Tax Revenue

Where Does Our Federal Spending Go?

/ MeltdownMessiah / Leave a comment

I’m pretty well done with sifting through Federal Spending, Tax Revenue, and all that fun stuff, but I do have one more thing I’d like to share. Trust me, it will be fun (it’s full of numbers) and I’m trying to delve into how the Federal Government spends money. This seems particularly relevant when we’ve heard so much talk of how we need to cut Federal Spending (and where it should be cut) ever since Elon Musk and his team of grifters at DOGE got involved. Even as the net result of the 2025 Congressional Budget Bill is to increase Federal Spending while cutting down on Federal Revenue. It’s like Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan never left us, or they’re still with us in Spirit.

Personally, I think that means we need an Exorcism post haste.

This additional deep dive into Federal Revenue and Spending came about, partially in response to someone on Threads who insisted (despite all evidence to the contrary) that Donor States were still a drain on the Economy because many of them received more in Federal Funds than less populated States that couldn’t hope to contribute as much.

He clearly didn’t comprehend that words have agreed-upon meanings. No matter how much he wished it, he couldn’t arbitrarily change those definitions (not without some sort of consensus involved). It’s disingenuous at best to accuse Donor States of being a drain, when they are contributing more than they are taking. It really doesn’t matter that these states might be receiving more than others (that take more than they contribute). I continued that discussion far longer than I should have, when I simply needed to point out that he was wrong from the beginning, and wasn’t getting any less wrong the more he tried to argue his point.

That’s the problem with the way many people look at things today. They think that their sense of what is correct holds the same value as the reality of the thing, whatever that thing might be. Just because something doesn’t feel right, because it doesn’t correspond with one’s worldview, is not the same as something not being right or accurate. Some people (mostly men, it seems) think everything is up for debate and interpretation, but that simply isn’t how reality works. We don’t get to negotiate with reality the way we do with one another. One’s level of confidence in their being correct does not influence whether they are (even if it makes them seem like they must be), but there’s no convincing some people of that.

This is why, not so long ago, when more than a thousand people were polled, 12% of Men responded that they believed they could score a single point on Serena Williams in Tennis. Of course: 17% of Men also believed they could beat a Chimpanzee in a fight, 8% were confident they could defeat a Gorilla, and 6% suggested they could successfully fight a Bear. Keep in mind that these men are unarmed and the animals are neither infants nor infirm. So, there’s clearly no accounting for human stupidity, or the confidence that goes with it.

But, back to the topic at hand.

In 2023, the Donor States (those that paid out more in Federal Revenue than they received back) produced a combined surplus of $619 Billion. That was such a great surplus in Total Revenue that it offset the total amount consumed by states that received more than they paid out, with more than $105.1 Billion left to spare.

Fully 88% of that Federal Revenue came from Income and Individual Taxes (this includes Social Security and Medicare), with the remaining 10% coming from Business Taxes, Estate Taxes, and so on.

The Federal Government spent a grand total of just below $6.2 Trillion that year (which is more than the total Federal Revenue), which means Donor States provided roughly 10% of the total amount of Federal Spending in just the surplus between what they paid out vs. what they received back from that $6.2 Trillion.

It’s worth referring back to my earlier discussion of Sanctuary States to point out that 11 of the states classified as Sanctuary States, when broken down by Per Capita Revenue, generated more than they received that year. When looking solely at total amount of outgoing versus incoming Revenue at the State Level, it was seven Sanctuary States operating in the black. When we adjust our focus, in terms of total population, we’re looking at 11 Sanctuary States that paid in more than they cost the Federal Government per person. I keep bringing that up because it’s imperative to hammer in the point that people should stop trying to use Sanctuary States as a budgetary talking point as if they’re a drain on the economy. After all, the reality is quite the opposite.

