E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIf you’re among the millions of Americans who will be filing your federal income taxes in the coming weeks, chances are you’ve given some thought to how you’d like those hard-earned dollars to be spent.
A new survey finds that overall, Americans would like Uncle Sam to spend their tax dollars on making health care affordable, creating jobs and improving education. Defense spending and environmental protection were at the lower end of the list of priorities.
The online survey of a representative sample of 1,000 Americans, conducted on behalf of brokerage TD Ameritrade in mid-November, asked respondents what three areas they would choose to support with their tax dollars. The survey has a 3 percentage point margin of error.
The survey found that 38 percent would like their tax dollars to go toward making health care more affordable, while 36 percent think the government should invest in job creation. About 28 percent said a top priority should be that the government improve the quality of education.
The least popular of the choices offered were protecting the environment, investing in job training and defense spending. Each of those garnered less than 18 percent of the vote.
In reality, your tax dollars are far more likely to go toward defense than education. Last year, the White House released a handy calculator so Americans could see where their tax dollars were spent.
According to the administration’s calculations, about 25 percent of tax dollars are going to national defense. Another nearly 24 percent is going toward health care, in the form of programs such as health insurance for children and Medicare.
While education may be a top priority for those surveyed, it is not currently a top budget item. A little under 4 percent of last year’s tax dollars went to education, according to the White House calculations.
Leave a Comment:
The question implies only one of the answers can be correct, but the fact of the matter is that all of these programs, and others, are important. We already fund each at historically unequaled levels. The only thing we should debate is how much each should get. Each person will have their own ideas. I vote that the job of the federal government is first to ensure the people are protected: defense, law enforcement, judiciary. The second is to promote jobs: ease off expensive and ineffective regulation, stop wasting education money trying to make scholars of people who have no aptitude or desire to be one and spend it on giving them a basic education and teaching them marketable trades (education requires money, but it's culture and purpose needs to be better, and you can't buy that). The third is to promote the well-beingof it's citizens: care for those who cannot care for themselves (not those too lazy to do so), radical tort reform to eliminate the expense of defensive medical practices and law suits (we would get better and less expensive health care). The environment is important, but requires a cultural change rather than increased funding.
Govt should protect us and in order for you to willingly pay, they keep you scared. They also declare war on everything, war on drugs, ignorance, poverty etc etc. We also have the best congress money can buy, there can be no health care reform without tort reform, 17% or our GNP is health care, it is unsustainable.
ER1953,Great suggestions and solutions.
I vote to change tax system, and dissolve (expell) IRS and Federal Reserve System - both private corporations sucking the life out of our country.
ER1953
Exactly. All of those items need funding, it is just how much. I have no problem spending money, I just want them to be both wise and frugal with the spending. That is the problem today. For the past 50+ years, congress has spent like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse. There has been no responsibility or accountability in Washington for over 50 years and our debt, growth of government, and deficits are proof of that. One of these days the FED is going to hold a debt auction and no one will come; What then?
I won't live long enough for it to affect me directly, but I have 4 grandchildren that will have to pay the price for our irresponsibility.
That pesky Constitution! Arguably the best document ever written about how to govern a republic. And the folks who responded to this survey have no clue what it says and means. Let's see: 1) Education - NOT a Federal function. Therefore the States are responsible if they want to be. 2) Job Creation - NOT a federal function. Private sector (if the Feds would get out of the way). 3) Health Care - again NOT a federal function. AND the FDA, via it's arcane and dangerous dietary recommendations is actually RESPONSIBLE for most of the poor health in the country.
@Chris. I DO have trouble spending money on things that are not Constitutionally allowed. I perceive that what you mean is that you have no trouble spending MY money.
The federal government's primary duties are to provide for mutual defense of the states, and to provide a level, just, legal playing field for individuals to thrive--not too much more than that, arguably. National parks: no real problem there with most people--OK. Federal highway system: national defense--OK. Efficient postal system: part of the legal framework (postmarks are still important from a legal standpoint)--most are OK with it.
Quit taking so much from individuals via the income tax for the federal government, and let states tax their own people as they see fit. When money is sent to the Fed govt, and they're "nice" enough to "give it" to the states, there's just too damned much leakage.
We are a confederation of states (or should be). Let's go back to that. Yeah, I know, states' rights ended in 1865. Might be time to revisit that concept.
Alan,Outstanding comments.We should revisit that concept.
LOL, do that and watch what happens!
All of the "State's Rights" loonies don't realize just how much economic protection the Union provides.
Imagine for a moment that you look at this situation in economic terms rather than the current political ones, since political environments would dramatically shift in a move to a confederacy.
