1. Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Increasing taxes vs better budgeting

Discussion in 'Politics Discussion' started by Telepath John, May 3, 2021.

  1. Telepath John

    Telepath John Member

    Messages:
    45
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Karma:
    +81
    Neither political party talks about better budgeting as an issue. Here is the USA we spend 57% of our income from taxes on the military. Would our country actually be less safe and secure if we spent only 47% of our income on it?

    The who to increase taxes on depends on the political part currently in control. As I recall the Clinton administration was last administration with a balanced budget. Every one since that time has increased our national debt. Things like that can not go on indefinitely.

    I have no party favorites. Each could do a lot better than they are doing. My hope is that the general population will expect more from those they elect than they have in the past.

    John
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2021
  2. Sapphire K

    Sapphire K Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It) V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2018
    Karma:
    +2,406
    I think doing both will work. Increase taxes on the rich and decrease military budget. Focus the budget elsewhere that is more important such as Healthcare, education, welfare, etc.

    Do we really need such a massive military anyways? The "threat" of Russian or Chinese invasion or whatever are all lies and propaganda, and the US has plenty of allies anyways. All we are using the military for is to crusade against the Muslims in the middle east and steal their oil anyways, and there are way, way more recruits in reserve or at international bases than in combat.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. SDRSpark

    SDRSpark Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    1,086
    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Karma:
    +2,079
    I think we need to:

    a) Increase taxes on the rich and close loopholes that allow massive corporations to pay very little in taxes. Close all the loopholes.

    b) Eliminate wasteful govt. spending (and spend more where it matters). I'm not targeting any particular organization here, they all have waste somewhere. Across the board, we can do better.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. mw2530

    mw2530 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    535
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Karma:
    +764
    I think the imbalanced budget is mostly a result of excessive spending, rather than from not taxing enough. Although I would support some modest tax increases.

    I also think one of the primary functions of government is to provide protection for its citizens. If given the chance, I think many other countries would do harm to the U.S. if they had a superior military. As the wealthiest large country in the world, the U.S. needs to continue developing better weapons and technology to keep pace with other rival countries. That is just the realty. Not that I think all the military spending is worthwhile. I imagine there is plenty of waste in the military budget, just as there is in any organization especially with the government and all the their red tape.
     
  5. OkRad

    OkRad μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος οὐλομένην V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,978
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2013
    Karma:
    +5,529
    Stop giving billion dollar grants to private companies which now lobby and run things. Who came say now when some of those billions come flooding back into the Capitol? Not many.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Sapphire K

    Sapphire K Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It) V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2018
    Karma:
    +2,406
    I think it is both.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2021
  7. Nitro

    Nitro Admin/Immoral Turpitude Staff Member Admin V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    10,501
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2014
    Karma:
    +19,194
    I can't seem to find evidence that supports that percentage.
    Can you offer a source?
     
  8. Nitro

    Nitro Admin/Immoral Turpitude Staff Member Admin V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    10,501
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2014
    Karma:
    +19,194
    Let's start at the top.
    Heavily tax the corporations and expect them to move offshore.
    Then the government gets nothing in the end.

    Sort of like the same mess those corrupt idiots on Wall Street and other stock exchanges got us in all in the name of increasing their dividends to their shareholders.

    What will follow that next is a loss of jobs which in turn will once again lower the tax base while adding more to unemployment rolls, at the expense of the existing taxpayers.

    Tax the uber rich?
    Expect a similar mass exodus.
    Some of those uber rich people are the same ones who employ the lower classes, so expect a domino effect there too.

    Reduce funding for the military?
    While we have a history of meddling in affairs we probably shouldn't, our position as a superpower demands that we have enough resources to fight the two other ones who are in many ways already on the same team.
    Much of the world depends on our military might to maintain a balance of power, so it is not as simple as just limiting the cash flow.
    What we do need is more accountability in military spending, a simple reduction in funding will solve nothing if corruption still exists.

