February 19, 2018

Fiscal Impact of Whites, Blacks and Hispanics

Even when all military spending is assigned to whites, blacks on net cost $7,700 per person per year. Black lives have a deep fiscal impact. Also, countries which are majority black have chronic financial problems.

Previously I wrote an article that just looked at the net budgetary impact of whites and non-whites. Here I decided to break down the black and hispanic numbers as well.

The most recent year with good data on everything is 2014. So that is the year all of these numbers are from.

Before getting into the methods, I’ll first show the final impact of this so you can see what a big deal this is:

Budgetary Impact of Whites, Blacks and Hispanics in 2014

Category Equal Military Static Military
Whites $553.52 billion $249.52 billion
White Per Capita $2,795 $1,260
Blacks -$389.71 billion -$306.53 billion
Black Per Capita -$10,016 -$7,700
Hispanics -$411.95 billion -$291.3 billion
Hispanic Per Capita -$7,298 -$5,160

This takes into account taxes paid and government services consumed at both the State and Federal level. The “Equal Military” column treats military spending as a service consumed equally on a per-capita basis between blacks, whites and hispanics. The “Static military” assigns all military spending to whites.

On net, whites generate a $249.52 billion surplus, or $1,260 per person if you assign 100% of military spending to whites. If you just give whites a proportional share of military spending, their surplus goes up to $553.52 billion total and $2,795 per capita.

Blacks, by contrast, run a budget deficit of $389.71 billion, or $10,016 per capita. If 100% of military spending is assigned to whites, blacks STILL run a $306.53 billion deficit, or $7,700 per capita.

Hispanics run a budget deficit of $411.95 billion of $7,289 per capita if military spending is proportional. If 100% of military spending is assigned to whites hispanics run a deficit of $291.3 billion, or $5,160 per capita.

Race and Tax Revenue

So regarding the methodology, I first looked in several places to figure out how much each race paid in taxes, as the government doesn’t keep such statistics. However, there are statistics collected by the tax foundation showing how much each income bracket pays in taxes.

And the census has data on income for each race and the proportion of brackets they are. And so using this, we can deduce how much each racial group pays in taxes:

Race and Tax Payment in 2014

Bracket % of taxes bracket pays % of bracket is white % of bracket is hispanic % of bracket is black % of taxes paid by whites-in-bracket % of taxes paid by blacks-in-bracket % of taxes paid by hispanics-in-bracket
Top 5% 38.9 80.87 6.17 5.00 31.46 1.945 2.4001
6-20% 25.4 77.72 7.80 7.48 19.74 1.8999 1.9812
21-40% 18.3 73.65 10.70 8.91 13.48 1.6305 1.9581
41-60% 9.9 68.3 12.68 13.76 6.76 1.3622 1.2553
61-80% 5.1 63.01 17.89 16.67 3.21 0.8502 0.9124
81-100% 2.1 57.41 16.23 21.25 1.21 0.4463 0.3408
Total 75.86 8.134 8.8479

This comes out to $4529.52 billion paid by whites, $528.30 billion paid by hispanics, and $485.67 billion paid by blacks.

Race and Government Use

So how does that compare with services consumed? Well for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare I was able to find racial breakdowns. But what about state spending? Roads, schools, trash pick-up, police? For all of that I lumped into “equal government” and assigned the cost of it on a population basis.

Race and Government Use 2014

Service Budget White Use % White Use $ Black Use % Black Use $ Hisp. Use % Hisp. Use $
“Equal Gov.t” 3,482 62.1 2162.32 12.2 424.8 17.7 616.3
Social Security 1,262 84.07 1060.96 9.31 117.5 6.23 78.6
Medicare 505 76 383.90 10 50.5 9 45.45
Medicaid 476 39.06 185.93 19.9 94.72 26.43 125.8
Welfare 472 38.8 183.14 39.8 187.86 15.7 74.1
Total 6,197 64.16 3976 14.1 875.38 15.2 940.25
(Static Mil.) 6,197 69.07 4280 12.78 792.2 13.2 819.6

So as it happened, and this is something I thought going in, the race differences in government consumption are not a very big deal, and the real cause of the budgetary impacts of races is the difference in tax payment. I also found some data showing that whites made up 75% of millionaires, and I thought “ya know, based on this, whites overall probably pay around 75% of the taxes” – and I was correct.

Wage Impact of Racial Diversity

One thing people will say in response is that white wages are jacked up by having non-whites around. This doesn’t appear to be true when you look at regions in the US:

Median Income and Proportion of Popoulation of Whites 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

So a big impact doesn’t just pop out at you. And if there is a correlation between median white income in a state, or county, and the proportion of blacks and/or hispanics in that state or county, well then the next step would be to show causality.

