Start with an American making 3800 per year. (similar to an average Indian)
Say he either owns a house, or more likely, pays rent. Either way, he has to pay property taxes. The amount varies by state, but... a reasonable number would be 1000.
Next, a car. Each state demands car insurance, which costs about 1000 per year. If our theoretical person doesn't buy car insurance, and just accepts occasional fines, he's likely to pay less- but still around 400 per year.
While I'm insurance, we can note health insurance. Of course, if he makes an even 3800 every year, he can get away with not paying anything. However, if he did try to buy health insurance, it would likely cost 3600. This amount is, obviously, impossibly high. The penalty for not having healthcare is around 700. Of course, he will most likely not pay this.
However, just because his average income is 3800 per year does not mean his yearly income is 3800 per year. Most likely, this person is moving in and out of work, some years making 20000 while making little to nothing in most years. Because of the way America structures its taxes, those with unstable incomes are taxed at much higher rates than those with stable incomes. Of course, stable income means, rich. Especially since the rich have large capital gains, which they sell when they aren't making much money, and buy when they are. This allows them to maintain contra-cyclic incomes that don't fall afoul of higher tax brackets in any given year.
Hence, I will include the mandate, at 100 per year. Adding in income tax, another 200 a year isn't unreasonable.
Next, sales tax. The specific numbers here are a little convoluted, but 100 a year isn't unreasonable.
The government also issues other, convoluted taxes, often on specific goods or activities. Furthermore, the government drives many prices up with regulations and other indirect mechanisms. To cover all of this miscellaneous expenses, I'm adding another 100 per year.
So-
Strictly legal- 3100
Without committing any jailable offense- 2100
As we can see, our theoretical person is paying over half his income to the government.
Government as a percent of gdp is around 40%. Also, I included certain items that the government doesn't like including in their own numbers, so 40% is probably too low. As such, a tax percent of 55%, is not unexpected. Unless one were to expect taxes to be progressive.
Now, to start on the other half of the equation- benefits.
What does our theoretical person get from the government?
Our theoretical person may or may not be receiving SNAP benefits. However, SNAP is set up so that responsibly growing your assets and maintaining a reserve, make you ineligible. It has been noted countless times, that just being poor makes everything more expensive. If our theoretical being were to gather his money, perhaps even across generations, he could pay the lower rates of buying a house instead of renting, paying in cash instead of borrowing, doing regular maintenance on his car instead of letting it break, etc.
Furthermore, as stated, his income is likely irregular. For more than half his years, he has at least some money in his bank.
In essence, SNAP is only useful for people who have expenses outpacing income. Normally, single mothers with multiple children. This group is also part of the poor, and the welfare state, but can be addressed elsewhere. At the minimum, I will assert that, it is not "the poor" who are driving the expense of the welfare state, but "single mothers with multiple children". This sector is hardly a welfare state and closer to a state minimum survival guarantee. And, it largely goes to children who have parents who are unwilling or unable to feed them.
Snap gives a beneficiary around 1600 per year.
Basically, the rest of America's welfare programs are worthless.
Poor people are unlikely to ever qualify for unemployment, because they only receive short term part time work. If they had steady employment, they wouldn't be poor to begin with. Furthermore, to receive unemployment, the recipient has to prove he's looking for work, which, often being an exercise in futility, is basically an act of flagellating for cash. In essence, welfare programs that require hard work, are no better than just going out in the streets and begging. This remains true from both a moralistic and a purely selfish viewport.
Retirement and disability are obviously worthless, since the poor tend to be young, and very specifically ineligible. Furthermore, very few people who complain about the crushing costs of the welfare state, are complaining about old veterans with pensions, disability, social security and medicare. As such, all such groups will be ignored.
By the same reasons noted above, social security and medicare don't count for anything.
The next major welfare spending category is housing assistance. The requirements are even more arcane than SNAP. To be fair, let's say our target, takes a loan under the adjustable rate mortgage insurance program. Banks would normally never lend to someone like him, but this program allows the government to provide insurance, such that our target may enter the viable range. The chances of eligibility for this particular program aren't exactly high, but there are other programs like it, and he's likely qualified for something.
Compared to rent, loans are typically 30% cheaper. This is worth, perhaps 600 a year. After SNAP the various government housing assistance programs are the largest outlet of government welfare. Receiving a little over a third of SNAP's benefits isn't unreasonable.
To keep track-
Government spending categories that have been addressed-
Social Security
Medicare
Welfare
Government spending that obviously doesn't give any benefit to the poor-
Interest on debt
Direct payments to the rich (Subsidies, bank bailouts, etc.)
Remainder-
Education
Law enforcement
Defense
Transportation
Transportation doesn't benefit the poor much if at all. This is because the bulk of the spending is in large cities populated by the rich, and the bulk of what's transported is property owned by the rich.
Education doesn't benefit the poor, because the poor aren't capable of getting college degrees, and high school level education gives no advantage. (People with no high school diploma make, around 80% of those who have a diploma but not a college degree. It is much more reasonable to assume that it is not the degree that raises wages, but correlated factors that lower the wages. Namely, people without high school degrees are, on average, lower iq and lazy. It is not surprising if, by working harder and more efficiently, a person makes 25% higher wages.)
The vast majority of defense spending is entirely unnecessary. Furthermore, the primary benefit of defense spending, is the ability to maintain a government. America's government doesn't provide particularly high quality of service to its poor, so the people who really want it maintained are the rich. Unless a poor person is directly working for the military, he's receiving little, if anything.
Finally, we reach law enforcement. Law enforcement receives around twice the funding of SNAP. However, very little is spent protecting the poor. In fact, the police tend to be dismissive of crimes against the poor, since the price of damage tends to be low, relative to the average. Except for the small amount spent to investigate and prevent direct acts of violence, the police do little. The vast majority of law enforcement spending, is meant to collect fines as some sort of twisted version of the IRS or to house inmates, most of whom committed non violent crimes. The poor receive minimal benefits from law enforcement. Assuming they aren't in jail.
With this we can produce three possible paradigms-
Worst case- Payments to government: 3100, Payment from government: Negligible.
Reasonable case- Payments to government: 2100, Payment from government: 1000.
Best case- Payment to government 2100, Payment from government 2600.
US tax law is highly chaotic, as are its benefits. Few people can keep within the best case for an extended period. Most likely, the same person will see a few years under the best case, a few years under the worst case and most years under the reasonable case.
In ten years, I expect 1 bad year, 3 good years and 6 reasonable years.
Each good year nets 500 in benefits.
A reasonable year costs 1100. A bad year costs 3100.
This results in an average yearly outlay of 1280. Or, around a third of total income.
An argument can be made that mothers with too many children are bankrupting America. Or that workers on the public dole are bankrupting America. Or that criminals are bankrupting America. However, these arguments are rare compared to the refrain that lazy parasites are bankrupting America.
Lazy bums are not net tax recipients. They are net tax payers. Receiving government benefits requires effort and/or capital. You can become a teacher, soldier, criminal, etc, you can buy government bonds or some equivalent, you can sell stuff to the government or you can have lots of children. You cannot just sit back and collect benefits in America.
As such, the welfare state, as popularly characterized, especially by republicans, does not exist.