It’s a simple thing to ignore context and simply accept that the Federal Government distributed a grand total of $4.56 Billion back to the various states and their residents. That’s still less than was obtained in Federal Revenue, by a little over $100 Billion. This isn’t entirely painting an accurate portrait, suggesting that the money actually went to the states. Defense Spending is included in this, which was disproportionately redistributed to wherever the largest military bases, contractors, and manufacturing facilities were located. Strangely enough, unlike the U.S. Postal Service, no one seems to expect the U.S. Armed Forces to turn over a profit, even though the U.S. Postal Service doesn’t receive direct Taxpayer funding.

So, to really dig into where Federal Spending is directed, we’re going to have to spend a little more time breaking things down. It doesn’t sound like much fun, but at least I’ll save you the time and effort of doing the math.

Only $2.4 Trillion of the total $6.2 Trillion in Federal Spending returned to the States for purposes of Medicaid, SNAP (Food Stamps), Social Security, Veterans Benefits, Transportation, and Education. That leaves $3.8 Trillion in spending left unaddressed. It’s worth noting that a large portion of the money spent through Medicaid, as well as some of what was spent on Veterans Benefits, went directly to Insurance Companies. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Federal Subsidies for Insurance Companies in 2023 totaled an estimated $1.8 Trillion (which included Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, Affordable Care Act Marketplace Subsidies, and more). Referring to that as money that went to residents of the states in question seems disingenuous to me, but we’ll let it stand.

$658.8 Billion went toward payment of Interest on the National Debt (which totaled $34.7 Trillion as of last June), which is 17% of the previously unaccounted for $3.8 Trillion…leaving us with roughly $3.2 Trillion to track down.

Excluding Active Duty Military salaries, the Federal Government spent roughly $336 Billion on payroll for Federal Workers, which translates into approximately 10.5% of the remaining $3.2 Trillion, leaving $2.9 Trillion that we’ve not accounted for.

Foreign Aid seems to be a sticking point for several people lately, as they complain about how the money could (or should) be spent here at home. The reality is that Foreign Aid is a drop in the bucket. In 2023, Foreign Aid added up to a total of $71.9 Billion (which is less than the $74 Billion spent in 2022). I should note that this amount does not factor in sales of arms or transfers of military equipment; mostly because we typically sell materials and equipment without taking a loss. Even this exceptionally small number, compared to our total Federal Spending, turns out to be a grand total of 1.2% of that amount. Data from the United Nations indicates the U.S. still contributes 40% of all International Humanitarian Aid. That’s something we should be proud of. $14.4 Billion of that went to Ukraine in the form of direct monetary support, which (as I’m sure you notice) is not much at all when compared to total Federal Spending. It’s even appreciably less than the $15.6 Billion that went toward Foreign Disaster Relief and other Humanitarian purposes. Even though the current war in Gaza didn’t begin until October 7th of that year, we spent $3.3 Billion on Foreign Aid to Israel.

But, we still have essentially $2.9 Trillion to account for, so let’s keep going.

Defense Spending totaled $820.3 Billion that year. This amount shouldn’t be surprising, since we spent more than twice as much as the other 30 NATO Nations combined between 2014 and 2022. More than a quarter of that Spending went to the Air Force, and only slightly less went towards the Navy. Army and Marine Corps Spending combined to make up roughly another quarter of that total. This is where Active Duty Military salaries factor into the spending.

We now have just a little bit less than $2.1 Trillion to account for.

The $52 Billion we spent on Small Business Loans hardly makes a dent.

Of the $970 Billion in Discretionary Spending that wasn’t Defense-Related, only a portion of it hasn’t already been accounted for in the previous Spending that went back to the individual States. $83 Billion of that was spent on International Affairs, $74 Billion went toward Administration of Justice, $48 Billion to Natural Resources and Environmental Spending, while $40 Billion was dedicated to Science, Space, and Technology. Adding those totals to what was spent on Small Business Loans, we’re only looking at $1.9 Trillion left to go.

Only $31 Billion went toward Pell Grants for the roughly 6.5 Million college students who received them that year, so that hardly registers.

And unfortunately, it only gets more challenging to trace the money at that point.

