Home / Economy / The US Would be Running Budget Surpluses if it were all White

The US Would be Running Budget Surpluses if it were all White

Screen-Shot-2016-02-29-at-8.52.28-AM

The US Federal Government does not keep statistics on taxes paid by race. But, they keep statistics on income brackets by race, and an organization called “The Citizens for Tax Justice” calculates the proportion of ALL taxes (federal, state and local) paid by each income bracket.

And so using this data we can see that Non-Hispanic Whites paid 75.86% of the taxes despite being only 62.1% of the population.

Whites paid at least 75.86% of all taxes in 2014

Bracket % of Whites in bracket % of all taxes bracket pays % of taxes paid by White-in-bracket
Top 5% 80.87 38.9 31.46
6-20% 77.72 25.4 19.74
21-40% 73.65 18.3 13.48
41-60% 68.3 9.9 6.76
61-80% 63.01 5.1 3.21
81-100% 57.41 2.1 1.21

Percent of whites in each tax bracket is available here.

Percent of total taxes (state, federal and local) paid by each bracket is available here.

And so with simple multiplication, we can roughly infer how much whites pay in taxes.

This is almost certainly an underestimate because of scaling. I.e. the whites who earn more money within each bracket is not captured. If this were broken down by each percentage point, more of the variation would be captured, and we would see that whites pay even more.

Whites use 64.9% to 69.8% of all Government

Whites use 64.9% or 69.8% of US Government depending on how you treat military spending. For entitlement usage by race, there is easily accessible data on this. For non-entitlement spending (roads, schools, courts, cops, military) I assumed each race got equal usage per capita, and so I call it “Equal Government”.

And so whites, being 62.1% of the population, are assigned 62.1% of the use in this.

For calculating the budget surplus in a hypothetical all-white United States, in one I scaled down military spending to the us White population (62.1% in 2014), and in another, “(Static Military)” I kept the spending at 2014 levels.

Gov’t Category $ Spent (billions) White Use % White Use $ White Tax Payment
“Equal Government” 3,482 62.1 2162.32
Social Security 1,262 84.07 1060.96
Medicare 505 76.02 383.90
Medicaid 476 48.7 231.81
Welfare 472 38.8 183.14
Total 6,197 64.9 4022.13 4,529.52
(Static Military) 6,197 69.8 4326.13 4,529.52

White use of social security is available here

White use of medicare is available here

White use of medicaid is available here

White use of welfare is available here

Total US Government Spending at all levels in 2014 is available here

Total US Government Revenue of all types and at all levels in 2014 is available here

And so based on this, whites only consumed $4,022.13 billion in government, but paid $4,529.52 billion in taxes assuming a scaled-down military. Assuming a military of the same size, whites consumed $4,326.13 billion.

Money spent aggregates State, Federal and Local spending (which is why Medicaid is almost as much as Medicare). “Equal Government” includes everything else, including military spending and interest on the national debt.

Static Military is a calculation that doesn’t reduce military spending in this hypothetical white-only nation, which in 2014 meant keeping it at $801.1 billion. So a white-only US would probably be able to maintain current US military spending and run a budget surplus.

That said, the ultimate takeaway is that US budget deficits are entirely a function of non-whites. And that is NOT hypothetical, even after assigning 100% of the military budget to whites.

Depending on how you treat military spending, whites pay $507.39 billion more in taxes than they get in government, or $203.39 billion more if we assign all military consumption to whites.

Regionality

One counter to this would be that whites benefit from having non-whites around.

The problem is that, whatever the proposed mechanism by which whites benefit from having non-whites around, it doesn’t seem to play out by region:

Region % White Median Income of White Males Median Income of White Females
Northeast 67.6 $40,435 $25,090
Midwest 77.2 $36,892 $22,803
South 59.0 $37,666 $22,199
West 50.9 $41,366 $23,140

White percentage data is avialable here

Income data is avialable here

Using the numbers from 2012 in both.

