Recently at Reason.tv: Stop Spending Our Future!, W-2 WTF?!?!, 3 Great Reasons to Pay Your Taxes (or Else!)

Our economy is in crisis, and the government says that bold action is required.

So we're diving in head first to get things back on track.

But what are we diving into exactly?

Take a closer, detailed look at the massive, unprecedented federal intervention into our economy. The numbers behind the government's spending are simply huge, easily outstripping the New Deal, World War II, and more in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Ask yourself: Reckless spending is what got us into this mess. Is more spending really the answer?

For more information, visit stopspendingourfuture.org.

Approximately 2.40 minutes. Narrated by Nick Gillespie; sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, and Reason.tv.

Is it patriotic to pay taxes? And if so, who the most patriotest Americans? Who are the least? How many words are in the tax code? How much do patriotic Americans pay to prepare their taxes? How long do you have to work in a year to earn enough to pay your taxes?

The answers to these and other questions add up to one big W-2 WTF.

Produced by Meredith Bragg. Written by Bragg and Nick Gillespie.

Go here for embed code.

Reason on taxes here and here.

Related: "3 Great Reasons to Pay Your Taxes (or Else!)."

Comments

[not the real jb]

You would never measure the distance from your house to the store in millimeters, or even inches. Then why do we measure government spending in single-dollar units? Inspired by this video, I've created a few new currencies that more effectively convey the scale of government spending.

The smallest currency for government spending is the U.S. Hoover Dam (HD*), which is equivalent to $78,000,000 (after inflation adjustment).

A little over HD*10 is a U.S. Panama Canal - valued at an inflation-adjusted $790,000,000. The initial bailout for the auto manufacturers is at about PC*123, the same price as the Bank of America bailout.

Rebuilding Europe (the U.S. Marhsall Plan or MP*) cost about $115,000,000,000 (again, adjusted for inflation). Bailing out AIG, GE, and Citigroup cost a total of MP*4.23.

Then we have the U.S. New Deal or ND*. Equal to $500,000,000,000 of today's dollars, it is useful for comparing spending around the magnitude of bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (ND*.8), the Iraq War (ND*1.2), and TARP (ND*1.4).

[SxCx]

I think people need to be shown how this affects them directly, because citing big numbers isn't enough. I suspect many citizens fully understand how government spending translates into personal grief. Defenders of fiscal prudence need to be explicit in saying "This is what this means for YOUR life".

Otherwise people will keep shrugging along, and say shit like: "It's just money...they can make more of it".

[SxCx]

Brutal omission: "I suspect many citizens DON'T fully understand..."

[New World Dan]

Allright, I know we've got an agenda here, but can we compare apples to apples? Most of these outlays are not outright cash giveaways. They're low-interest loans, which means that they'll theoretically be repaid over the next several years. So instead of the gross outlays, can we see the net expense? If you spend $700B on TARP and turn around and eventually sell that crap for $650B, you only have a net expense of $50B. While I agree that money is just being dumped into a pit right now, can we at least get some meaningful analysis about the true cost somewhere?

[jtuf]

America got about half of it's territory by buying it from debt ladden countries, first France, then Russia. At this point 12 Trillion is too large to fathom, so here is another way to look at it. Round up the average home price to $300,000, and we would have to sell 40 million typical American homes to pay off this debt.

[jtuf]

To put it another way 12 Trillion in debt divided amoung 300 Million Americans comes to $40,000. If you divide it by 100 Million American households, you get $120,000 per household. Houseboats cost between $25,000 each and $200,000 at this website. Figure you would need to spend several grand to make a houseboat more self sufficient so it could be part of a seasteading community. It is getting to the point where packing up your family and living on the open ocean might be cheaper than paying off your family's share of the national debt. No wonder congress passed new tax laws so they could keep taxing expatriots.

[BIG LETTERS]

STOP BUMPING THIS CRAP, YOU CRAPBUMPERS.

[Silentz]

New World Dan,

I see what you're saying, but you may want to pick a different example than TARP. Afterall, I don't believe that ANY of the first $350B tranche actually bought any of the toxic assets that were meant to be sold at a later time to recoup the money. That's what they used to buy banks. Also the money that they don't seem to want to take back. And who really knows where the 2nd tranche went?

