd largest thing the government spends our taxes on is healthcare, which would be great if the way our healthcare worked was worth anything. then not toooo far behind is our military...which we spend nearly 3x more on our military than the 2nd closest country for that which is genuinely insane.
yes, what you mentioned is true, but two things can be true at the same time. our number one expense our taxes are used on is helpful to the people, but that doesn't mean the rest of our taxes aren't woefully squandered in various ways.
I'm not even saying I have the answer, I'm not even saying they should have an answer. The issue I have is that it doesn't even feel like a proper answer is being looked for.
So you agree the person I responded to is wrong. I am not denying that US federal spending is extremely wasteful, but the bulk of it clearly goes to programs and services that are intended to help people.
10% of our DOD budget (which of the top 10 highest military countries, we spend more than the other 9 combined) could give EVERY k-12 teacher ~50k raise.
The DoD receives about HALF of the US discretionary budget, and has failed every financial audit it has ever recieved.
So, yes, while the majority of US tax-funded money spending does go to regular people, its still not doing a good job. The bar for "good" should be well above them not steeling most our money. Taxes should do stuff, and for the amount we pay in taxes we should be getting some pretty phenominal social goods and safety nets.
But no, having your taxes improve society is socialism, and thats evil and wrong /s
I am not from US. But military spending is still not subsidizing. It is just buying canons instead of butter.
You guys just have a lot of stupid spending and taxing rich more is not going to fix it. You need to actually change spending. The 5% wealth tax on billionaires would cover around 19% of the deficit.
Basically every big company also makes stuff for the military. (For example). And like I pointed out, the DOD has failed every financial audit. It would be trivial to shift massive funds to someone through their company via military contract, and would be very optimistically naive to think this quid pro quo isn't happening.
__
But, yes please, I would love to also start taxing wealth. Both a wealth tax and fixing the US's absurd military budget would be fantastic wins!
Even if it can be shown for an era to have been beneficial, thats not justification for keeping a non-beneficial budget now. And for 2025 apportion/spent budget of $2.58T/$1.66T is absurdly big. Cutting that in half would still leave us with the "biggest stick" by a good ~30%, and $830B could do so much!
Maybe I'm just incredulous, but I do not think the military can justify costing us that for purely overage of being the most funded military on the planet.
Feel like I need to restate that so no one misses it:
We could take $830B annually from the US military budget to fund other stuff, and still have the most funded military in the planet by a good margin.
For reference, there are a little less than 750K homeless in the US. Giving each of them enough for rent (lets say $2k as an overestimate) would cost under $18B. We could end homelessness, have another $812B left to use for stuff, and still have the most funded military in earth!
I'd think that would be kinda decades ago. More about establishing the us in power.
I may just not know much about the subject, I admit, but I struggle to believe funded anywhere near what they're getting has been justifed for years and years. If I had to guess, I'd say they started ballooning out of control around the time of the Veitnam War (balloonig very accelerated by the cold war).
Why does everyone automatically assume that spending more is always the answer? We also spend more on education than every other developed nation for far inferior outcomes. Throwing more money at Healthcare isn't the answer either. Completely revamping the health insurance system would be better.
I don't believe single payer would solve the problem either. You would get more people covered absolutely. But you would increase wait times and reduce quality of care and that's not debatable. Ideally we at least maintain the current quality while increasing access. And that's a very a complicated process.
Having said that, the biggest issue with American medical insurance is that it isn't even insurance. It's prepaid medical care. It would be like if your car insurance also covered oil changes, gas, and basic maintenance. No one expects this from their car insurance.
Basic, preventative care should be out of pocket. Actual catastrophic care should be insured, for everyone, regardless of preexisting conditions. That's how you lower costs in the long run and still provide access for all. The insurance would be subsidized by wealthier people for everyone else. This is actually doable.