    Now, as far as accountability is concerned, what the heck is with the hundreds of pages of bills with riders attached to them that have nothing to do with the actual purpose of the bill?
    The taxpayer has to carry the burden of this nonsense in the end, while at the same time more and more are driven to the welfare rolls as they can't afford to live.
    Here we go again, a reduction in the tax base with an increased burden on Federal spending, which in turn places a heavier burden on the ones who can still pay.
    Who has the time to read these, then make a decision on what basically amounts to a novel in some instances just several
    days?
    That crap needs to end, and while we are at it, enable term limits to all government lawmakers.
    The crap placed in all of those bills was added on the fly, and eventually approved with bi-partisan support so that each side of the aisle got some of what they wanted while We the People had to just wait to see what we paid taxes for.
    A seat in the House of Reps or the Senate should not be a career position, ever.
    Fossils belong in a museum, not in a government.
    Three terms, then move along before you get comfortable.
    While we are at it, make it illegal for anyone who formerly held a position to return as a lobbyist.

    Those stimulus checks you got?
    Down the road, someone will have to not only pay that money back, but also the interest owed to the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank for printing money based on nothing but words.
    I hope that all of you are aware of the inflationary impact of that fiasco as well.
    Since I already went there, let's talk about corporate bailouts.
    Those corporations are actually a necessary evil in our corrupt system as they provide employment to the lower classes and do their best to keep costs down by mass manufacturing.
    They add more citizens to the tax base while they are at it, so in essence, they still have to play a role that we need.
    It sounds like corporate welfare if you want it to, but in the end, it is welfare for all.
    Piss them off with higher taxes, then color any of the tax money they generate including any paid all the way down to the lowest paid worker gone in a flash when they pull up their roots and bolt.
    I'm pretty adept at understanding manufacturing having been a cog in that mechanism for the better part of my life, so I pretty much have a finger on the pulse of the business world.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Telepath John

    Telepath John Member

    Messages:
    45
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Karma:
    +81
    I do not have access to official government budget statistics. I do not recall exactly where I read that 57%. It was after we established the Space Force as a new military branch. I do remember that part.

    John
     
  10. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,811
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +34,077
    Generally in our body politic if one seeks to pursue a political agenda, they are prone to expressing expenditures relative to tax revenue. Conversely if one wants to express an economic concern, they are more likely to do so relative to gross domestic product.

    I believe you'll find such metrics expressed as a percentage of federal income taxes amounting to largely a talking point of both parties over a number of issues pro and con apart from military spending.

    Example: Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich quotes this number as 54% approximately two years ago:

    Where Your Tax Dollars Really Go

    Yes, the percentage originally posted appears to be in the ballpark. It's just not one that economists are prone to citing, especially given the horrendous range of military expenditures in the 20th century relative to income tax revenues. Wildly fluctuating percentages defining eras of peace versus eras of war. I suppose when our last soldier leaves our longest standing war, then perhaps we can technically say we're at peace. Though in a war against terrorism I suppose it's a moot point.

    If our economic might- or weakness was universally expressed only in terms of tax revenue, this country would be in a lot of trouble. Especially since abandoning balancing of the budget to pursue a war against terrorism while our domestic infrastructure has crumbled over time. Though as for expressing expenditures relative to the GDP, it too can be flawed, given it's often an estimated measurement of the value of America's goods and services relative to a global economy. Which at times seem to be weighted with optimism more than anything else. Leaving global credit analysts just a bit nervous to say the least.

    In essence if we are to alter this course of deficit spending, some very hard policy decisions must be made. And lest we forget that the US drove the former Soviet Union into the ground by outspending it militarily. A tactic that China, our greatest adversary (and creditor) may be using against us presently. A nation earnestly pursuing global recognition as the most powerful nation on the planet. Leaving some of us to ponder whether it's worth it to wage a war of national egos and continue to pretend that we are the world's policeman offering only a poor return on investment.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2021
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Sapphire K

    Sapphire K Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It) V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2018
    Karma:
    +2,406
    Space Force is going to be such a massive waste.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Xerces Blue

    Xerces Blue Evil Overload

    Messages:
    384
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Karma:
    +389
    Reducing our military spending would reduce our capacity.
    Our Allies have failed to maintained sufficient military forces to support the current balance of power without significant aid from the US military.
    We can't count on an aid from France - they're dealing with internal unrest (what? there's a revolution in France, that's nothing new)
    Most of the EU's economy is in shambles - War might actually help put them out of their recession.
    Same for us if we actually built industry here in the US instead of sending it over to China or India.
    "Lets send our industry overseas for the next 50 years or more, it wont effect our war fighting ability EVER"

    Looked inside my last 2 sets of ACUs one was made in china the other in prison industries.
    Microchips used in main battle tank fire control system - made in china
    Microchips used in the computers we had our Tech manuals on - made in china
    my damned combat boots made in china

    Yeah that's a good idea.

