And let's just say another 25% is misspent. In a country this big and bloated, that's also likely a low ball figure. But overall, only 50% of taxpayer money is going to anything remotely properly executed and needed.

That said, our public schools suck, we invest nothing in research, we don't provide healthcare until your old, and our interstate highways were built 70 years ago, and state and local governments handle needed construction now, yet they take the smallest percentage of our taxes. Some states like Nevada don't even charge state income tax.

In my view I'd be way happier paying taxes if this was managed right. That means cut military spending by 90% knowing we are never going to need an aircraft carrier again while completely evacuating the Middle East, and the state local government's charge more since they will be more effective at putting it to use.

Taxes should be no more than 30% total (federal, state + local) like the Apple App Store.

Yea, likely not happening any time soon. But that's what is correct imho.

I would suggest trying it sometime. Look at the US government budget, and try to cut out 25% of it. It is a lot harder than just getting rid of "bloat".

I can believe that some people might be able to find 25% that they personally don't care about. Maybe you don't drive, so (you think) you don't care about highways. Or, you're not poor, so you don't care about medicaid. And so on. But could you cut 25% of the federal budget without causing a large fraction of the American populace to become very, very angry (and vote you out of office, git reset --hard your budget in two years, etc)?

I don't mean to say that the government could not be more efficient. It certainly could. But 25% of the budget is a lot of money, and not everyone has the same priorities as you.

Don't forget we build highways with the wrong material which causes a cheaper initial cost and higher future cost. (Concrete rather than asphalt)

Paying high taxes makes more sense if debt service was rather trivial.

I don't disagree with your point (about wasteful spending on the military), but your number is substantially inflated and you're wrong on the financial conclusion.

The federal + state spending is $6.x trillion, soon to be $7 trillion. Closer to 10% of tax payer money is going to the military + intelligence. Federal debt service is closer to 5%-6% of the US Government's revenue year to year; less than half of that net cost is due to war.

Entitlements are by far the largest budget problem the US has, there isn't anything else even remotely close at this point. Within ten years those entitlements will balloon the US budget deficit back above $1 trillion, the military spending increases - which I disagree with - are comical next to the entitlement costs inbound. Unless you're planning to abolish the entire US military, you're not going to be able to financially resolve the truly epic entitlements funding shortfall just through military reduction. Even slashing the US military in half won't come close to fixing the problem (~$300 billion versus an inbound $1 trillion annual entitlement shortfall).

...a quick search shows this article saying 16% is going to defense:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-wh...

I also read recently something to the tune of: 70% of our national debt comes from military related expenditures from the 2 Bush presidents, and by 2020 interest payments will go from 5/6% to 10/12%. What about the principal? When does that get factored in?

I admit I'm not an expert on these matters (as i chose to focus on what i can change). However, there does seem like there are various discrepancies here--so what if the number is closer to 18% vs. 25% or 12.5%. It's way way way too much and would make a difference--more importantly in the lives and hatred abroad we would be sparing. We didn't fix or help anything in Vietnam and no matter what they say, we haven't in Iraq or the Middle East--our selfish financial losses aside.

However, now imagine instead of taking out credit for those wars, we invested. That would be paying major dividends that would further counteract these numbers. Now imagine we invested in ourselves (not just financial instruments)--the potential is far higher.

Military spending without a doubt has put a damper on our progress and perhaps the sole reason America may never reach the potential it once had. America was never great--rather, it had potential to be great. Now it's mediocre, and other countries are eating our lunch, and rightfully so. Not that the world is zero sum--but we'd stand to benefit from taking a page from their playbook (e.g. nordic countries, etc). We have shitty education. We are well on our way to becoming idiocracy. We unfairly lock up way too many people for far too long in shitty prison conditions (and then let corporations exploit them for cheap labor!). We have plenty of money but we spend $11 Billion on the Airforce One and Marine One fleet. That would put $33 in every american's pocket. Our expenditures from the Middle East since 9/11 would put like $30k in each american's pocket. If that was $5k over 6 years, that's life-changing money for half of america. ..This country is just ridiculous. Paying 50% of your earnings as taxes in California is absurd. It's a crime. There's no point owning (why pay that 1% property tax), there's no point making lots of money. Just rent, make far less, and work way less hard--what sort of incentive is that! That said we have a problem of working too hard and too much in this country (at least for people of a certain class)--so from that perspective perhaps it's a good thing. I rather make whatever that sweetspot income is from a taxation point of view ($75k?), rent, not try to make billions from my startup and live a simple life.

And yes, we should cut 90% of our military. Instead, we maintain an arsenal of super modern nukes and a small extremely efficient elite navy-seals-like task force. + Yes, the best cyber-security outfit on the planet (while somehow keeping surveillance on citizens to a minimum). But fire most people in camouflage uniform.

