Using the API, the total contributions people have made here for all time are $67,323,122.88. Meanwhile, the Debt-to-the-penny api (https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/d...) tells us that (as of 2025-07-25) the public debt is $29,361,169,407,599.91 whereas the day before it was $29,332,905,580,399.32, meaning the one day increase was $28,263,827,200.59.
So, the publics total contributions amount to 0.24% of the increase from Thursday to Friday last week. One part in 400 of the one day change, or about ~3 minutes worth.
beej71 · 14h ago
I've always wondered why rich people would donate to the debt for exactly this reason. What's their angle?
justsomehnguy · 16h ago
Yes, the whole idea is...
Also reminds me of an old anecdote:
"How much time it takes for Bill Gates to make a million dollars? Not doing anything for a minute."
BG could be replaced with anyone from TOP500[0] nowadays, I suppose.
We need an API to block the government from spending more money.
It seems like voting for "fiscal conservatives" results in bigger spending.
roxolotl · 16h ago
Yes that has been the case since at least Reagan. The deficits go up under republicans more than democrats. The fiscal conservatism is a marketing ploy.
It seems you are more in need of an API to block the government to willingly reduce their income. The US spending per capita isn't that high compared to other developed countries, the US problem is the repeated decisions to have the wealthy citizens not contribute in proportion to their wealth.
HPsquared · 18h ago
I wonder if any countries have laws holding politicians to stick to their campaign promises.
Henchman21 · 13h ago
I’m more interested in laws that punish lying
ath3nd · 18h ago
Don't know about laws, especially since politicians can change those, but there are tools.
Common items used in woodworking and agriculture can be very useful: carving knives, axes, pitchforks and branding irons. Generally a big group of people holding their tools of trade in front of the palace/parliament/penthouse has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia.
M95D · 17h ago
> [...] has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia.
But now, the other side has surveilance, tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, drones, and very profitable incarceration facilities.
ath3nd · 17h ago
The other side is not even 0.0001% of the population. Cops, military, firemen, they are all working class, like us. The veil drops when you realize we are ALL working class: the police, military, software engineers, firemen, nurses, doctors, lawyers, miners, farmers, teachers.
The other side has nothing. We operate the farms, the weapons, the hospitals, the IT infrastructure, the surveillance, the army, the transportation, the bullets, the drones and the incarceration facilities. The other side contributes nothing, does nothing, and if they continue on their current path, history has shown again and again that they will be reduced to nothing.
bdangubic · 4h ago
lovely words but also just wishful thinking / fantasy which why the other side never wins anything
74B5 · 18h ago
Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions, which is the ultimate consequence of austerity?
The public infratructure shrinks, while the rich get richer, partially from paid bond interesets. And you would just sit there and think, "yea, thats the way"?
Do you really think spending and not taxation is the problem? Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullable people, voting for harmful demagogues, so you finally get the "financial conervatives" you want?
palmfacehn · 18h ago
>Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullible people...
Assuming the implication is that a well funded state managed education results in a population more resistant to (state?) propaganda; How would this be measured empirically?
lotsofpulp · 18h ago
>Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions
A government spending less money does not equate to spending less money on public institutions. It can even mean spending more money on public institutions, assuming less money is spent on other things, such as unproductive wealth transfers.
disgruntledphd2 · 18h ago
> as unproductive wealth transfers.
Do you mean progressive taxation here, or something else?
lotsofpulp · 17h ago
Spending that will not benefit citizens in the future.
arealaccount · 18h ago
Why not both?
RickJWagner · 17h ago
That’s awesome.
There are some very wealthy people that make a great show of demanding to pay higher taxes. Here’s a mechanism for them to demonstrate sincerity.
nabla9 · 17h ago
"If you want more taxes and are rich, just donate to treasury argument" again.
We want systemic changes, not patrons.
Taxes are for equity and fairness. Taxes are compulsory, donations are voluntary.
Wild that someone would actually use this as an argument for the former. I wonder if you have any idea how immoral this is. Replace the action with sex and it might be more apparent how repugnant it is to advocate the former.
