>Looking at outlays
>by government agency, the Treasury Department has taken over
>20% for the past decade, which I presume represents largely
>the repayment to wealthy interests for the loans the government
>took out. Combine that with Defense and these agencies have
>comprised 40% of all outlays.
Since a large chunk of the deficits pays for the non-defense parts of the budget, you can't count all debt as non-aid for the average voter. And a large portion of defense is payroll for soldiers and for the pay of defense workers, not by favorite forms of job programs, but not going directly into the pockets of corporate profits either.
>Which is a
>decidedly biased welfare state if you're poor and young.
>... So I'm not
>sure the poor and working class are getting all that much.
Hey, Max and I argue all the time over the problem of regressive taxes, but it is true that social security has some very progressive elements, and don't forget the disability payments involved for the non-old disabled. And relieving the burden on the working poor of covering the retirement and health costs of their parents is not a small gain either.
The fact remains that our tax system generally transfers taxes paid by wealthier citizens to benefits enjoyed by less-well-off people. It could be more progressive, but we are approaching the point where almost half of all families pay no federal income taxes for anything other than social security. So they are enjoying all non-SS benefits essentially tax-free.
In that sense, our tax plus welfare system at the federal level may be more progressive than European welfare states that depend much more heavily on payroll and VAT sales taxes that fall much more heavily on working families.
-- Nathan Newman