In his State of the Union Address, President Obama promised that this year, for the first time ever, American taxpayers would be able to go online and see exactly how their federal tax dollars are spent. Just enter a few pieces of information about your taxes, and the taxpayer receipt will give you a breakdown of how your tax dollars are spent on priorities like education, veterans benefits, or health care.

Click here to use this tool and see your receipt.

From Remapping Debate–

At a time when both the President and his GOP adversaries are looking to lower income tax rates, it is helpful to get some historical perspective — a process that quickly reveals that federal income tax burdens are near post- World War II lows.

Users of this tool will be able to make a host of observations. Two that Remapping Debate have noted: the halving of the tax burden from 1945 to 2011 for a married couple with taxable income (in 2010 dollars) of $1,000,000 saves that couple more than $340,000 over the tax bill that they would have had to pay back in 1945. A similar percentage reduction in tax burden for a married couple with taxable income (in 2010 dollars) of $30,000 saves that working class couple only about $3,350 over the 1945 bill.

Check out this great, interactive resource here!

Catholic Social Teaching tells us that we should always have our mind on those who are poor. If they have a hard time fulfilling their needs we as a nation should be able to help them since we are “the richest nation” in the world. We cannot let our fellow neighbor starve; we as a nation are better than that.

But this concern for the most vulnerable in our nation is not a priority of the Republican budget proposal for FY 2012.

One important program for mothers, infants and children is WIC. This Special Supplemental Nutrition Programs helped 9.2 million people in 2010. But proposed cuts would reduce those numbers by eliminating from 325,000 to 475,000 spots. This would result from cutting $833 million in next year’s budget. Is this providing for the most vulnerable? The Republican plan also includes cuts in other vital programs that help our senior citizens and other low-income people in our nation.

One program facing cuts is the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, or CSFP. The CSFP provides food for more than 600,000 low-income families every month, and 96% of these low-income families are seniors. They want to cut $38 million from this program and $63 million from The Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP. This program helps stock food for emergency food banks that provides a nutritional food source for low-income families. These types of budgets cuts should not be allowed.

Meanwhile, Republicans are helping those in our nation who do not need help; they are the ones who are benefitting from the extended Bush tax cuts. In particular, 321,000 households (income >$1million) received a tax break in 2011 worth approximately $139,199 or $2,900 per week. If we take Bush tax cuts for one week, the $866 million would be more than enough to cover the proposed cuts in WIC. Or if we take those same Bush tax cuts for one day, there would be $120 million. That would be more than enough to cover the proposed cuts of $110 million to CSFP and TEFAP.

Is this the type of government we want? Do we want a government that neglects people who are poor and continually rewards those who do not need it? Many Republican proposals hint they want a government like that. Catholic Social Teaching once again calls our nation and its citizens to be mindful of those who are not able to meet their basic needs. What is needed is a fair and equitable approach to balancing our budget. This means providing programs to help low-income families and eliminate all Bush tax cuts that only help a small group of people who don’t need help. In the end, we all have to come together to help with budget concerns and those who are in need.

Work Cited:

Melissa Boteach (Center for American Progress), from Budget Choices Up Close, 14 June 2011

This morning I read the headline “Boehner Says Only Taxes Off the Table in Debt Reduction Talks” and was once again outraged. The continuous Republican posturing about taxes is really about their recklessness a decade ago. In the Clinton years, when the deficit was an issue, tight federal spending and a boom economy created budget surpluses. The Republicans then immediately “forgot” that the surplus money was to be used to pay down debt and save for when the baby-boomers retired. So what did they do? They enacted sweeping tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthiest in our country. These policies continued to shift wealth to the top. Then the Bush Administration entered the US into two wars without doing anything to pay for them. It is these actions that have principally created the mess we are in today. The fact that the Speaker Boehner wants to protect the wealth of his campaign contributors is understandably loyal to them, but disloyal to the country. It makes me wonder if the debt issue is really such a problem or only a political tempest in a tea cup. From my perspective it is a problem that needs to be addressed responsibly. This means that revenue (taxes) and spending need to be on the table. It is irresponsible and unpatriotic to do otherwise.

