News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 da... by nitrogen on Saturday December 19, 2020 @01:11PM (#25479583)
This will need a number to back that up. I've seen claims in both directions here on HN. It's also a number that's easy to distort to say whatever you want. Are people employed by the IRS being "subsidized"? Civilian logistics coordinators working for the DOD? Are you talking per capita, per square mile, or gross?
Re:California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 da... by jlarocco on Saturday December 19, 2020 @02:14PM (#25480231)
Here: https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-7-19b-Bala...

Or, the same data with a very hard to read circular bar graph visualization:

https://howmuch.net/articles/federal-budget-receipts-and-exp...

The numbers are actually pretty straightforward. "Expenditures is a broad category and covers a variety of things, including direct payments to people like Social Security, contracts for local governments, wages for federal workers and sub-contracting work."

Re:California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 da... by blululu on Saturday December 19, 2020 @01:54PM (#25480035)
https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-...

From an accounting standpoint, gross money in be money out is what matters. Per capita makes sense to compare relative benefit, but realistically Montana is small potatoes on the Federal Balance sheet. Measuring per sq mile seems like some ludicrous ploy by Alaska’s senator to screw over New Jersey.