You could use the Big 3 loans as an example...er wait, not those either, they're mostly gone down that hole. Or the stimulus...hmm...that's not coming back, so forget that too.

How 'bout the new round of TARP? The one that no one in their right mind would touch because it means getting into bed with a power hungry government that has already shown it has no problem messing with private businesses.

So what program devised in the last 8 months is going to pay anything back? I'm highly dubious of any claim made by our Congress-critters anymore. If they tell me to look up, chances are that's the last place I'll look.

[Orange Line Special]

As some of you know, you can adjust the size of these embedded videos easily, and I've often wondered what would happen if you put, say, a hundred of them on one page. Reason should try that next.

As for the videos, if anyone had ADD, make sure and double up your dose first. Seriously, that's why people who make TV ads get the money: they grab people and get them to watch. These don't.

As for Americans for Prosperity, click the link and scroll down a bit to see who chaired their foundation's board. You might be surprised! OK, you won't be surprised at all. Reason and other "libertarians" are so transparent they might do better just by being open about everything.

As usual, click my name's link for lots of learning opportunities.

[Richard Stands]

Next they'll be saying we should close the money hole.

[raivo pommer-www.google.ee]

raivo pommer-www.google.ee
[e-mail]

Measures taken by China

to combat the global economic crisis are beginning to show results, state media Saturday quoted Premier Wen
Jiabao as saying, ahead of first quarter results due next week.

"The economic indicators for the first quarter will be published next week but I can tell you that the measures we have taken are beginning to show their first results," Wen said at a meeting with the Chinese community in Thailand, according to the China News Agency.

In a video recording of Wen's address, released on the website of Hong Kong's Phoenix TV, Wen said that investment flows and demand had increased. He did not give precise figures.

"The difficult situation that some sectors and businesses were in is beginning to change... credits and loans are increasing rapidly," he added.

"The economic situation is starting to change in a positive way, the situation is better than we had expected."

Chinese authorities in November unveiled an unprecedented four trillion yuan (455-billion-dollar) stimulus package to combat the crisis.

[Andrew]

If nothing else, the eventual high inflation will be good for the student loans I've accumulated over the past three years. The economy will be shit, but I'll be paying back with dollars worth substantially less than the ones I borrowed.

[raivo pommer-www.google.ee]

raivo pommer-www.google.ee
[e-mail]

BLIND MONEY

The absolutism of the key tenets of neo-liberalism: privatisation, deregulation, balanced budgets have all been rejected by all but the most dogmatic. Apart from one that is: the primacy of free trade.

Its status is basically sacrosanct. While banks are being nationalized, bonuses recalled, and trillions of dollars of debt racked up, while pretty much every other concept, belief or ideal is being interrogated, contorted or just set aside, "Free trade is good" continues to be presented as a totemic truth, ring-fenced from debate or interrogation. Any questioning of this axiom is not even on the G-20's agenda.

In fact the Free Trade brigade, which encompasses most mainstream politicians, business leaders, and thinkers -- outside of France that is -- seems to be on evangelical overdrive. "The solution to the crisis is more free trade," says Brazilian President Luiz In?cio Lula da Silva. China's Commerce Minister Chen Deming announces that Beijing is "firmly opposed to trade protectionism," a sentiment often echoed by Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown expressly warns against abandoning "the gospel of free trade."

[ray butthead]

I see Nick is wearing his Marie Antoinette wig today. You people kill me. Clearly this is a pro-Antoinette faction.

[Basement dweller]

Go back to Estonia, Raivo.

[matt]

I found this site today, and my initial impression is relief of the amount of information written in the few pieces I just read but disappointment in the propaganda.

What is the alternative taxing system this site is trying to promote over the current approach that people who are succeeding the most in this current social system pay most of the money to keep the system running? If the lower half of the people take up the slack, they won't be able to afford the services that give the wealthy their wealth. I'm no economist though, so that's just my "joe schmoe logic". If anyone takes me up on the question, I'll check back in a couple of days and ponder on their words in my days ahead.

[Walt]

matt asks, "What is the alternative taxing system this site is trying to promote over the current approach that people who are succeeding the most in this current social system pay most of the money to keep the system running?" ...