    "If we intertwine our economies that will discourage war" Total nonsense.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2021
  13. Sapphire K

    Sapphire K Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It) V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2018
    Karma:
    +2,406
    But do we really need so much expensive equipment? Also, most recruits are not even in active duty, so what do we need them for?

    We can just switch from M16-platform assault rifles to less expensive assault rifles and that will reduce spending dramatically. Like, we can totally just buy a bunch of AK-19 assault rifles from Kalashnikov. Those are chambered in 5.56 NATO, so it should work out just fine.

    Also, the military has had a history of starting R&D projects that ultimately prove either impractical or too expensive in the long run. The military also tends to switch standard issue weapons way too often. Heck, they are developing a rifle with experimental tech AND a completely different caliber of ammo that is still kinda new.

    A large military will only make other countries afraid of us, which will end up making them hating us.

    Plus, the war on terror is just a myth, anyways. The United States just wants to get money for oil.
     
  14. Xerces Blue

    Xerces Blue Evil Overload

    Messages:
    384
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Karma:
    +389
    @Sapphire K
    The reason we need recruits that are not active duty has to do with mobilization times.
    Generally when a reserve unit goes "Active" they have about 3 months to get their gear and training in order before they go to the war zone.
    This is not enough time to fully integrate untrained people into the unit to the standard of ANY active military worth 2 artillery shells.
    9-10 weeks of basic training makes you "a little better than a conscript"
    Active duty troops are usually better in direct combat,
    Reserve troops do better in protracted engagements as they usually have a broader skill base.
    We need a barricade, people with carpentry and masonry skills come in handy for example.

    The government buys an M16A2 for $500 each by contract.
    for the record I got a semi-auto Romanian RPK-47 with the front sight post canted to the side like a drunk for the same price back in 2013.

    The US military has no interest in changing the standard weapons platform unless it makes a significate change in performance.
    This will most likely come in the form of a change in ammunition.
    They want to reduce the use of lead for environmental reasons.
    Body armor is becoming more common that means they're more likely to move to a heavier slug with a shorter effective range.
    something like a 9x39mm, 0.50 beowulf, 6.8mm grendel or something like that.

    Anyway the cost of weapon system used by most troops is pocket change.
    Time to transition is more important.
    Especially with the ammo.
     
  15. Sapphire K

    Sapphire K Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It) V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2018
    Karma:
    +2,406
    Why do we need such a massive military, anyways? What're we expecting to fight?
     
  16. mw2530

    mw2530 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    535
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Karma:
    +764
    I think one of the purposes, likely the primary purpose, of a strong military is being a deterrent to other countries. Such as Communist China which is quickly becoming the biggest rival of the U.S.
     
  17. Xerces Blue

    Xerces Blue Evil Overload

    Messages:
    384
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Karma:
    +389
    Diplomacy runs on credit leveraged by your ability to project Violence also known as Force.

    If you want anything to happen in your favor you need LEVERAGE.

    In the civilian world Leverage often comes in 2 forms.
    1 - Legal - how much can you get other people who have Force to agree with you.
    2 - Money - how much can you pay people who have Force to do what you want.

    So why do we need such massive Militaries? because we want things to be in our favor.

    How do you stop yourself or someone you care about from being bullied - You stand up for yourself or your companion - You show you have to potential for Violence, That you are not WEAK.

    You're all well and good being a weakling until something strong comes along that wants what you have.
    Then your just unprepared and vulnerable.

    For historical reference look into the invasion of Tibet by China - effectively Spears(Tibet) vs machine guns(China)
     
    • Winner Winner x 1