Tax Refunds for Earned Income Credits, the Federal portion of Unemployment Compensation, and other dispersals factor into the same Mandatory Spending category as SNAP funding, which totals $448 Billion. But some of that has already been accounted for in the money we discussed being distributed to the States. Unfortunately, it’s exceedingly difficult to sift through itemized spending to discern just how much we’ve already considered in our breakdown of Federal Spending.

There’s also $502 Billion that was distributed between Federal Civilian and Military Retirement Benefits, some additional Veterans’ Benefits, and offsetting costs for other previously discussed areas of Mandatory Spending such as Social Security and Medicaid. But, again, a significant portion of that Spending has already been mentioned.

Even if that was all above and beyond what had been previously accounted for, we would still have more than $900 Billion to account for, which is no small amount. And, if I’m being entirely honest, I don’t know how much more we’ve ticked away at the $1.9 Trillion we were looking at before those areas of Mandatory Spending entered the discussion. For the sake of moving this forward, we’ll go ahead and operate under the assumption that we’re looking at $900 Billion to account for.

Some of that was further distributed to States via Nonprofit Programs and Organizations that received grants. Of course, most of the funding for U.S. Nonprofits comes from sources other than the Federal Government. They received more than $550 Billion in Charitable Giving, with $101 Billion of that coming from Charitable Foundations and an estimated $412 Billion or so coming from Individual Donations or Estates. The rest more than likely came from Businesses and Corporations. Naturally, there are tax breaks involved for those entities.

I’d love to imagine our Federal Government shelling out $550 Billion or so toward Nonprofit Organizations and matching those numbers, but that’s a fantasy. The most liberal estimates indicate the Federal Government, in some capacity, spends an average of roughly $303 Billion on U.S. Nonprofits annually. But it’s difficult to find a breakdown of that Spending specifically for 2023. It probably varies significantly by year, so we’ll focus on the $303 Billion as a total, and assume none of it was already tallied in earlier categories.

This leaves us with (we’ll say) $600 Billion that I simply don’t have the Resources or the Time to track down. The best I can do from here is offer some speculation, and suggest aspects of the Federal Budget that weren’t entirely accounted for previously.

I’m sure that some of it falls through the cracks as Black Budget Items and Surveillance or Espionage Spending that doesn’t get mixed in with the usual Defense Spending, to keep it off the books. But I don’t imagine those Budgetary elements come anywhere close to $600 Billion, when the on-the-books Defense Spending is already more than $800 Billion.

We could assume some of it is Government Contract Spending that isn’t accounted for in the Defense Spending totals, Small Business Grants, and the other Funding already considered. Elon Musk’s various companies were recipients of $3 Billion of that Contract Spending, split between several different Federal Agencies, but most of that has already been accounted for.

Government Contracts devoured $759 Billion in Government Spending for 2023. $470 Billion of that was through the Department of Defense. Assuming the rest (which is surely not accurate) has not been part of the earlier Spending we’ve discussed, that would leave $289 Billion.

We would still be looking at more than $300 Billion left at the Table, which is clearly not the case, because our Deficit wouldn’t be as high as it is. The reality is that there’s definitely upwards of $300 Billion that I haven’t accounted for in my research, and that’s certainly no small amount.

Even with that ultimate failure in my capacity to dig through every Bill and piece of Legislation that slipped through Congress in 2023 (or before, because some of them include spending allotments for years to come, which is why we had the recent Recision Bill that took back funds that had previously been approved by Congress), I hope this has helped to explain where Federal Spending is directed. Sadly, I doubt the people who most need to get a firm grasp on what we’re spending (and where) are the least likely to take the time necessary to read this.

Not Only CAN We Pay for It, We SHOULD.

/ MeltdownMessiah / Leave a comment

There’s always a lot of talk about how we can’t afford Single-Payer Healthcare here in America, and how much our taxes would increase if we were to implement a Universal Healthcare System. I got tired of listening to people who probably haven’t performed any mathematical operations more involved than basic addition or subtraction since they reached adulthood. I decided it was worthwhile to examine three countries that do provide for their citizens: Denmark, Canada, and the UK, to see how they compare to us here.