I am not a seasoned reader at reason.com, but I suspect that most here are libertarians and do not really believe that the current government should be kept at today's levels. If we could restrict government spending to 2002 levels - the same levels we spent at in 2002 - we could pay down 1 trillion of our debt every year. Instead government is massively INCREASING its size and spending. Obama paints himself as a pragmatist who doesn't want to "kick the can another 4 years" but his actions put the US future in jeopardy.

With regard to taxes, these videos show the lie that many left-leaning statists use to justify higher spending: that the rich use loopholes to get out of paying "their share" of taxes. When you see a taxpayer who is rich, they are paying for themselves as well as many other families' government benefits. That is a fact. They are paying at a very disproportionate amount to other groups. They are paying disproportionate to their higher income, based on percent of income paid in to taxes. They should be cheered or at least commiserated as those who shoulder the burden. Instead they are vilified and used to fan the flames of classism. Witness the cheers at Biden's rally where he says that it is time for "the rich" - ie laryers, doctors, small business owners - to "get patriotic." Biden who had given less than $2000 to charity over the last 8 years.

Personally, I think a flat tax or fair tax variant that does away with the IRS would be a great first step. The many deductions and complexities of the tax system are a way for government to exert control over the populace (by economically incintivising behaviors which the politicians desire) and also as a way to pay off the cronies and lobbyists. A massively simplified tax system, elimination of bloated and pointless portions of the federal government, and term limits for all of congress would be a great first step in reasserting individual liberty and minimizing the inevitable corruption and graft that comes with politics. They would also be an excellent step for us to start paying down this massive debt we have already run up.

4th video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHRxfn-DTV4

[Bob]

matt (addressing the second question):

Imagine that the current progressive bracket system is replaced by a flat percentage income tax (I'll assume that the spending stays the same, which isn't what most here support). Then it is true that the poor pay more in taxes, and that they end up buying less of everything. Then if the poor lose $ 500 billion (the exact amount doesn't matter), and they buy $ 500 billion less, and the average profit the companies make is 50% (way exaggerated), then the rich, (those that had their taxes cut) make $ 250 billion less, but since they save twice that in taxes, they are better off.
This is the expected result of unwinding a progressive taxation system: if it redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor, then the net effect of dismantling it is to make the rich better off, and the poor worse. That's in the short run.
In the long run, the argument is that since taxation always discourages what it is applied to (this effect is pretty much universally accepted), then by reducing the taxation on the rich, you in effect encourage people in those tax brackets to earn more, by producing more or working harder at whatever it is they do (or simply save more of their present income in order to invest it, and in doing so increase their future income). Essentially, by allowing them to keep more of their earnings, you increase the incentives to spend their time towards increased wealth production, instead of reading books or taking a two month vacation every year. And this increases the economic welfare of the whole nation, as any honest income has to be earned by trade and by production of value. The industrialist has to increase his sales by perhaps a million or more in order to increase his profits by $100,000 (I'm pulling numbers out of my ass here, but this is just to illustrate a general idea).
I don't know if I've really answered your original question as it was pretty broad, but if I haven't, or you have some other ones, post them here, and I'll answer as best I can (or find someone smarter to do it in my place).

[mark]

matt, some people come to this site looking for economic conservatism, and they will find plenty of that. Others, like myself, are here to read about how income tax withholding was a temporary wartime measure introduced in 1943, that way we can beat our heads against the table and ask whether there is any justice in the world, and basically complain until we are satisfied. Reason is immensely helpful for this. Still others come to this blog to troll left and right, and they too are satisfied. All moderation is performed by the invisible hand.

Now as to a specific statement of yours:
If the lower half of the people take up the slack, they won't be able to afford the services that give the wealthy their wealth.
The wealthy own productive capital which in turn gives wealth in the form of productivity to the lower classes. That's just a fact. Libertarians here typically believe, based on reality as well as sound economic theory, that there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is not to say that rich people will work harder at a lower tax rate, but that taxing and spending is always an inefficient use of resources and should be confined to only the most obvious public goods, such as defense and justice. In other words, a government which governs best governs least. Almost no one believes the burden of taxation should be shifted away from the rich, but you can never say whether a particular tax on the rich will not have far-reaching effects on the poor.