Recently, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the way we talk about citizenship in this country. Especially when it comes to taxes and citizenship.

Does it bother anyone else that we’re now referred to as, “taxpayers” instead of “citizens?” I hate it. It seems an attempt to make me feel like a consumer and the government should give me great customer service. I’d like to think that my contributions to my country go much farther than the check I send on April 15 every year.

My father and I were having a discussion about unions when he came to visit earlier this month, and he said something that I think is valid. “Unions got greedy,” he said. I think that’s true to an extent. But I think we could substitute any number of nouns for unions, and it would still be true. “CEOs got greedy.” “Lawyers got greedy.” “Doctors got greedy.” “Professional athletes got greedy.”

Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece in the New Yorker where he makes this point: at some point in the 20th Century, people asked for what they could get instead of what they deserved or needed. (I’d link to the article, but unfortunately, it’s behind a paywall).

Bonuses are now like encores at concerts: expected, not special rewards for a job well done. Salaries keep climbing, regardless of actual performance, and the rich continue getting richer, even when they have to lay off workers to pay for those raises.

Americans, even those who are falling further and further behind, have come to believe that bonuses for the wealthy, or increasingly generous tax loopholes, should be the norm. And this type of thinking has affected the way we think and talk about taxes. People seem to believe that they should do everything they can to minimize the amount of taxes they pay.

But is it right? And should it continue? There’s been a lot of focus on General Electric right now, because itappears they’ve taken advantage of the complexity of the tax code to avoid paying their fair share. But they aren’t the only ones. It’s become a common practice across industries to take money that would be spent paying taxes to provide better roads, schools and other services and instead pay lobbyists and accountants to help companies avoid having to pay taxes.

What if we just accepted that taxes are necessary and good? What if we were to stop thinking that no money is enough, and started asking for what we need, instead of what we think we can get? I’m happy to be a citizen of the United States. I get clean water, sturdy roads, and I received a great education. I also know that during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, SNAP benefits helped keep families from starving. So I hope the taxes I paid in 2010 will help keep those benefits coming for all citizens.

Taxes are the means with which we all work together towards a greater good. With so much confusion and scornful rhetoric surrounding our taxes, however, it is no wonder they end up being more despised than loved. As a result of that confusion and rhetoric, America now faces record low revenues combined with the problem of enormous deficits.

Tax season is the perfect time to examine exactly where our federal taxes are spent and thankfully, The National Priorities Project provides the ideal tool to find those answers.

This tool demonstrates where taxes paid by your type of household (single, single head of household or married filing jointly)—and with your  specific tax responsibilities are directed. You can check where your tax dollars go by using this tool. You’ll get a chart similar to the one below that shows how much an individual would pay towards each budget area.

In the example below, as a single head of household with one child, earning $50,522 in 2010, my federal tax contribution would equal approximately $3,586. When you break that down into individual categories (as seen below) my federal contributions to Veterans Benefits through my taxes would equal a mere $139 while my tax dollars contribute $982 to military expenditures. In no way do I advocate for jeopardizing the safety and security of our military, but this skewed chart does speak to our national priorities. As much as we may be investing in our military, we are certainly not dedicating those same resources to soldiers when they return from service.

As much as we invest in the defense of our nation, we will never be secure if we continue to cut investment in international affairs programs that work to build understanding and consensus among nations. With my hypothetical tax bill, I’d contribute $43 a year to international affairs. Our country may never agree on where each dollar should be directed, but I do believe a majority of Americans would contribute more than $40 to peaceful development in other nations—before conflicts arise that demand military intervention.

Take a look at this tool and see where you’d be willing to spend more (or less) of your tax dollars.

Source: National Priorities Project

To see a further breakdown of the above categories, click here.