First off. The Interstate Commerce Clause would no longer be enforceable.
So...Riddle-me-this:
What happens when two wealthy Democratic stronghold-states decide to do an economic boycott on states that do not support their particular viewpoint on things? What kind of state's rights exist when a more powerful economy is able to pressure smaller ones nearby.
In more specific terms, what happens to AZ's gun-control laws and stance on police powers and immigration if CA could tariff all AZ-bound commerce coming out of the Ports of LA and Long Beach? Same would apply to all of the Louisiana Purchase states in fact considering how much more expensive shipments would be coming through the Panama Canal to arrive in Texas.
If you don't play by CA's rules, you lose all commerce with Asia
Apply the same thing to NY. What happens to the Midwest and the upper-South if NY decides to put the screws to its Red-state neighbors that don't tow the line as the Apple sees fit?
The fact of the matter is, considering that most Red-states are agrarian and rural while most Blue-states are urban and industrial, if you lift the political protections and stop-gaps, the economic influence of the wealthier industrialized and diversified states would overwhelm the less influential.
This effect is already seen to a rather significant extent just by the pollution standards set by NY and CA. Much of the rest of the country is forced to play ball simply because it's more valuable to trade with these two juggernauts than to lose that commerce.
So please, by all means, reap the whirlwind.
Seriously:
Great post. One minor point, one "toes the line," not "tow"it.
LOL .... So seriously..... if the midwest decided to cut off or increase the cost of food, I doubt being an urban industrialized state would be that advantageous. CA can't pay it's bills with federal help what makes you think they could force anyone to play by their rules being on their own?
@ tackandcover
LOL, you are correct! Man, I've been using that one improperly for quite a while! I'm amazed at the number of English teachers that completely let that one slip by unnoticed when I used it in school!
@ gday67
CA is highly diversified and also has a major agricultural industry and provides/finishes a vast array of agricultural products. The Midwest would only pad the margins of CA and Pacific-NW growers by such a move.
An attempt by the Midwest to strong-arm CA by threatening to starve it would suddenly find that they lack both the largest customer to sell their produce to (nor ship it abroad) but also the financing to purchase the capital to even keep their operations intact (since CA also has a large financial industry).
The Midwest has neither the population density to be self-sufficient, nor the diversification of industries to shift effectively in the even that CA cuts agri-commerce with a (set of) hostile neighbor(s).
Look no further to how Walmart is able to strong-arm their suppliers for a brief overview of how an unleashed CA and or NY could handily pressure smaller, less wealthy/influential states into doing their bidding.
State sovereignty goes right out the window without the protections afforded by the Interstate Commerce Clause. Remeber, CA's GDP alone is effectively the same size as France...without the need to support a standing army, NATO participation, or a nuclear arsenal.
@Alan. Very well said. But you left out one key word:
"We are a confederation of SOVEREIGN states".
Which is why the original Constitution had the Senator APPOINTED by the legislatures of the SOVEREIGN states. They were actually ambassadors of a sovereign government to the Federal government, and also a part of the Federal government. Most of the states who ratified the original Constitution expressly did so with the understanding that they would remain sovereign. Yet another thing the Progressives screwed up in the name of democracy. But at least they did it right, via a Constitutional amendment.
@ Seriously. You appear to be clueless about what states rights mean. The examples you use are exactly what the Commerce Clause is supposed to be about and has absolutely nothing to do with states rights. Unfortunately, Scotus has so twisted what the clause really means that it's unrecognizable. What would any state stand to gain be taxing commerce coming into the state, knowing full well that the other states will do the same to them. Really you Libs can come up with some good ones. States rights, exercised properly, would sequester all federal taxes collected in the State NOT designated to enumerated federal powers. Unfortunately, no single state will do this because the Feds can blackmail them into submission.
I was going down the road of what might occur if the US were to be a confederacy of states (similar to OPEC) than to be a federal union as we are currently, and no, the Interstate Commerce Clause cannot be in effect in a confederacy because it requires that a central, federal authority acts essentially as a referee between the various states.
Considering the motivation for the interstate commerce clause's creation and evolution, I'd say that there's quite a bit of motivation. Imagine if states like CA, CO and NV could take retaliatory measures on states like TX for attempting to lure businesses away.
Collusion would be a very serious issue
Poor assumptions are poor. You can attempt to label me all you like in an attempt to invalidate my points. But you have not. But thanks for helping us all immediately identify you :)
There are a lot of states that receive more in federal benefits than they pay in. Most notably the Red states since they are typically rural/agrarian.