RickJWagner · 4h ago
I see it more like the wealthy want to maintain their relative position. They want others to have to pay to buy the things they want. They’ll still be just as wealthy, relatively, but they’ll also get the governmental changes they seek.
It’s not about getting the societal changes. If it were, they wouldn’t mind paying for it themselves. It’s about making others pay.
morsecodist · 17h ago
This doesn't make any sense. When people say this they mean they want more social spending and they are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The budget is what it is, the administration has made it clear that keeping the deficit low has nothing to do with the level of social spending they are willing to do. Sending money won't really do anything.
lotsofpulp · 12h ago
Demanding all wealthier people have a greater tax liability and not sacrificing one’s self is logically consistent and expected behavior.
If I am playing a game, and others do not want to ally with me, I am not going to make myself lose. But I can still signal that I am open to an alliance.
cyberlimerence · 18h ago
Trickle up economics, what a joke.
echelon · 18h ago
I kind of want to donate $0.01, but I think that'll either get me on a list or will have some kind of bug that drains my account.
edit: the minimum the form accepts is $5
codingrightnow · 18h ago
I tried to donate -$15. It didn't complain about it being a negative number, just that it was lower than the minimum.
EionRobb · 18h ago
Could you underflow the signed value until it was so negative it was > $5?
cameron_b · 14h ago
Very expensive to test their precision.
nabla9 · 19h ago
Only $29T is actual meaningful debt. $7.4T is intergovernmental holdings. It's just accounting where one part of the government owes to another.
Best way to reduce debt/GDP ratio is just support politics and policies where debt grows slower than economy grows.
pirate787 · 18h ago
The intergovernmental holdings are accounting placeholders representing the Congressional raid on past Social Security surpluses. It's absolutely meaningful because those obligations are coming due as the program runs increasingly in the red. As legal obligations, they aren't binding the way public debt is, but current Social Security retirees have been promised these funds, and the government is already borrowing more from capital markets to meet these obligations. The current pace is $4.1 trillion in new borrowing by 2033 according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Basically the intergovernmental holdings are getting converted to more public debt.
I’m old. They’ve been saying this for 30-40 years. It’s bullshit. We finance social security out of current revenue and always have. If the economy shrinks that creates problems if it grows that does not.
AbstractH24 · 18h ago
Phew, and I thought we were in trouble. Glad it's only $29T
CoastalCoder · 18h ago
Or about 7x Nvidia's market cap.
AbstractH24 · 18h ago
So the solution to all of America's problems is to nationalize Nvidia?
CoastalCoder · 18h ago
Yeah, just 7 times in rapid succession.
bravesoul2 · 18h ago
You'd need to privatise an already national set of 7 Nvidii.
jll29 · 11h ago
"Nvidiae", actually - "jealous feelings" if translated from Latin.
AbstractH24 · 18h ago
The humor on HN on a Sat morning in the summer is fun.
Now off to life in the real world.
CoastalCoder · 17h ago
There are narrow windows of time where the anti-humour down voters are distracted.
It's all about timing.
CoastalCoder · 17h ago
"Invidia" is 1st declension (feminine), so I'd go with Nvidiae.
But if we're going to make it masculine company name, then hell yeah I'm using Nvidii!
kubb · 18h ago
When you think of the government being owned by the rich, this is one of the ways in which that happens.
austin-cheney · 20h ago
Why? Until congress is willing to pass a balanced budget this is just lightning your own money on fire.
A_D_E_P_T · 19h ago
It's gotta be a joke.
If they're serious, they should return to tradition and sell honors. Like "Patrician" status if you donate $5M or more, which comes with certain minor benefits. (Like you don't need to go through airport security, or you gain access to certain private clubs, etc.) Hereditary "Equestrian" if you donate $100M in cash. And so on.
There wasn't a feudal monarchy around that wouldn't sell honors and titles if they were in dire enough straits, and a $37T debt is as dire as it gets.
Of course, this is an extremely bad idea for obvious reasons (e.g. endemic corruption in our low-trust society, government donations as political signaling, etc.) and would also be something of a joke...
tyleo · 18h ago
I’d appreciate if they sold title-only with no benefits. You can be called a patrician but don’t get the status, clubs, or security benefit.