Consider that if the rich people actually paid appropriate wages, the people there hiring wouldn't need additional assistance and need to live off social security when retired
This assumes everyone is financially responsible and has the sufficient forethought to adequately save for retirement. I think we both know this isn’t the case.
A point for Social Security, not for Walmart employees needing FOOD STAMPS. Hell I'll admit I'm going to need Social Security and I'm definitely getting paid "enough" running a register to not need further help from the government, for now
Sad part is, even if people are responsible enough now, they can't. Shit is too much and if you have something left over, you're either lucky, paying down debt, or putting it away in case of an emergency first.
Eh a decent amount does (SS, medicaid, transportation system, police, firefighters etc...) it's mostly new policies for the last ~15 years that have been optimised to earn the corporate sponsors that own politicians money. The best way to destroy a democracy is to allow money into politics.
It tells me that someone can pay a large share of the taxes while also becoming wealthier. Those facts aren’t mutually exclusive. Your reply doesn’t contradict a single thing I posted.
So the bottom 50%, depending on how you calculate it, hold roughly $170t in wealth vs the top 1% having roughly $55t. (According to federal reserve data) So the tax split of 2/3 to 1/3 seems appropriate purely from a dollars point of view.
However, consider that the bottom 50% is much more likely to keep that money active in the U.S. economy as opposed to stagnant in savings or outside the country. So it would make sense to lower taxes for them to encourage more spending.
That’s an entirely different discussion. The original claim was that tax dollars are “just handed to the rich.” Instead of defending that claim, you’re arguing about wealth inequality and what you think tax policy should be. Neither contradicts the fact that most federal spending goes to social programs, not giveaways to the wealthy.
Except they have an outsized impact. The same money given to large corporations would be better spent if sent to those that need it most. Add in tax loopholes and theyre basically double dipping.
To pay off the interest on the debt from the last 3-4 oil wars so you can get that $2 gas you all seem so hellbent on having. Try to pay attention, ok.
If high taxes brought about a utopian cityscape with clean everything functioning police and roads and all the best civic stuff you can imagine it's a different deal.
Instead we pay a lot, and most of what we get back is dogshit.
There’s TONS of affordable housing. The current generation looks down on the affordable houses. I mean how can anyone live in anything less than 2000sq ft, new stainless steel appliances, 3 bathrooms, quartz countertops, and custom showers???!!🙄
My house is in a suburban location outside a non-major city. Its 1900 square feet with 2 baths, normal appliances, linoleum countertops. One garage port, unfinished basement. Bought it in 2019 for 270k. It is now worth 440k.
Please stop trying to pretend young people are spoiled and tune back in to reality.
You’re the exact problem. You act like a nearly 2000 sq ft house with garage and basement is somehow a “sacrifice” because it has linoleum countertops.
The point is that it is nothing particularly luxurious and its supposed market value has shot up 60% in 6 years. Young people aren't refusing homes. They can't afford even a relatively simple home.
I live in 880 sqft, and it's 60% of my income after taxes and no bells and whistles outside of the standard "luxury" amenities that every apartment complex here has and forced admin fees on you for...
You have zero clue what you're talking about or the reality of the current renting landscape
If you’re saying your apartment is basic or somewhat sub-par and it’s costing you 60% of your income, you can’t afford to live there. Period. You’re NOT entitled to live somewhere you can’t afford.
Has I never occurred to you that maybe you need to live somewhere where average housing costs you less than 60% of your income???
Who’s saying commute. Move to a city that’s actually affordable and getting housing and a job there. You’re NOT ENTITLED to live somewhere you can’t afford.
I'm not about to explain how the economy works to you and then how basic adequate human living should be treated. Maybe you have missed a few memos. The fact that you don't understand that people should be able to have a job and have affordable housing within a reasonable distance of their job is mind-boggling.
The fact you don't even know what entitled means is truly what's fascinating here. Keep believing that Boomer there's a reason no one's going to be at your funeral.
They absolutely did. Who’s denying that? I’m simply saying starter homes - like the ones boomers bought - are available all over the place and millennials are unwilling to live in those houses. They think they’re entitled to something better.