Sequestration by the states holding out contributing federally would accomplish the same issue
Do a survey of 1000 people and ask them how they would prefer to spend their own paychecks and give them choices of vacations, housing, paying bills, etc and you will start to see some of the fallacy of this whole exercise. Of course I want MY taxes to go to noble causes (like education), while someone else's taxes should go to defense.
The notable item left off? Interest. In reality, more tax dollars probably go to paying interest on our debt than any other single item. (Hey, the same might be true of many people's paychecks as well!)
Bruce,Yes the interest needs to be paid along with the huge debt.The Feds need money and job creation(people who are employed pay taxes),like fixing the infrastructure is a good start.
You mean as an alternative to paying taxes? Apples and oranges...
You're the one making the logical fallacy since the exercise is not "If you could avoid paying taxes, what would you spend that money on?", the exercise is "What would you rather have your taxes spent on?"
And as for spending on defense, again, you're making the false assumption that people don't want any money spent on defense, or alternatively none of their money.
Most rational people would agree that we need to spend money on defense...but simultaneously, many of those people would also agree that we are spending far more on defense than is necessary and we have gone ridiculously beyond decreasing marginal returns for dollars spent considering the pervasive waste and fraud.
As for interest on debt, absolutely, most of the federal receipts are actually spent on paying interest since that is done with real income and fortunately not (yet) paid with more debt issuances.
ALL tax dollars are spent on paying interest on the debt to Federal Reserve, and it does no cover all of the interest, so the government borrows more , just to pay the interest. None of the principal is paid off :(
The point is if taxes were substantially reduced people could afford to spend and this would generate more businesses hiring more people at better wages who could also spend and prosper. Obama's tax tax tax plan does the opposite of the above plan and creates more and more and more poverty which in turn creates higher deficits along with the need for yet greater taxes and yet more poverty and economic distress.
Well said GHX!
To imply that a spending differential equates to national priority is disingenuous, at best. It could merely mean that a particular service costs more to effectively supply.
That said, the only listed service for which there is no rational means to assess a fee for services rendered in national defense. The government subsidizes the others, but we are reliant on them in full for defense on a national level.
Infrastructure = jobs, education = employees qualified to do the jobs, environment/green energy = jobs.
And should be left to the states, along with the money the feds take that would finance them.
I'll tell you how I don't want my tax dollars spent.......For silly entitlement programs such as welfare cell phones, etc
ho-hum. Yet another whiner who believes the rwnj spin about "obama phones"... if you all ever bothered to do a little research, you might just be dangerous.
I agree this is a terrible program designed to enrich cell phone companies but it was actually created by GB and has nothing to do with Obama. The fact is GB gave a huge amount to the poor in this nation. Something that despite his talk to the contrary Obama has not done at all!
The federal government spends far too much money on programs that the states should be paying for. Until the national debt is paid off and we have a true budget surplus, we need to stop all discretionary spending at the federal level.
Here, Here !!!
And stop spending what we have not given you yet !!!!
Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember all of the political fights of the late 70's into early 80's trying to get a Balanced Budget and within the same lifetime here we are again in Spades (No racist comment intended) with the same problem. Except now we do not even attempt to define a Budget.... My generation has to wonder what we did wrong to get to this.
The states are required to balance their budgets, but they haven't been maintaining their spending levels. They've been able to do this because the federal government isn't required to balance its budget, allowing it to give money to the states, allowing them to spend, spend, spend! The only fix is to mandate a balanced budget amendment, and the only way to get that is to impose term limits on congress, line item veto/vote.
There was a time that Congress had to debate over where to spend the limited amount of tax revenue it brought in. If Montana got $1, that meant there was $1 less to give to another state. It's not like that anymore. Now, when Montana gets that $1, the Fed just prints another $1.40. Makes me sick, and I feel sorry for our kids for what they are being left with.
I hope you know that "discretionary spending" includes the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Health. They already get the brunt of budget cuts to begin with - yet produce quite a lot more than they get press for...
I'm willing to cut them out. They can at least be cut back.
The DOE can be wiped out entirely. What a massive waste of money and resouces for an utter failure.
Less money given to foreign countries we don't care about (look at the foreign aid given to CHINA our largest debt holder, and then at undeveloped 3rd world countries...). People don't realize that defense spending does just mean more money to start wars or station soldiers somewhere. Defense spending encompasses a HUGE spectrum of topics, from tech R&D to logistics and maintenance, ALL of .
Not to mention, countries who want to rebuild will soon instigate wars/conflicts with the US as the US makes sure everything is rebuilt. The US will make sure billions will go into rebuilding the country as we do now already. Bomb them, then pull out WWI and II style vs Germany. Nation building, that's the only "defense" spending I agree with cutting.