Another interesting thing to point out is that a Dutch meta-analysis of 384 studies on the impact of immigration on native wages in the United States and EU countries found that a 1% increase in immigrants as part of the labor force was associated with a 0.119% reduction in native wages.

But one thing to consider is correlation and causation. Just because a 1% increase in immigration is only associated with a 0.119% decrease in native wages doesn’t mean that the actual impact is that small.

So we’re looking at a small negative impact on wages, not the big positive impacts you would need for the libertarian story to hold water. I mean it’s not stupid to believe in the absence of data; lower-skill people come in, earn wages, white people are freed for higher-earning labor. But it doesn’t appear to be actually happening.

If you want to argue that the presence of blacks and hispanics around white people drives up white wages, that’s not something that is immediately obvious from the data, it’s only intuitive if you to hold very pro-market priors. You need more than just “ideas that make sense” and connect-the-dots / painting-by-numbers economic narratives that libertarians like to spin, and then act as if they’ve actually discovered something.


The negative fiscal impact of blacks and hispanics is significant. All of this discussion of a “national debt” and “deficit” is primarily of function of blacks and hispanics. Without them, we would be running budget surpluses today, even when keeping the military the same size.

Immigration Impact Meta-Analysis:

Taxes paid by brackets:

Racial groups by income bracket:

Medicaid Enrollment by race, projected from these numbers:

Welfare use by race:

Medicare Enrollment:

Social Security Enrollment by race in 2014:

Total US Government Spending at all levels 2014

Total US Government Revenue of all types and at all levels 2014

Facebook Comments
  • Righteousauthority1

    By this logic, the poor drag the country down, cause they pay less taxes compared to the government budget- so we should get rid of them, including poor whites ? It doesnt make sense– I guess its an intuitive argument, but someone has to be poor and someone has to be rich. The ppl making 100k a year and paying half of it to taxes have these wages because unskilled labor is valued less. Not everyone can be lawyers and engineers

    • Ryan Faulk

      Not sure what logic you think I was going at. First off there is a regression effect on this that drags individuals to their racial means over the generations.

      But more importantly, a country removing all poor people was never in the cards in the US. A white-only country, however, was the founders’ intent. And so it’s relevant as a historical possibility.

      It’s also not a natural cleavage between groups, “rich” and “poor” like the way race is.

      But it’s also important to have to deal with people who say that “racial diversity” is good for white people.

      • Righteousauthority1

        Ok but those are all very softy, squishy statements while your argument here and on TRS is trying to make a specific point with some number crunching. Look at your own statistics for the breakdown of the bottom 29% income bracket. 21.25% of that is black. Blacks take up only 16% of the total US population so as we know they’re OVER-represented in this poorest income bracket. But since whites are still the majority, they’re still 57.4% of this same poor income bracket. So if you’re using statistics to see which group is “hurting” your GDP the most, you’d get much more bang for your buck by kicking out all the poor white people, wouldn’t you? Its an argument against poor people, not black or hispanic people.

        So i think its not the strongest position to approach this from, since by mention that by your own admission “differences in government consumption are not a very big deal, and the real cause of the budgetary impacts of races is the difference in tax payment.”. Its unavoidable that the poor will always have to be taxed the least because there’s a certain amount of unavoidable expenses like rent and food so someone who is taxed 50% on $3000 monthly wage will be struggling to survive compared to someone taxed 50% on a $10,000 monthly salary. The elite, predominately white, top 5% J.P. Morgan types pay a disproportionate, almost 40% of taxes – but you can’t run a country with only those people around, you don’t have to know anything about economic theory. Having a country with only middle or upper class residents can work for the small European tax haven states supported by foreign currency, but not America, white ethnostate or not.

        • Ryan Faulk

          You’re missing the point. This data is useful for arguments against people who want to say that blacks are being exploited or that they are owed reparations.

          Also, an “all-white country” would have this as a benefit. Now if you want to maximize the fiscal benefit, perhaps (perhaps) you want to go with “IQ-nationalism”. But that’s a different topic. Also there is regression to the mean and differences in political views that make poor whites better than poor blacks and hispanics both in the immediate term and by the next generation.

          • Righteousauthority1

            Au contraire , they can argue the opposite , they can use this as a “result” of slavery, pointing to the fact that blacks are over represented around the poverty line while whites, who are around 2/3 of the pop. are “only” 1/2 of the same low income bracket. Never mind that richer whites are paying for the infrastructure and services that all races enjoy – their lives are proportionately more shifty if purchasing power means anything for quality of life . and yeah I realize western country poverty is not the same as African or Latin American poverty ..

