Any spending means jobs. Are we going to throw the money into a pit and burn it if it’s not spent on military defense?
If the military is some magical source of economic utopia because hey, it gives people jobs! then why not recruit the entire country into it?
Absolutely. It is simply likely to be a necessity. The question is how much more and is it something worth feeling smug about? I don’t blame anyone for wanting new and better stuff for free. If I was in the bottom half of income earners there is a large shopping list of stuff that I would want the government, meaning the other half to give me.
At what point does this become dangerous is the question, and at what point is it reasonable for me to raise an objection?
I suspect you didn’t hear the fiscal conservatives about the Iraq war because the louder and more impactful voices were the ones principally concerned about killing people before exhausting other solutions. The war was both wrong and a collosal waste of money.
No. Sam described one of the mechanisms by which privilege is self-perpetuating.
Whoa there fella, I wasn’t insinuating any such thing. I was merely pointing out that indeed, it is a “beneficial and necessary institution in domestic society”.
There’s nothing magical about it. It is what it is.
Based on the economic impact of giving the people work, not the necesity of their services.
You could pay people to dig ditches and then fill them up again and call it “a beneficial and necesary institution in domestic society” because it creates jobs. The guys digging the ditches get paid, the restaurants that feed them get business, etc.
Classic broken window fallacy.
Could you please cite these studies? I don’t care to register at the website you linked to.
Keeping in mind that “do not” and “cannot” are entirely different propositions.
This is something else that I don’t follow - if the best universities are in the US, and education (as Sam Stone points out) is the best correlator to success regardless of family-of-origin income, one would expect that oppportunity is better in the US than elsewhere, not worse.
I might also suggest that you ask a mod to re-code your post. I did not immediately realize that you merely cut and pasted that much of the article, and thought you were claiming to have written it yourself.
Regards,
Shodan
I must be misunderstanding you…the military is a necessary function for national defense. Digging ditches and then filling them up again just for the excuse of “creating work” is not necessary.
Forget about higher or different, how about they just pay the same effective tax rate as low/middle income earners?
We’ve had 90% marginal rates before and it wasn’t dangerous to anybody. I don’t think we need 90% but we could definitely take the top rate back to 50%, it would solve a whole bunch of problems. 60 even for a while would be good too.
Even though some voices were louder than others it’s possible with modern-day media and the internets for all voices to be heard. I’m sure Ron Pauk complained about the cost of war, anybody else?
What are you going to do if the study is four hundred pages of numbers and Greek letters? Are you going to check they got their sums right? Can’t you just take the word of the Financial Times that these studies exist?
I think anybody can tell I didn’t write it, it’s clear from the various journalistic punctuation marks in it. For those who still don’t get it, there’s a linky at the end!
Read the post I was responding to. You were advocating the military as a benficial domestic entity, countering Beware of Doug’s point about using it as an instrument of foreign policy.
You did not attempt to justify the current military by advocating that it’s necesary for national defense and such, but you specifically tried to identify it as a useful domestic institution because of the economic benefits of paying people, and of businesses supporting people, etc.
I’m saying that the economic argument is irrelevant to the point. Whatever we did with that spending, if we chose to stop spending it on the military, would go on to create jobs in other areas. It’s not a defense to say “military spending is fine, it creates jobs” where if we cut the military budget and instead built bridges, funded research, or cut taxes it would also create jobs. Probably more, since there’s more economic value to be had in the latter than the former.
Which is not to say that I’m against funding a military or even advocating military spending cuts. I’m just saying the defense “military spending creates jobs!” is irrelevant to the discussion.
I have to admit, this one caught my eye. I would appreciate it if you would elaborate.
P1. What does it mean that ‘it wasn’t dangerous’? Could you explain that one for me? Thanks in advance.
P2. What problems would be solved by taking the top rate to 50%? Thanks again.
Best Wishes,
IdahoMauleMan
That would mean that they would have to pay less than today.
Check out the tables 5 through 8 down from the top.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23408.html
You seem like a reasonably intelligent and articulate fellow. Do you get all your news from Air America, or the Daily Kos?
Uh, more expenditures than revenue?
Of course we can attack this problem from either direction, and I’d prefer the spending side - but are you seriously asking what the utility of increasing tax revenues is?
Or are you one of those guys who thinks the Laffer curve takes effect at marginal rates below 50%?
I’m one of those guys who thinks the Laffer curve takes effect at marginal rates below 50%.
I’m open to the idea. I’ve never seen it empirically studied in a way that didn’t fudge the numbers. Do you happen to have an unbiased source regarding the numbers?
Well, we had 90% tax rates in the 1950s, that mythical time for conservatives when America was the real America, the way things should be and that they’d like to return to. So it couldn’t have been that bad back then. The 1950s did also feature 5-8% yearly GDP growth too so clearly high tax rates didn’t affect economic growth negatively compared with tax rates/GDP gropwth over the last thirty years.
If we put the marginal rate up to 50%, back to where it was under Reagan, we’d get much greater revenues and it would help reduce the deficit. Tax cuts especially since 2000 have been catastrophic for revenues, long term-deficits, national debt etc.
EDIT : there’s a link to one of the studies in the FT article. Enjoy. 
Clinton raised the marginal rate to just under 40% in 1992. The entire GOP voted against it and we were warned of economic catastrophe, huge drops in GDP, tax revenues etc. Instead we got the best economic growth for decades, record investment and balanced the budget.
Bush cut the top rate in 2001 and we were told the usual supply-side snake oil about how well it would work. Instead tax revenues fell catastrophically causing huge long term problems and the weak economic growth petered out very quickly, creating the need for something to give us economic growth to hide the failure of the tax cuts. And lo and behold we got the biggest asset bubble in history.
Right. So 90% marginal rates, correlating to your strawman assertion of some time when ‘conservatives’ claim there was a ‘real America’ (whatever that is) is your proof.
That’s great. I might also note that it was also an extremely unusual time in modern world history, when the rest of the industrialized world’s productive capacity had been bombed into oblivion during WWII, and GDP was coming off an artificially low base to begin with.
But other than that, I accept your premise.
Tell you what…there is a little common area out back in our Homeowner’s Association. I’d like you to spend the rest of your life there, cleaning up, and tending to some chickens and a garden. I’ll promise we’ll feed you and put a roof over your head. We’ll even pay you minimum wage, and we’ll take 90% of it.
What do you say? It certainly won’t be ‘dangerous’ to you, just like your claim above. So why would you resist? After all, your bar for government intervention and expropriation of resources seems to be that if ‘isn’t dangerous’, then the burden of proof is on the individual citizen to show it shouldn’t be done.
I am now putting that burden on you. Since I’m sure you agree with me that it isn’t dangerous, I’ll expect you to show up tomorrow morning and get to work. Thanks.