Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Friday Fun/Depressing Link

Julian Sanchez | 3.17.2006 5:42 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Boing Boing links a funky visual representation of where your federal tax dollars go.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Reclaiming My Inner Geek

Julian Sanchez is a contributing editor at Reason.

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (21)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Jamie Kelly   19 years ago

    One of the depressing things about it is that the author is only using the graphic to bemoan the fact that more of our money isn't spent on what he thinks it should be spent on.
    Sure, curtail military spending, but kill NPR funding and all the rest of the horseshit waste.

  2. Stormy Dragon   19 years ago

    I have a big problem with this chart. The artist implies that congress has no control over "non-discretionary" spending. They may not have control over it through the normal appropriations process, but they do control it through the legislative process. Leaving this out greatly exagerrates the percentage of money spent on the military and greatly underplays total spending.

  3. joshua corning   19 years ago

    bunch of crap does not include Social Security and Medicare....

  4. mediageek   19 years ago

    .852 Billion for the BATFE?

    The Law Enforcement organ so moronic the FBI mocks them?

  5. Warren   19 years ago

    ARGGGGH MY EYES! My eyes!
    Must drink to kill pain...
    Ahhhhhh
    Gaddumb department of asgdobgoll Why if I ever stamgle bremser 10 Billion Dollars! shevel Never asdfjdle!*@#%

  6. mediageek   19 years ago

    My favorite one so far is .2 Billion for US Dept. of State Famine Fund.

    That's right.

    In a nation where people are continually wringing their hands about an obesity "epidemic" the feds earmark 2/10 of a Billion for a freaking famine fund.

  7. coarsetad   19 years ago

    My favorite is the 20ish billion on the defense side marked as "other". Area 51, anybody?

  8. Exodus 5   19 years ago

    I suppose it depends on how you spend the famine money. Hell, the locust alone can run 50 million bucks.

  9. Rich Ard   19 years ago

    Graphics = top-notch
    Proofreading = unacceptable

  10. Madog   19 years ago

    The IRS gets over 10 billion dollars for it's opperations? Wow.

  11. Bob Hawkins   19 years ago

    You know what Will Rogers said about death and taxes: "At least death doesn't get worse every year."

  12. Everett Dirksen   19 years ago

    Billion here. Billion there. Pretty soon you're talking about real money.

  13. shecky   19 years ago

    Great idea. It is pretty hard to get a grip on the difference between a half billion and fifty billion, when the numbers get that big. To me, numbers that high may as well be Monopoly money. It's nice to have some visual representation to put it literally (I guess) into perspective.

  14. Deux ex Machina   19 years ago

    Jeez, they're still funding the useless, marine killing Osprey aircraft?

    And what's with spending 5 billion dollars on Food and Nutrition sciences? It costs 5 bil to teach the food pyramid?

  15. The Real Bill   19 years ago

    Leaving out Social Security and Medicare is consistent with the ludicrous idea that the taxes funding these programs are not income taxes.

  16. joe   19 years ago

    We give $27 billion dollars a year to the National Institute of Health?

    It costs $16 billion to secure our borders this badly? Sixteen billion?

    Great chart.

  17. joe   19 years ago

    mediageek, I'm pretty sure the State Department spends the famine fund overseas. Because that's where they have famines. And that's where the State Department spends it money.

    phocion, the entitlement and tax charts are neat ideas, though I question how you divvie up 'where tax revenue comes from.' On the spending side, there are objective departments to report figure for. Grouping taxpayers into like categories to report figure for would seem to a be process fraught with ideological implications.

    The "Constituional" map, even moreso.

  18. phocion   19 years ago

    The "Constituional" map, even moreso.

    I agree. That one would be libertarian propaganda. Spending could be done objectively, and I think taxing could be as well, if the grouping was done by type of revenue (income tax, corprate taxes, tariff, etc.). I would even argue that AMT/non-AMT and tax brackets could be represented without making any kind of unfair political point. Any distinction between type of tax or rate that exists in legislation could be a cutoff point. Gathering such data would be much more difficult than spending however, and the chart is of lesser importance than spending in my estimation, so I'm not holding my breath for that one.

  19. joe   19 years ago

    phocion,

    OK, tax brackets sounds simple enough. But even there, there are choices. The portion of a multimillionaire's income tax that gets taxed at the 10% rate - do you include that in the 10% tax bracket, or do you include all of his taxes in a category for over-$1 million/year?

  20. Jason Ligon   19 years ago

    It is funny how this thing can serve as an ink blot test. I REALLY wanted social security and medicare in play, but we can make do.

    I find myself wondering not so much about military spending vs. nonmilitary spending, but about certain very expensive military boondoggles that still eat billions.

    We are still dumping millions into the Osprey, are you kidding me?

  21. Kris   19 years ago

    1.344 billion for the Administration On Aging?

    Administration on Aging?

    WTF?

    I see there is .297 billion to housing for people with AIDS, but no housing for people with [insert any given chronic illness here]. Huh?

    What about diabites, cancer, alzheimers, parkinsons, etc.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Review: There Are No Top-Down Solutions to the Problems Depicted in Adolescence

Autumn Billings | From the July 2025 issue

Review: A Comic Book Villain Runs for Mayor of New York in the New Daredevil Series

Joe Lancaster | From the July 2025 issue

Brickbat: Friends in High Places

Charles Oliver | 6.6.2025 4:00 AM

Is the Supreme Court Really That Divided? The Facts Say No.

Billy Binion | 6.5.2025 5:21 PM

Milton Friedman Disproved Trump's Argument for Tariffs Decades Ago

Joe Lancaster | 6.5.2025 4:35 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!