          • Ryan Faulk

            I have articles on slavery, so when they dive into that I can show why they’re wrong about that too. Of course they dive into other explanations. That’s why you have to seal off all the exits.

        • gamer2012

          We want a Whites-only country for the reason of racial identity, for preserving the White race, and for protecting White people from the violence and hatred of non-Whites. This analysis shows that such a country would be much better of economically. So you are confused if you think that this analysis was intended as the primary or sole impetus for wanting a White country.

    • 12345comboplatter

      Given that the poor whites have high rates of employment while nearly half the non-white population is unemployed and they are employed in industrial, agricultural, and resource extraction vocations it seems to me that the lower class whites provide a vital economic function. Also rural whites have more disposable income than the urban whites despite the urbanites having more total income. Cost of living is also and issue. Those “poor” are not impoverished by any real standard nor are they a net drain on fiscal resources at the state, federal, or local level.

      The idea is not to eliminate the poor, relatively speaking, but to eliminate a ethnic population which has little economic utility from the national statists in order to argue for a white enthnostate which would be far more prosperous as an aggregate and more economically stable.

      • Righteousauthority1

        thats all nice to speculate about, but thats not the evidence used in this article. Its simply “This % of people are poor, the poor don’t pay enough taxes to support their “share” when you divide budget/military spending by population, and a sub-set of this % of poor people is brown”. That’s all its saying. Note that the upper 5% income bracket paying a huge share of the taxes is still 20% non white. These top 5% elites pay a big proportion of the taxes because, ie: a maximum income tax rate of 39.6% of $10,000,000 a year is gonna get you a lot more shekels than hundreds of poor people paying 10% on their 30,000 a year. In fact one of these elite non-whites is worth 1,333 poor white trailer trash (no offense intended). You see where I’m going?

        • 12345comboplatter

          It’s not merely that they are poor, it is the nature of their poverty. These people are not qualifying for welfare and not partaking in it, or using very little, they maximize their use of the revenue set aside for the welfare while not being employed. They don’t produce anything as an aggregate. Indeed it would be preferable if we could have a white nation and then cut off state welfare, relegating that function to the churches and localized charity which is discriminatory and therefore more efficient. It is easier to cut off deadbeats or for that matter liberals and allow them to starve. My goal is not a “fair” society but rather one which pander to my biologic interests, which is good for me and mine and which can be sustained indefinitely.

          >Note that the upper 5% income bracket paying a huge share of the taxes is still 20% non white.
          I’ve never seen such statistic and am dubious about it. Also are we talking about Jews who do account for a significant percentage of the upper tax brackets. Many of us would like to disenfranchise and exile jews because we do not consider their typical form of financial activity to be materially productive. Rather they tend to create bubbles and shuffle money about rather than making investment in physical capital. The Jews like the blacks are not desirable and should be eliminated.

          Anyone who is not in our racial interest is ultimately a target whether they are merely not productive like lower class non-whites or if they are involved in consistent investment or political subversion like jews or other upperclass non-whites.

          Fairness means nothing other than perhaps an interest in a meritocratic sytem made by and for whites. I want to impoverish other groups and lift up my own, I want to destroy them and profit from it.

          • Clamdigger

            Oh, you’re just a cretin. I thought this might’ve actually been going somewhere.

          • bcbingram

            cut the ridicule Clamdigger, stand up and take it somewhere we can understand. thanks

  • This comment is not for Ryan’s benefit, he already knows this, but I think it is an important thing to note:

    The racial differences in government consumption are under-estimated here significantly.

    The data on welfare use from “StatisticsBrain” uses an obviously bullshit definition of welfare that Cato (the source) no doubt chose to minimize racial differences. Unemployment insurance is basically the only “welfare” program that Whites use more than Hispanics, and this is only because you have to have had a real job in-order to get it in the first place. And even then, based on other data on food stamps I am familiar with I have no idea how they go the numbers they did.

    It’s true that Whites use social security more. This is because they contribute more to social security. From an accounting perspective this does not matter, but I’m not sure that the tax payment analysis by bracket used here took into account social security payments.

    Of course, another issue here is that non-White welfare users consumer more welfare per capita than White welfare users, and that is not reflected in this analysis.

    When we turn to state government spending we see a similar pattern. For example, more is spent per pupil on non White students. But most importantly, the racial differences in their consumption of prison spending is no doubt massive.

