Powered by Jitbit Asp.Net Forum free trial version.
Recent Messages - What We Pay For
Discussion Board Navigation Menu

What We Pay For :: Forum

recent posts - RSS

Home » Recent messages

4/18/2011 11:29:28 AM
Topic:
Budget Total Mismatch?

kenact
kenact
Posts: 3
Taking their figures for "My Share" of Discretionary Spending, and adding it to "My Share" of Mandetory Spend, typically does not add up to their figure for "My Share" of All Spending.

Example:

Based on an income of $85,000
My Share of All Administration of Justice Spending = $357.16
My Share of Discretionary Administration of Justice Spending = $996.53
My Share of Mandetory Administration of Justice Spending = $19.87

$996.53 + $19.87 = $1016.40 not $357.16

My Share of All Agriculture Spending = $169.81
My Share of Discretionary Agriculture Spending = $133.01
My Share of Mandetory Agriculture Spending = $205.74

$133.01 + $205.74 = $338.75 not $169.81

I could go on, but all of the "My Share" numbers appear to be wrong.
4/18/2011 10:13:04 AM
Topic:
Social Security income cap not accounted for

kenact
kenact
Posts: 3
Andrew wrote:
Our reason why we included SS is because it's included in the federal budget, which we're not striking any accounts from. We view it as money in and money out.


You are only presenting one side of the budgetary picture. Expenditures cannot exist without Revenue, and you are only showing the Expenditure side of the equation.

Andrew wrote:
We have also heard the argument that we should not include mandatory spending for similar reasons - it's allocated to one specific thing and can even have a separate source of funding other than individual income taxes. The case to remove SS from view seems more political than not, but if you can convince us otherwise we'll be happy to change it.


The case to report SS as an expenditure without providing the information regarding the revenue side of that equation sounds more political.

Since SS is taking in more than it pays out, and will do so for quite some time, trying to point to SS as a budget problem is at best misleading.

The goal of this site is aparently to get people angry about the amount of income tax they pay and the amount of waste and fraud in the government. That's fine, but given the fact that excess revenue from FICA (money collected via FICA, but not issued as a SS payout) is being used to help fund non-Social Security aspects of the federal government, it would seem that the people should be more outraged about their FICA than their Income Tax rate.
edited by kenact on 4/18/2011
4/18/2011 9:46:22 AM
Topic:
Social Security income cap not accounted for

kenact
kenact
Posts: 3
johnsat wrote:
hanleybrand wrote:
It's a (perhaps not so small) thing, but social security withholdings are capped according to the wage base, which is $106,800 for 2011. Anyone earning above that amount should pay the same to social security as someone who earns the base, if I understand how it work correctly (I don't earn that much, so I can't confirm from personal experience


I bring it up because Bernie Sanders recently pointed out that the wage base being maintained (or put another way, having billionaires pay the same as someone making 100K/year) is the difference between social security being solvent or going broke in the next 30 years.



Sources:
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/colafacts.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base


http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bernie-sanders-lift-income-cap-social-secu


example incomes/line items from the WWPF data set:
$106,800
Social Security$6397.36
150,000
Social Security$8958.16


250,000
Social Security$15671.00

500,00
Social Security$33509.95



The biggest issue I see with this idea is that the cap on SS payouts would have to increase as well. One would not necessarily offset the other.

Since the life expectancy in this country is increasing, it would be fair to start gradually increasing the retirement age, but the best way to keep SS solvent is to make sure our workforce is employed to the maximum extent it can be and that wages for those under the cap start rising to at least keep pace with inflation.
4/16/2011 4:47:29 PM
Topic:
Budget Total Mismatch?

pgkool
pgkool
Posts: 2
Bump, Com'on none of the admins have an explanation for the $120 billion difference?
4/3/2011 3:21:19 PM
Topic:
Budget Total Mismatch?

pgkool
pgkool
Posts: 2
I downloaded this receipts and outlays from the Finical Management Services.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.xls

If you total all of 2010's outlays we come up with a total of ~$3,480B, while on your site we have a total 2010 budget of $3,600B.

What am I missing here?
edited by pgkool on 4/16/2011
3/29/2011 3:25:31 PM
Topic:
What happens now?

carl
carl
Posts: 1
So the deadline is past.