For the sake of simplicity, despite it making the whole process far more complicated for me, I’ve taken the liberty of converting all currencies to USD based on the conversion rates as they were today.

In Denmark, there is no Federal Tax on the first $8,080 an individual earns. From $8,080 to $94,224, there is a 12% Federal Tax rate. Anything above $94,224 is taxed at a rate of 15%.

If someone were to earn a hypothetical annual income of $150,000, they would face a total Federal Tax burden of $18,673.68, leaving them with $131,326.32 of their income.

There’s also a Municipal Tax rate that falls between 22 and 27% on all income. At the highest rate, it would decrease the remaining amount to $95.858.49. This means they pay a total of $54,141.51 in taxes on an annual income of $150,000. At the lower rate of 22%, it amounts to a grand total of $51,673.68 they’d pay.

In America, an individual is looking at a tax rate of 10% on the first $11,925. They pay 12% on everything earned between $11,925 and $48,475, 22% from that amount to $103,350, and 24% up to $197,300. So, the same person earning $150,000 in the United States would have a Federal Tax burden of $28,847, which is substantially higher than the federal taxes paid in Denmark.

To factor in municipal taxes, the closest comparison is to consider state income taxes, where applicable.

In the eight states where there is no State Income Tax, that $28,847 is all the individual pays, based on their annual wage. Most of us, of course, live in the 42 states where there’s an income tax levied on an individual’s wages.

Fourteen of those states have a single rate applied to all income, as opposed to a progressive system like we have at the federal level. Arizona is 2.5%, Colorado and Mississippi are 4.4%, Georgia is 5.39%, Idaho is 5.695%, Illinois is 4.95%, Indiana and Louisiana are 3%, Iowa is 3.8%, Kentucky is 4%, Michigan and North Carolina are 4.25%, and Pennsylvania is 3.07%.

In Arizona, the individual would pay an additional $3,750, and in Idaho, they would pay $8,542.50 in addition to the $28,847 they’re paying in Federal Income Tax. The larger amount is $38,389.50, so an individual living in Idaho would pay only $15,752.01 less in state and federal taxes than someone living in Denmark, on the same $150,000.

For states with progressive tax rates, you could be facing a maximum rate of 5% in Alabama and Massachusetts, 3.9% in Arkansas, 9.3% in California, 6% in Connecticut, 6.6% in Delaware, 7.9% in Hawaii, 5.58% in Kansas, 7.15% in Maine, 5.25% in Maryland, 7.85% in Minnesota, 4.7% in Missouri, 5.9% in Montana, 5.2% in Nebraska, 6.37% in New Jersey, 4.9% in New Mexico, 6% in New York, 1.95% in North Dakota, 3.5% in Ohio, 4.75% in Oklahoma and Rhode Island, 9.9% in Oregon, 6.2% in South Carolina, 7.6% in Vermont, 5.75% in Virginia, 4.82% in West Virginia, 5.3% in Wisconsin, and 8.5% in the District of Columbia.

For someone in North Dakota, that would translate into a total State Income Tax of $2,925, while in Oregon, it would come to $12,894.50 above the federal taxes collected, or a total tax burden of $41,741.50. This is only $12,400.01 below the maximum federal and municipal tax burden on the same income in Denmark.

We already know that taxes are higher in Denmark than in the U.S.. That comes as no surprise. But now we understand what the difference is, instead of imagining some abstract higher dollar value. So, let’s take a look at two other nations with universal healthcare.

Canadian federal taxes are 15% up to $41,883.75, 20.5% from there to $83,767.50, 26% up to $129,853.86 and 29% up to $184,992.22. The same $150,000 annual salary would lead to a total of $32,693.57 in federal taxes.

The individual provinces have their own tax rates, of course. The highest rate you’d experience at that salary would be in Nova Scotia, which is 21% on anything over $112,894.50. The lowest would be Nunavut, which has a rate of 11.5% on any income above $129,853.13. Looking at the highest rate, you’d be looking at an additional $24,829.79 beyond the $32,693.57 in federal tax, for a total of $57,523.36, which is moderately higher than the highest burden you’d encounter in Denmark.