Entitlement programs need MAJOR overhaul to reduce how much income they generate and to reduce overwhelming abuse. $680 in foodstamps for a family of four per month? My family of four spends half that, no coupons and includes junk food. Cap it at $400 and teach people to balance a budget.
Foreign aid is less than 1%of the federal budget and has been for decades
If all the Senators & Congressmen would take a reduced pay in yearly salary including eliminating all the "perks" of the job and their guaranteed pension and lifetime healthcare benefits and put all that money into the necessary programs that they require legal law abiding tax payers to compensate - then we would not be having this discussion in the first place!
Lady,Excellent suggestions.You're right on the money.
Total all that up and it comes to chump change.
repair our infrastructure......the roads are horrible, traffic is backed up, dams are failing, bridges are crumbling, our power grid is suspect, water systems are failing, sewerage treatment is overloaded......this should create some jobs and protect the environment......
Joe,I am with you on this one.What have these buffoons been doing with that gas tax money all of these years anyway?They sure aren't fixing California's roads and highways.You mention the power grid and that's another disaster waiting to happen.It also needs repairing which will create jobs and in turn those people doing the jobs will be paying taxes.
People are driving less, cars are getting better MPG than ever before, and the federal gas tax (18.4 cents per gallon) has not been increased since 1993. If it were indexed for inflation the federal gasoline tax wold be about 29.5 cents per gallon.
That is because 100% of our money goes to interest and entitlement programs that produce nothing in return!
takeandcover,That gas tax was temporary when I was a kid.that was 62 years ago.
Reduce our federal budget deficit. We have a spending problem and need to tackle our national debt that is spiraling upwards out of control.
We have a spending problem AND a revenue problem. Doing only one will not work.
J - Roughly how much more in taxes would you think is appropriate?
We know that the more we are taxed the less we produce, this is econ 101.
I see education mentioned over and over. If we leave it to the government to educate our children, our children will know only what the government wants them to know, and they will think the way the government wants them to think. My children are not robots to be surrendered to the care of a machine.
Pay back the money borrowed from social Security.Put Medicare back where it was and don't use it to fund the ACA .Lastly,Our roads and bridges are in dismal shape.Get them fixed and in doing so it will create jobs.Education is next.Our school buildings are outdated.Get them fixed and in doing so it will create jobs.Open back up all of the bases that closed in the U.S. so our returning service men will have jobs which puts money back into those communities,which comes from the defense budget.another defense budget issue is securing our borders between Canada and the U.S. and Mexico and the U.S.,creating even more jobs.People become employed,they pay the federal tax dollars and it's a win,win.
Pedestrian in SF,I like your comments and don't know why people collapsed them.They should be reinstated.
There is way to much emphasis on the government 'doing' something like creating jobs. Government can regulate and create an economic environment, but they don't create jobs. The Federal government is depressing jobs with the massive deficit they are continuing to create.
Defense is the clear role of the U.S. government, and we must remain the absolute leader in military technology.
Many of the so-called 'pork' activities of Congress ought to be unceremoniously terminated.
In general we expect the government to do too much, and it costs way too much because they end up with too many people with their fingers in the pie.
I agree with some others spending on Education and job creation - in the form of basic research, infrastructure (roads, bridges, railroads etc.)
Make health care public if we want to lower costs, why are we lining the pockets of share holders, paying for naming rights at major sports venues, advertising etc instead of putting those dollars towards caring for people. I don't buy the argument that we have more choice with a private system - just look at what drugs you can and cannot get, and how the insurance companies dictate what treatments you can get. I'm not a share holder of an insurance company so I have no choice on who gets to decide what healthcare I can get for how much. If it were public I'd at least have a chance of throwing the bums out of office every two years....
Focus on education and the environment will follow... the military needs educated soldiers
This is the perfect example of why I HATE surveys! The title makes it sound like Washington should sit up and take notice because this is what the majority of Americans thinks.
This was an on-line survey of 1,000 people who were allowed to choose the three areas that were important to them?
Lovely, great. Very scientific.
Where's using the money to reduce the deficit? Finding different energy sources or repairing the infrastructure and things like that?
Energy research is already being performed, from DoE scientific research budgets. You can see where the money is going -- the DoE funds the national laboratory system. It's on the order of billions of dollars a year, but when it's all said and done, all scientific research amounts to about 1% of the federal budget.
The environment before it is too late. Unfortunately we can not stop the damage already done, but we can work towards slowing it's further demise.
Since all our taxes are spent on paying interest on the debt to Federal Reserve System, a private corporation, whose only job is to print and supply (lend) money to our government, there is no chance that in the current situation tax maney will be applied to anything worthy. However, we can dream :)