What happens to the API now? I would like to keep working on my visualization, maybe put it on my website. Will this API still exist? Will it continue to be able to support large-ish traffic volumes? Do I need to sign any dotted lines?
3/24/2011 5:07:02 PM
Topic:
Template loop a bit broken

benjaminhill
benjaminhill
Posts: 1
I think the for...in in the API template is a bit broken, bad javascript loop, shows SS a few times at the bottom of the page.
3/22/2011 4:02:47 PM
Topic:
what are the bureau IDs?

georgebrower
georgebrower
Posts: 1
You can reference the bureau ID's against the bureau names provided by this call:

view-source:http://www.whatwepayfor.com/api/getBudgetAccount
3/14/2011 8:44:07 PM
Topic:
what are the bureau IDs?

_soss_
_soss_
Posts: 1
I'm trying to figure which bureau is which , but can't find any docs on IDs.

ie. http://www.whatwepayfor.com/api/getBudgetAggregate?bureau=1
3/8/2011 4:05:03 PM
Topic:
amounts

Andrew
Andrew
Administrator
Posts: 5
Good question. These are expressed in thousands of dollars.
3/7/2011 2:52:19 PM
Topic:
broken link, methinks, in API documentation

cwcampbell
cwcampbell
Posts: 1
Regarding this bit:
We've also included a basic HTML / JavaScript template that allows you to easily poll the WhatWePayFor API.
Click here to view an example template.

However, clicking the link gets me this:
Oops! Google Chrome could not find example-template.
Thought you'd want to know. Thanks for sponsoring this challenge!
3/5/2011 12:59:30 PM
Topic:
amounts

mrapley
mrapley
Posts: 1
http://www.datavizchallenge.org/using-api says amounti is Total budget for this account nationally, in dollars.


Actual values returned by query appear to be in thousands of dollars. Are the values returned supposed to be expressed in dollars or thousands of dollars?


Thanks,
Martin
3/2/2011 7:10:57 PM
Topic:
Social Security income cap not accounted for

Andrew
Andrew
Administrator
Posts: 5
jimmygiii is correct

jimmygiii wrote:
You are correct that social security withholdings are capped at $106,800 for 2011 and 2010. However, I think that whatwepayfor.com is returning the allocation of our tax dollars at different income levels, which is different from the amount of taxes withheld from our paychecks.
3/2/2011 7:05:24 PM
Topic:
Social Security income cap not accounted for

Andrew
Andrew
Administrator
Posts: 5
johnsat wrote:
It is misleading to include Social Security in the federal totals. Social Security should have its own separate presentation, especially for allocating my taxes to “what I’m paying for.” Social Security has its own sources of income, and its income isn’t related to the income tax I pay. The federal govt. can’t just use SS’s revenue. SS is a separate, closed fund. It has to invest the money it receives, of course, and it could theoretically invest in anything, but it invests in U.S. govt. securities, thus making funds available to the federal govt. However, if it didn’t invest in U.S. govt. securities, the U.S. govt. would sell them to someone else, e.g., China, Japan, European countries. That doesn’t make SS’s expenses part of China’s budget. So neither SS’s receipts or expenditures should be lumped in with the U.S. govt. total.


Our reason why we included SS is because it's included in the federal budget, which we're not striking any accounts from. We view it as money in and money out. We have also heard the argument that we should not include mandatory spending for similar reasons - it's allocated to one specific thing and can even have a separate source of funding other than individual income taxes. The case to remove SS from view seems more political than not, but if you can convince us otherwise we'll be happy to change it.
3/1/2011 8:50:03 PM
Topic:
hey

<b>test</b>1
test1
Posts: 3
what is up
3/1/2011 8:46:00 PM
Topic:
hey

usr<b>hello</b>
usrhello
Posts: 1
test
3/1/2011 8:44:51 PM
Topic:
hi

<br>anick<br><br>aSecond<br>

anick

aSecond

Posts: 1
hi
2/26/2011 6:18:44 PM
Topic:
Processing Class

Michael Edgcumbe
Michael Edgcumbe
Posts: 3
(Corrected Link for above)
http://www.noisederived.com/WhatWePayForXML2.zip
2/26/2011 5:17:40 PM
Topic:
Income calculation

Louis
Louis
Administrator
Posts: 11
Can you elaborate more on your question? What category are you referencing?
2/26/2011 3:45:47 PM
Topic:
Processing Class

jonobr1
jonobr1
Posts: 2
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1595444/eyebeam-wwpf-demo-p5.zip

Home » Recent messages