Gun-to-your-head "peace" is not peace. There is no world peace. This "peace" we have enforced will not less forever. As soon as china knows they can beat us they will make us pay for our sins in one way or another. We need to become more cooperative now and show the world how to act NOW while we're on top, cuz once we're not we won't be able to set such examples. We aren't cooperative. We are forceful. Again, it's gun-to-your-head peace. The lessons of history clearly indicate to me that it's a recipe for disaster as those hungry come up from behind you and use the ugly strategies they learned from you against you. These are basically life laws we're talking about here. So we aren't setting a good example. We haven't created true peace. It's temporary peace. And things could get catastrophic unless America completely changes its ways. I'm not even saying gun-to-your-head "peace" wasn't needed to get to this point, i.e. the most peaceful point in human history. I'm saying it's run its course, and if we continue to operate that way, we'll regress--and regress bad!

So why not save some money (AND SOME LIVES) and show some real leadership. Real leadership is about taking risks. Risks and faith are what it's all about. As powerful as the US is, it has an opportunity to set that stage. That would be the turning point in human history that civilization has been looking for. It's the next evolution. We have that opportunity right now. We are on the precipice of a turning point while things are still relatively stable. Cut the military, we don't need it. Save us some dollars and focus on education.

I am perfectly happy to look at it that way, and indeed I do.

Please don't deploy the "I'm arguing with the anti-tax guy" toolkit here - I am not that guy.

The problem I have, and that I think many people have, is that fraction:

30/60 = 1/2 = getting a bit silly.

YMMV.

But why? I mean, are you just rationalizing? "I think 50% taxes is a lot just because I do, therefore I think it's bad policy." Or is there a logical reason that 50% is "a bit silly" but, say, 30% (or whatever your number is) is fine?

This is something that Nobel prize-winning economists fight over -- exactly how high a tax rate is too high? -- so I kind of doubt we're going to resolve it here on HN. My point is that we all have feelings ("I don't like the color mauve", "50% taxes rubs me the wrong way"), but these have to be separate from motives for enacting policy.

And when you factor in other taxes, you pay more than 50%, it's too much.

And if I choose not to pay those taxes, my freedom is taken away, so don't tell me the slave point is invalid.

No one getting taxed at an effective 50% tax rate in the United States is anywhere near a slave. The minimum wage McDonald's worker with a 15% tax rate is the slave.

There isn't a rational difference between 30 and 50, the only difference is "I feel that it is too much", right?

50% is 84 hours/week, we as a society have already deemed the difference between those to be significant enough to fight about.

The difference between 50% of your income and 30% of your income is significant.

No, I don't think I am rationalizing or being irrational.

Note: I don't make any claims to know what the right overall tax rate is - if you're asking me about 32% vs. 38% vs. 29% ... I am as lost as you, and those economists, are.

However I think that 1/2 is not an arbitrary point on that scale - I think there is a qualitative difference between more than one half and less than one half.

If I am assessed more than one half of what I earn, that's unfair in a way that I believe appeals to innate concepts of fairness that we all share, rather than "I just don't like that number".

10% will be enough in the future, except for those countries in war, like US always will be.

Great chart in here about USA tax burden being below average: https://taxfoundation.org/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-2...

You are entitled of what you've done, period.

Anything above 10% is theft.

"Times of higher tax burden have been economically more productive" -> this is just false, a falacy. Prove it somehow.

Sweden was a very rich nation before high taxes, now it's just rich, net jobs after high taxation in 50 years is ZERO. They are just letting go now, cutting taxes more and more.

I wonder why US economy is booming right now, maybe because Trump is going to cut taxes?!

Oops...

Capitalism is a system, like any other, created by humans and not found in nature. "Ownership" is not some property of matter; what it means to own something is that there is a legal system that supports that deed and an armed police and military to enforce it. There is no concept of ownership except for a truly anarchic "everything I own is in a box that I have the key to" idea that does not require other people to guarantee your property rights.

You never know. You don't know if it was only 10%, he could use those 40% much better than the "government", oh hell, be damn sure he would.

He could create companies, could fund companies, could put this money in funds, those funds would have to fund companies to earn money, these would generate jobs, education, etc.

Almost all wealthy people just invest their money in stocks, hedge funds, VCs, and other intangible assets that don't immediately produce a noticeable economic impact, aside from a rise in the stock market.

If he pays 50% because he wants, OK.

But he is FORCED to pay.

This is confiscatory payment, it's theft.

Opportunities as a young person costs 50% of what he makes?! Please don't pretend to be naive.

I thought it was common sense by now that this tax money goes to highly payed politicians, corruption, bad public administration, bad public programs, lazy people, etc.

A 10% tax should be the maximum a citizen should pay in any country.

And it will be in the future, distant future, but you can be damn sure that it will be.

See people cheering the cutting of funding for Meals on Wheels make me want to vomit.

Sure, if by "establishing the world around you" means government spending on fighting climate change, supporting clean energy initiatives and helping the underserved people instead of spending on wars, on weapons; AND everyone pays the same rate including our current president, then YES!