If there is any kind of causal relation, it’s certainly not a very strong one, and it’s not consistent. Maybe whites in the West benefit from the large hispanic population, but the fact that whites in the Northeast make a lot more money than whites in the South suggest that other factors are far more important.

And much of the higher incomes of whites in the West, who live mostly in California, Oregon and Washington, are offset by higher costs of living than in the Midwest or South.

The Cost of Non-Whites

Perhaps in the future I will break down the cost of non-whites by each racial group, as non-whites does include East Asians and Indians, who are probably even bigger net tax payers than whites.

But for now, we can calculate the cost of non-whites with both the static military and scaled-down military assumption:

For the “static military” assumption where non-whites are associated with zero increase in military spending, non-whites on net create a $430.09 billion deficit (remember this includes both state and federal), or $3,558.58 per capita.

For the “scaled military” assumption where non-whites are associated with an increase in military spending in proportion with their population increase, non-whites on net create a $733.75 billion deficit, or $6,071.07 per capita.

Conclusion

Obviously just instantaneously removing all non-whites from the United States would cause massive dislocation today since they are so embedded in the US economy. However, if they never were in the US economy, there is no reason to believe the median incomes of US whites would be lower.

One counter to this could be that Europe is mostly white, and those countries still run massive deficits. The purpose of this article is not to say that an all-white population guarantees budget surpluses, but that the United States, as it is currently constituted, would be running budget surpluses if it were all white.

Moreover, back when the US had fewer non-whites as a proportion of the population, it’s not like whites in the US were all socialists and running big deficits.

And thus from a financial standpoint, the US would be far better off, and the “national debt” and “deficit” is almost entirely a function of non-whites.

  • Sven

    I didn’t need to read past the headline to know the premise is wrong.

    The US MUST, MUST run a deficit because we are the reserve currency of the world.

    If you don’t know that and are writing articles about deficits and the economy, time to hit the books.

    I recommend everyone also look up “Cloward-Piven Strategy”. The welfare state is not an accident.

    Milennials, get your heads out of your asses and out of Pokemon and learn about the economy. EVERYTHING revolves around money yet everyone wants to look everywhere but there. Technology and FB do not mute the timeless laws of true economics.

    • INFOCAT

      LOL, the point of the article is that the US would need to redistribute far less money to unproductive people if it were all white. Ryan is not attacking the Fiat Money system underlying the entire worlds problems. He`s just showing that the US has too many welfare leeches.

      • Sven

        I understand fully what he means but the headline is bunk and my statements are true.

        You could completely abandon the welfare state and we’d still have to run a deficit.

  • FireDog

    the overall big picture and argument is incomplete because it lacks the data by all races and their “contributions in and out” of the US social systems.

  • getitright

    I would be interested to test the theory in a practical way.
    Compare the state of ND to CA and see what the larger % of Hispanic immigrants really add to the economics of CA as compared to what the predominant white population of ND demonstrates.

    • FireDog

      Hmm…YOU appear to be holding a RACIST view when no “skin color” was brought up in my comment. I, unlike you, seek ALL DATA to make informed decisions. But YOU called yourself out as a commie puke IMMIGRANT…return to your ancestral sand lands commie puke.

      • getitright

        Not an argument.
        Hispanic does not imply a skin color. As for the tern “white” in my comment you may feel free to substitute Anglo American, Wasp, Alt Right Extremist, or whatever pejorative that is popular in the modern NWO leftist progressive jargon du jour.

  • Kelly Nur

    The stupid runs deep here.

  • Ben Balcombe

    Based on the hateful, racist logic of this report, if you killed off everyone except the 10 richest people in the country then the US would run at a huge surplus!

  • Deplorable William

    While negroes undoubtedly take far more from welfare and social security and disability and so on, let us not forget the TRILLIONS of dollars we spend on Police, Prisons, Guards, investigations, court and all related expenses due to negroe crime. Plus the health care costs when Ja’maltavious gets shot by his homie and winds up in the ER, then surgery, then rehabilitation, possibly a wheelchair, ongoing treatments. Just so he can get back in the street and get shot dead by another homie.