It feels poetic in a way, like the NFT version of an honors system.
Should be tied to how close it takes one's net worth to zero and annual subsistence to the poverty line.
Anything else would be more plutocracy.
abcd_f · 18h ago
The most coherent thing to do would be to give out a spray-painted "gold" memorial Trump medal, made in China. And then charge for shipping.
palmfacehn · 18h ago
It isn't uncommon to come across a polemic opining for increased taxation. Frequently the rhetoric will fit a common pattern, "I'm a [insert high status or high income descriptor] and here's my spicy contrarian take: We should all be paying so much more!"
While these people might still support the ideals of coercive taxation as a distinct issue, they might also pursue the voluntary route. If they truly value the government's services to the extent that they describe, it would seem like a win-win for them to volunteer their own wealth.
The fact that they do not suggests that there is a low degree of confidence in government spending. The value received per dollar spent may be perceived as a poor return on investment. This often stands in direct contrast to the stated case for increased taxation. It speaks to the merits of the well known Economic Calculation Problem, which axiomatically explains why the state is unable to optimally allocate resources.
austin-cheney · 17h ago
This all sounds like bullshit posturing from politicians that got us into this mess.
The bottom line is that government income must increase and government spending must decrease. Income can come from taxation, competing with private enterprise, donations, or other channels. Decreased spending ultimately means doing less.
The only part of this that has become abundantly clear is that massively firing a bunch of people from government without a transition plan is incredibly expensive. If you want smaller government then expect government to do substantially less and the work force will decrease over time naturally. The small government political bullshit can seem to swallow that bitter pill.
RhysU · 18h ago
If one thinks that more government is the solution to all problems, a painfully common modern view, then the most utility available from $1 one owns is handing that $1 directly to the government.
In practice, no one donates like this with their own money. They just vote for the government to take incremental money from others via ever more taxation.
austin-cheney · 17h ago
It doesn't matter where output comes from whether its government or the private sector. People expect some manner of output at a certain acceptable price and quality. But, this completely misses the point.
The bottom line is government income must increase and government spending must decrease. That income can be from taxes, competing with commercial enterprise, donations, or whatever. It really doesn't matter.
The only part of this that has been evidently clear is that massively firing people from the government without a plan has proven extremely expensive. If you really want smaller government you need a plan to reduce the work force over time in a way that does not diminish the quality and quantity of output.
RhysU · 17h ago
My point is that for someone who thinks government is the ultimate solution it's completely rational to have ever more government. More debt to finance more government simply follows. Can't have too much of a great thing. Etc.
g-mork · 18h ago
Wouldn't be surprised if a creative tax accountant could find a use for it
velebak · 18h ago
So, extra tax then? Voluntary?
No comments yet
K0balt · 18h ago
They should monetize that kompromat with an onlyfans.
So, the publics total contributions amount to 0.24% of the increase from Thursday to Friday last week. One part in 400 of the one day change, or about ~3 minutes worth.
Also reminds me of an old anecdote:
"How much time it takes for Bill Gates to make a million dollars? Not doing anything for a minute."
BG could be replaced with anyone from TOP500[0] nowadays, I suppose.
https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/
1. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/gift-contributions-...
It seems like voting for "fiscal conservatives" results in bigger spending.
Paper from 2004 on the topic: https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files...
Paper from 2022 on the topic:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01603477.2022.20...
Wikipage with just economic indicators by party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...
Common items used in woodworking and agriculture can be very useful: carving knives, axes, pitchforks and branding irons. Generally a big group of people holding their tools of trade in front of the palace/parliament/penthouse has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia.
But now, the other side has surveilance, tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, drones, and very profitable incarceration facilities.
The other side has nothing. We operate the farms, the weapons, the hospitals, the IT infrastructure, the surveillance, the army, the transportation, the bullets, the drones and the incarceration facilities. The other side contributes nothing, does nothing, and if they continue on their current path, history has shown again and again that they will be reduced to nothing.