In the UK, there is no tax burden up to the first $17,220.90. We’re looking at 20% from there until $68,869.90, and 40% up to $171,441.80. So for the same income of $150,000, you’d pay a total of $42,781.84 in federal taxes. You’d also be responsible for National Insurance Tax of 8% on earnings from $17,220.90 to $68,869.90, and 2% on earnings above that. Thus, you’d be paying an additional $5,754.52 on top of the $42,781.84, for a grand total of $48,536.36, which is lower than in both Canada and Denmark, but still slightly higher than the previous examples of Idaho or Oregon.

Of course, in Denmark, Canada, and the UK, you benefit from Single-Payer Healthcare along with those higher tax burdens; burdens that may not be quite as comparatively high as people in the U.S. often imagine them to be. Those increased taxes are largely offset by what we pay for our Insurance Premiums, even with employer-provided insurance.

The cost of individual Health Insurance Premiums in the U.S. can average anywhere from as little as $1,368 to as much as $8,951 per year, and family coverage is often dramatically higher. None of that even factors in the Out-Of-Pocket expenses for care and medication or multi-thousand-dollar deductibles we’re responsible for, before Health Insurance provides any assistance at all. For example, I have comparably fantastic Health Insurance through my employer. The Deductible for my Family Coverage is $3,300 annually, with an Out-Of-Pocket Maximum of $7,500. God forbid we have to find help Out-Of-Network, though, because the Deductible there is $10,000. Halfway through July, my Insurance Premium has cost me $1,491. It’s worth noting that this is entirely separate from Dental and Vision Insurance. To put all of that in perspective, that means that, in addition to the $1,491 I’ve paid just for the privilege of having Health Insurance, I also have to pay $3,300 Out-Of-Pocket before Insurance begins contributing to further Medical Care or Mental Health expenses. Until I’ve paid $7,500 Out-Of-Pocket, all my Health Insurance will contribute is a percentage toward those costs. I want to remind you that I have exceptionally affordable Health Insurance compared to many people I know.

All of this is brokered through Insurance Companies that receive massive Subsidies from the tax dollars we’re already paying. Companies that actually increase the cost of healthcare in the process. UnitedHealth Group, made famous by Luigi Mangioni, is a perfect example of this.

UnitedHealth Group raked in $372 Billion in 2023, $281 Billion of that revenue from the insurance division headed by Brian Thompson, the man killed on a New York City street by Mangioni. Only two years earlier, UnitedHealth’s insurance division obtained 72% of its revenue from Federal Subsidies, and it can only be assumed that the percentage increased by 2023. In 2024, the Federal Government spent between $1.7 and $1.9 Trillion on Healthcare Subsidies. All of this is money paid out to an industry of middlemen who have inserted themselves between people and their healthcare providers, while making massive profits in the process. In contrast, the UK spent approximately $353.5 Billion on healthcare in 2024. That is less than 19% of U.S. spending. Of course, the population of the UK is just shy of 70 Million, roughly 20% of the U.S. population of nearly 350 Million. What that means is that the Per Capita spending is virtually the same, though actually lower for the UK…but the majority of U.S. taxpayers see none of the benefits associated with that health spending. Looking at those numbers, it makes me wonder why there would even be a need to increase Income Tax rates if we weren’t propping up a parasitic and unnecessary industry in the process.

Or is it simply that the UK and other nations are better equipped to efficiently provide for their citizens than the U.S. happens to be? I’m willing to admit that we’re just not very good at doing things efficiently or effectively. I think there’s more than sufficient evidence to reinforce that perspective.

Beyond purely financial considerations, Single-Payer systems are far less likely to deny service, and when it does happen, it is typically an administrative error. Whereas, here in America, it’s a cost-saving measure on the part of the provider to maintain its profit margins.

