I agree that it's transparent. But, do you know anyone who believes they have any say in how that money gets spent? do votes matter in any way whatsoever? most of the money is spent at the federal level. is anyone happy with political outcomes? even the winning party? (even a house/senate controlled by the democrats or all republican, have a hard time passing the bills they want).

40% of GDP seems like a pretty large subscription charge. 40% of the avg person's salary would be over 20K per year.

I could see this model working better if all the states were individual countries that can tax and spend the way they want. but the system as set up in the US just doesn't seem to make anyone happy because there's way too many diverse opinions on what to spend it on and how much to tax.

I mean, yes? Do you believe that if there was no voting that the money would get spent in better ways?

40% is a lot, but also the vast majority of federal spending goes to the safety net: unemployment insurance, social security, Medicare, health services — these categories are each more than spending on defense.

Personally, though I’ve never had to rely on unemployment insurance, I’m definitely glad it exists!

The political arguments about spending are basically noise at the margins by comparison.

Defenese spending is much more than you think: it's not just the "defense" category, it's also department of energy, dept of veteran affairs, dept of homeland security, and there's other sections where defense spending comes from. All together it's a sizable chunk.

Social security (20%), medicare and medicaide (20%). unemployment is a very small part as far as i know.

Your numbers are technically correct since you only gave one significant figure, but you're still rounding off more than $300 billion and also forgetting to count almost $400 billion in smaller programs.

Out of $4.4 trillion:

Social security - $1 trillion - 23%

Medicare - $644 billion - 15%

Medicaid - $409 billion - 9%

SNAP, EITC, Unemployment, SSI and other Income Security Programs - $303 billion mandatory spending + $73 billion - 8%

That's about 55% of the total on various parts of the safety net.

[1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324

you're talking to the wrong person, I personally think I'm not being taxed enough. I make absurd amounts of money while people are dying in the street (SF is the city with the highest number of homeless people I've seen in my life, and I've travelled the world)

Nothing whatsoever prevents you from voluntarily increasing your payments to the government, both federal and state, or even municipally in the form of donations. Yes, you can request that they take extra money and they will happily do so. So once you're done patting yourself on the back about how progressive minded you are, just pay more. It would however be nice if people who claim to feel the way you do didn't so often try to force others to be just as "generous" by throwing scorn on people's legal attempts at tax reduction.

He doesn't actually want his own taxes to go up, he wants taxes of other people in his bracket to go up. His own increased taxes is just a price he's willing to pay.

I don’t see how this would fix the problem? The issue is not how much I pay, it’s how much people pay in general.

You can solve this conundrum individually with donations: taxes would go contrary to your stated goal, as the destination of funds is not in your control

Let’s make all tax donation am I right?

Maybe, maybe not. But certainly things like specific targeted programs one should be.

can I make some guesses? are you single with no family, yet?

(correct me if i'm wrong) if you had a family to support, with the truely enormous financial costs that SF brings, I think you might change your opinion on this matter.

Why can't it be based on how much services you use? Lots of literature has been written on private law and it already operates this way on many private properties.

Because 5 year olds can't afford school fees.