The public infratructure shrinks, while the rich get richer, partially from paid bond interesets. And you would just sit there and think, "yea, thats the way"?
Do you really think spending and not taxation is the problem? Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullable people, voting for harmful demagogues, so you finally get the "financial conervatives" you want?
Assuming the implication is that a well funded state managed education results in a population more resistant to (state?) propaganda; How would this be measured empirically?
A government spending less money does not equate to spending less money on public institutions. It can even mean spending more money on public institutions, assuming less money is spent on other things, such as unproductive wealth transfers.
Do you mean progressive taxation here, or something else?
There are some very wealthy people that make a great show of demanding to pay higher taxes. Here’s a mechanism for them to demonstrate sincerity.
We want systemic changes, not patrons.
Taxes are for equity and fairness. Taxes are compulsory, donations are voluntary.
Taxes are payment for being for being rich.
Donations are taxes for being a good person.
Great rant: David Mitchell on Tax Avoidance from The Last Leg https://youtu.be/xc8epam4NyY?t=150
Then Mitchell being more serious: You can't blame the rich for paying as little tax as possible. I do the same https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/31/david-...
Wild that someone would actually use this as an argument for the former. I wonder if you have any idea how immoral this is. Replace the action with sex and it might be more apparent how repugnant it is to advocate the former.
It’s not about getting the societal changes. If it were, they wouldn’t mind paying for it themselves. It’s about making others pay.
If I am playing a game, and others do not want to ally with me, I am not going to make myself lose. But I can still signal that I am open to an alliance.
edit: the minimum the form accepts is $5
Best way to reduce debt/GDP ratio is just support politics and policies where debt grows slower than economy grows.
Basically the intergovernmental holdings are getting converted to more public debt.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/social-security-trust-f...
Now off to life in the real world.
It's all about timing.
But if we're going to make it masculine company name, then hell yeah I'm using Nvidii!
If they're serious, they should return to tradition and sell honors. Like "Patrician" status if you donate $5M or more, which comes with certain minor benefits. (Like you don't need to go through airport security, or you gain access to certain private clubs, etc.) Hereditary "Equestrian" if you donate $100M in cash. And so on.
There wasn't a feudal monarchy around that wouldn't sell honors and titles if they were in dire enough straits, and a $37T debt is as dire as it gets.
Of course, this is an extremely bad idea for obvious reasons (e.g. endemic corruption in our low-trust society, government donations as political signaling, etc.) and would also be something of a joke...
It feels poetic in a way, like the NFT version of an honors system.
Anything else would be more plutocracy.
While these people might still support the ideals of coercive taxation as a distinct issue, they might also pursue the voluntary route. If they truly value the government's services to the extent that they describe, it would seem like a win-win for them to volunteer their own wealth.
The fact that they do not suggests that there is a low degree of confidence in government spending. The value received per dollar spent may be perceived as a poor return on investment. This often stands in direct contrast to the stated case for increased taxation. It speaks to the merits of the well known Economic Calculation Problem, which axiomatically explains why the state is unable to optimally allocate resources.
The bottom line is that government income must increase and government spending must decrease. Income can come from taxation, competing with private enterprise, donations, or other channels. Decreased spending ultimately means doing less.
The only part of this that has become abundantly clear is that massively firing a bunch of people from government without a transition plan is incredibly expensive. If you want smaller government then expect government to do substantially less and the work force will decrease over time naturally. The small government political bullshit can seem to swallow that bitter pill.
In practice, no one donates like this with their own money. They just vote for the government to take incremental money from others via ever more taxation.
The bottom line is government income must increase and government spending must decrease. That income can be from taxes, competing with commercial enterprise, donations, or whatever. It really doesn't matter.
The only part of this that has been evidently clear is that massively firing people from the government without a plan has proven extremely expensive. If you really want smaller government you need a plan to reduce the work force over time in a way that does not diminish the quality and quantity of output.
No comments yet
there are records of it going back to 1990s: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/government/public-debt-report...
IIRC, there was movie about that in the 70s.
Would suggest not paying down the debt while Congress is still spending like a drunken sailor in a red light district.
This is not even addressing the >200 Trillion entitlements issue