And, the real kicker, if you don’t receive at least your premium costs in coverage from your insurer (and most people don’t), that money gets spread around to everyone else covered by the same insurance provider and to the people working there, leading to massive profits for the corporations in question and CEO salaries that can reach as high as $23 Million in total compensation. For example, even though I have reached my Deductible of $3,300 for the year, my Insurance Company is highly unlikely to pay out even the $1,491 I’ve paid so far in Premiums for their percentage of the payments before the new annual cycle begins.

Of course, none of this even takes into consideration the portion of my Premium that’s paid by my employer, which has reached almost $8,000 so far this year. So, even if my Insurance Company somehow ends up paying out $5,000 for their part of my Healthcare expenses, they’ve already got $4,419 lining their pockets without either me or my employer paying another dime toward the Premiums. I don’t get that money back. My employer certainly doesn’t receive the excess back at the end of the year either. Have you ever looked at your paychecks and calculated how much free money you and your employer are handing over to an Insurance Company that (as a policy) does whatever it can to avoid helping you? Now, take a moment to consider that all of the money coming in from people like you adds up to maybe a quarter of what the Insurance Company has for revenue.

But, of course, it’s “Socialism” if your Tax Dollars provide Single-Payer Health Coverage for every Citizen in the U.S.. But if your money is distributed between the thousands of people with the same insurer (while lining the pockets of the obscenely wealthy), then it’s an entirely different sort of thing. It’s “Socialism” even though it’s a Public Service provided by the Capitalist Governments of essentially every other Civilized Nation in the world, as well as several that we consider less than “First World” countries.

One additional benefit worth noting is that public universities cap most tuition at less than $13,000 per year in the UK. Canadians can expect an average annual tuition of under $4,800, and college tuition is not charged at all in Denmark. Whereas in the U.S., In-State tuition averages roughly $11,000 per year (ranging from less than $7k in Florida or Wyoming to more than $20k in Connecticut or Pennsylvania), and Out-Of-State tuition explodes to an average of around $30,000 (from less than $13k in South Dakota to more than $60k in Michigan).

Which is to say that you can be both healthier and better well-educated at substantially less cost in those nations, even when you factor in the increased tax burdens. Of course, as I pointed out already, there’s no reason to raise the taxes individuals pay in the U.S. if we were more efficiently utilizing the slightly higher amount the U.S. already pays Per Capita for Healthcare Subsidies than the government of the UK.

Don’t let idiots and fear-mongers influence you. None of the nations discussed are “Socialist” countries. They just take the role of government more seriously, providing for the public good.

It might also be worth noting that, in 2023, UnitedHealth Group donated $792,500 via PAC contributions to federal political campaigns. Roughly 54% of those PAC contributions went to Republican candidates and 45% went to Democrats.

It also spent an even more substantial amount of PAC funds on In-State campaigns all across the U.S.. This was divided up between individual candidates, party contributions, and ballot measures.

And, in 2024, UnitedHealth Group (according to its filing with the U.S. Senate) dedicated $6.85 Million toward lobbying efforts, above and beyond Millions in PAC spending. Think about that for just a moment. This Corporation receives most of its revenue from Federal Subsidies. And then it spends a small portion of that revenue to support the campaigns and political parties that ensure it keeps getting that money.

It’s easy to spend that kind of money when a company brings in a net income of $14.4 Billion (which was UnitedHealth’s lowest profit margin since 2019), a number heavily impacted by the Billions they spent recovering from a cyberattack on one of their claims processing subsidiaries. With everything adjusted accordingly, they proudly claimed a record high profit of $25.7 Billion for last year.

Spending $6.85 Million through lobbyists and millions more through PAC contributions isn’t a challenge when you have that kind of profit involved. The amount spent on corporate lobbying was, after all, only 0.048% of the net profit.

Of course, UnitedHealth Group has already dedicated $3.37 Million toward lobbying efforts so far in 2025, so they’re hardly skimping on graft despite it not being an election year.

While the industry rakes in massive profits, it’s happy to return the favor by lining the pockets of politicians and political parties across the political spectrum, all to ensure it has its interests taken care of.

If you can look at this and think it’s fine, while Single-Payer Healthcare would be too costly, you’re not only missing the point, but you’re being intellectually dishonest.