Anyway, you want to know my preferred tax system?
- 35% flat tax on income (sucks but not going away anytime soon)
- $25,000 personal deduction, $10,000 per dependent
- No deductions for interest, health care, or anything else besides charity
- If your income goes below 0 after deductions, the government pays you a subsidy, so for instance if you make $15k/year you get 10k*35%=$3500 subsidy, which goes on your paycheck ($291/month). This idea was advocated by Milton Friedman!
- No more complicated "targeted" government welfare programs for anyone, rich or poor. I still believe in social safety nets (some here would disagree) but feel the government has gone way overboard with "green" policies and other massive spending plans for special interests (most here would agree).

The FairTax is a terrible idea because it opens the way to national ID cards, national databases of spending habits, and a vast welfare system of rebate cards. It would still probably be preferable to the current system 🙂 Eliminate the rebate cards and omit sales taxes on food and health care and perhaps you have a workable system.

Again, nobody here wants to make things harder on the poor, we just believe that without economic conservatism you are going to have less growth and less income for the working class, plus in our current situation we are looking at serious problems with the Federal Reserve Note, which will likely harm the poor disproportionately, as they rely almost completely on FRN's as their store of wealth.

[raivo pommer-www.google.ee]

raivo pommer-www.google.ee
[e-mail]

BA BANK KRITIK

Die Bank of America hatte sich im vergangenen Herbst am Blitzkauf der Investmentbank Merrill Lynch verhoben. Im Zuge der Finanzkrise hatte sie zuvor bereits die Hypothekenfirma Countrywide ?bernommen, die als mitverantwortlich f?r die Kreditkrise gilt. Der Staat griff der Bank bisher mit allein 45 Milliarden Dollar an direkten Hilfen unter die Arme.

Merrill Lynch habe im ersten Quartal ohne Ber?cksichtigung von Kosten der ?bernahme zum Gewinn 3,7 Milliarden Dollar beigetragen, so die Bank. Die Erl?se verdoppelten sich zum Jahresauftakt auf rund 36 Milliarden Dollar, die Vorjahreszahlen beinhalteten aber Merrill Lynch und Countrywide noch nicht und sind daher kaum vergleichbar.

In den vergangenen Tagen hatten unter anderem J.P. Morgan Chase und Goldman Sachs Milliardengewinne vorgelegt. Selbst die zu den gr??ten Krisenverlierern z?hlende Citigroup hatte ihr Ergebnis klar verbessert und vor Dividendenzahlungen sogar wieder schwarzen Zahlen geschrieben. Analysten warnen trotz des positiven Trends jedoch, dass eine endg?ltige Erholung der Finanzbranche noch nicht sicher sei.

[raivo pommer-www.google.ee]

raivo pommer-www.google.ee
[e-mail]

MEGA-REZESSION in Europe im Jahre 2010

Anders als bislang erwartet wird die deutsche Wirtschaft voraussichtlich auch im Jahr 2010 schrumpfen. Sowohl der Internationale W?hrungsfonds (IWF) als auch die f?hrenden deutschen Forschungsinstitute rechnen inzwischen mit einem zweiten Krisenjahr. Knapp f?nf Millionen Menschen sollen dann arbeitslos sein. Zudem werden die Staatsschulden dramatisch steigen, urteilen die Institute.

W?hrend diese lediglich einen R?ckgang des Bruttoinlandsproduktes (BIP) von 0,5 Prozent erwarten, rechnet der IWF mit einem Minus von einem Prozent. Auch f?r 2009 sind die Prognosen weitaus schlechter als erwartet. So kommen die Institute zum Ergebnis, dass die Wirtschaftsleistung um sechs Prozent schrumpfen wird. Der Fonds geht von einem Minus von 5,6 Prozent aus. Die Regierung will auf die Prognosen reagieren, indem sie ihre eigenen Erwartungen nach unten korrigiert - nach Worten von Bundesfinanzminister Peer Steinbr?ck (SPD) auf ein Minus von f?nf Prozent oder mehr. Im Januar hatten die Experten der Regierung noch damit gerechnet, dass das BIP nur um 2,25 Prozent sinkt.

[Paul Davidson]

Just in case anyone needs to fill out a tax forms, I found a blank forms in this site PDFfiller. This site also has some tutorials on how to fill it out and a tons of fillable tax forms that you might find useful. Here is a link to the blank IRS form W-2 that I was able to fill out http://goo.gl/Ig3sPp.