Hacker News Reader

Comment by patrickaljord | Hacker News Reader

Next year the US will spend $715 billion on military budget alone, a $10 billion increase from last year. Shouldn't the government try to cut spending before thinking of how it could increase tax revenue?

It's like an obese person wanting to lose weight while eating more each year and thinking of increasing time spent at the gym to make up for it, shouldn't they try eating less if they want to lose weight?

View on HN

USA has about a 100 trillion in wealth. Spending 1% of it to insure its safety seems about right. How much would you spend ?

> Spending 1% of it to insure its safety seems about right. How much would you spend ?

Are you unironically saying the US isn't spending much on military? Most wars conducted by the US are not defending its safety. If you still believe you went to Iraq or Vietnam to protect freedom at home, then you're just too indoctrinated and there's no point debating.

> USA has about a 100 trillion in wealth.

This is not how it works, it's not spending any of the $100 trillion in wealth, it's printing money against it which arguably lowers its value. That being said, let's see what makes up the 100 trillion in wealth [1]:

"In 2018, the Fed estimates that Americans owned $114 trillion of assets, including $26 trillion of housing and real estate, $26 trillion of pensions (such as 401(k) accounts), $22 trillion of corporate stocks and mutual funds, and $6 trillion of durable goods (vehicles, appliances, furniture). Liabilities — mostly mortgages and consumer credit — totaled about $15 trillion, leaving net worth at nearly $100 trillion."

Housing and stocks is paper money, it's just valuations that could go to 0 if people actually started "spending" it as you say, ie selling it. Then there is 15% of it that is liabilities.

1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-100-trillion-que...

So how much would you spend ? How much would Mexico or Congo need to spend to become as safe as the us ?

Obviously the government doesn’t own the 100 trillion in wealth itself. On paper it’s net worth is negative. But us gdp is 20 trillion and tax revenue is 25% of that or about 5 trillion.

China is spending half as much as the usa after adjusting for purchasing power parity. And the us also defends the banking and market structure of the rest of the world. https://power.lowyinstitute.org/data/military-capability/def...

How long would it take for crime lords to take over control of semiconductors, commodities, and everything if defense wasn’t a priority ?

At the city level, many us cities spend around 25% of their budget on law enforcement: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/08/07/how-mu...

This is not about increasing tax revenue it is about preventing multinationals from evading taxes. It's similar in concept to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was designed to prevent an ever-increasing web of exemptions and loopholes from allowing some people to pay little-to-no taxes.

Taxes aren't a virtue - they're a necessary evil. They're coercion, only paid on the threat of violence. We should be aiming to minimize taxes and fund programs through other voluntary means. So where the money is being spent should be considered when talking about how much should be raised, since it the cause.

Voluntary mechanisms only fill the needs of the wealthy, who also operate largely on coercive means(all that private property only exists by force of the government). At least taxes are by consensus, both in the amount, and what they find.

The military budget is a red herring. If the budget was reduced to zero it would barely effect the deficit, yet over the long term it would probably cost more, since a weak nation invites war.

With a strong military, the US has been involved in numerous wars.

Having a strong military seems to invite war just as much

No. Losing weight might read as being weaker. Why would any gov want that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com