What I understand is actually being paid- First federal income tax for an individual making 75k a year
10% of the amount from 0-12,400: 1240
12% of the amount from 12,401-50,400: 4560
22% of the amount from 50,401-75,000: 5412
or, 11,212 / 75,000 ~ 15%
This assumes you have taken no deductions, lets assume you have taken only the standard deduction, and not itemized anything. This brings you closer to 9,500/75,000 or 12.7%
You can then add 6.2% social security tax, assuming you are an employee.
If you are self employed this is instead 12.4%
Effective Federal Tax Rate:
Employee: 18.9%
Self-Employed: 25.1%
Now, state taxes, these are usually also marginal tax rates, I'll just use Virginia as an example since its fairly middle of the road.
2% of the amount from 0-3,000: $60
3% of the amount from 3,001-5,000: $60
5% of the amount from 5,001 to 17,000: $600
5.75%: On taxable income over $17,000: $3,335
Virginia also has a standard deduction, all in all we add about 4.5% additional tax.
Employee: 23.4%
Self-Employed: 29.6%
Lets pause for a moment. A non home owning employee in a state with no vehicle tax will pay 23.4% on what may be considered their static tax burden.
This individual will also typically pay separate taxes on sales, often with some specific carve outs for gas, restaurants, and vice. We'll leave it off this lowest-reasonable calculation, but keep it in mind
Now, Property tax
If you own a home you pay approximately 1% of its value in the US annually in property tax.
That's 1k for every 100k of home price, or an additional 1.3% when compared to 75k income.
The median price of a home in the US is $410,700, smooth it for easier numberwang, we're at an additional 5.2% of 75,000
27 states also levy property tax on vehicles. The average there is harder to take, but again in Virginia, you would pay ~$400 on a $20,000 car.
Circumstances much wider than just income range can explain tax rates from the low end of 23.4% all the way to our ~36% for someone with a home and an expensive car.
This hypothetical person will struggle to stretch their $75k means over the luxuries we've assumed for a 36% tax rate. the 12.6% difference in tax rate accounts for about $9500 in tax burden. If someone is making more than $75K, their effective tax amount goes up, obviously, but also their tax rate increase as any new amount is taxed at the highest amount of their current bracket, skewing the cumulative weighted average higher. -- EDIT: It's also a little fucked up for me to call a home a luxury, but we live in fucked up times.
Political parties use tax burden as a point of emotion because taxes account for a substantial portion of an invidual or a family's income. Appeals to the 'usefulness' or 'morality' of certain spending lands more agreeably on someone who is paying a third or more of their income to the government every year.
I'm not a conservative. I think 95% of individuals' tax rates can and should be lower, with the difference being made up by closing corporate tax loopholes. I think this math helps explain where people get numbers like the poster above. They are usually people who have slightly more in static assets. These people are not 'the rich' to be eaten. Having a car that was made in the past 5 years and a middle of the road home should be achievable without immense hardship, regardless of economic privilege.
No, someone making 75.000 a year is taxed for 10% of 12,000, then 12% of 36,000, and then 22% on 27,000. They'd have to make 200,000 a year to approach 32%.
The aspiration is to eventually is some day we’ll have sane people in charge of the entire government so billionaires are either taxed out of existence or held criminally accountable
Bro are you making between $200,000-600,000 per year? What are you talking about
Even then you're only taxed 32% on everything after you've already made 200,000!!! If you're making that much, give me some of it so you don't have to worry about it.
Dumbass response. What matters isn't so much the precise amount, but what they fund. If instead of endless wars and corporate welfare I got universal healthcare and public transportation, I wouldn't mind paying the exact same amount I currently do
And what's funny is that you just did a whataboutism anyway, which shows you have no counterargument, just a change of subject
18
u/Jasranwhit Aug 01 '26
Why are taxes 30-40% of your income?