    There is a similar limitation with the tax analysis. Whites in X bracket pay on average more than non Whites in X bracket because even within a bracket they on average make more money.

    Given these facts, this analysis should be taken as a very conservative estimate of the impact of minorities relative to Whites.

    • 12345comboplatter

      Excellent analysis I came here from TRS to bring up a few of those points namely that darkies use more welfare per recipient and they cost more for the prison system to manage per prisoner. But if Faulk is already aware of this that is good. It shows that even by erring in favor of the shitlib data collection methodology as much as possible it is still damning for niggers and mestizos.

      I figured back in 2010 that we’d have a 1.5 trillion dollar surplus each year if we excluded all economic activity, fiscal inputs, and costs of the non-white population of the USA.

    • Pat Boyle

      There are a couple other reasons why whites use more Social Security than blacks. On of which is the life expectancy. Whites live longer. East Asians live even longer than whites.

      I used to work in public welfare – I ran the welfare computer systems for a large California county. If that doesn’t sound like much, you probably have no idea how big public welfare is. I had staff in eleven different buildings. I had hundreds of employees.

      I had previously worked in the San Francisco welfare department. In San Francisco the poorest ethnic group by in those days were the Chinese. But I never saw a single Chinese welfare recipient – ever. San Francisco has few blacks and has been successfully driving them out for decades. But even so there were mostly blacks on the welfare rolls. Public welfare in all its forms is largely a racial phenomenon.

      The cost of maintaining a black population is being concealed from the public.

      • Alinka

        Wow, thank you for sharing that.

      • Gary Causer

        San Francisco priced them out. Then opening Oakland as the land of opportunity..

        Yes. Maintaining a permanent underclass is bitch!

      • bcbingram

        I believe you Pat Boyle. Perhaps you could post up another infographic, make it SIMPLE and accurate. Thanks

    • bcbingram

      Sean , you are to intelligent to be hiding behind a fake name and profile pic.
      Come out when you can because ‘truth’ needs You.

  • Pingback: دونالد ترامپ: حزب جمهوری خواه را به حزبی برای کارگران بدل خواهم کرد()

  • Hayus

    Audacious Epigone posted a blog post about the fiscal health of the American state governments:


    The least fiscally healthy state governments have a habit of being more “diverse.”

  • dennis shipp

    Thank you for not running from the issues.

  • Why isn’t this reported on NPR?

    • bcbingram

      whatcho think Walt ??

  • Mr Darcy Esq.

    It’s the spic-nig cycle.

  • martin caidin

    Just imagine what those numbers would look like if blacks weren’t given make-work government jobs.

    • bcbingram

      Yes, and the other workers, who were hired by merit, would NOT feel like ‘workplace underclass’.

  • kikz2

    y, detainment, adjudication, warehousing of ‘pets’…. and in the case of illegals, deportation (rinse repeat) numbers by race should be figured into the societal/fiscal impacts to the ‘budget’.

  • kikz2

    on the anniv of the battle of somme, today 7/1/1916….. tolkien warned us of orcs. Migrants of Middle Earth….. https://disqus.com/home/channel/jwcodysbitchfest/discussion/channel-jwcodysbitchfest/migrants_of_middle_earth/

  • MUltan

    I’d like to see the numbers broken out by sex as well as race. I’m pretty sure White women pay less than 30% of White taxes, so are around -$2,500 to -$3,500 while White men are around +$5,000 to +$6,000 net payments per year. The gap might well be bigger than that since women live longer and many welfare programs are effectively only for mothers. IIRC I read recently that the only race/sex/age group that has paid more in taxes on average than they have gotten out in government services (principally public school before retirement) is White men between about age 50 to 70.

  • pilm

    Here’s a fact for ya, most people born into poverty stay in poverty or very near so their entire life. The ones who go from rags to riches are very very few and far between. Now let’s look back in time to 1850… whites paid all the taxes, blacks paid nothing. Whites owned everything and blacks owned nothing. It should be no surprise to any intelligent person that blacks, as a group, starting with nothing, would over time have great difficulty reaching parity with whites. Now in a perfect world where there was no active suppression of blacks, one might expect them to have come a bit further over 150 years, however we don’t live in a perfect world and fact is blacks were heavily suppressed following emancipation well into the 20th century. I find it completely unsurprising blacks have had difficulty arising to a level where they are able to pay the same taxes on a per capita basis as whites. Point being an analysis such as the one presented here is basically meaningless as it doesn’t consider or factor in these very real circumstances, and it especially does not support the idea blacks are somehow lazy, stupid, inept as compared to whites. Silly white boys!

  • John Yossarian