5 ms·

Medicare and Social Security are funded through their own dedicated payroll tax, not the general income tax. Roosevelt intentionally did it this way to make it

Medicare and Social Security are funded through their own dedicated payroll tax, not the general income tax. Roosevelt intentionally did it this way to make it impossible to repeal. My working assumption is that the military is mismanaged, and spends trillions of dollars on wasteful projects. I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better.

knz 10y ago
I take it you missed the last point: > Restoring National Security Act: Rebuilds our military by ... expanding military investment; It reminds me of the "plan" to replace the ACA/Obamacare. Sounds great on paper but probably does fuck all to address the real issues.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  I didn't miss it, but here are some things I've heard him say on that issue: The first method is to control costs on military projects, and audit their finances. I think he'll do fine on this boring executive work, though I don't think better project management alone is going to get a 35% tax cut on the middle-class. Second, there are foreign members of NATO that are supposed to pay 2% of GDP for a defense pool that are not doing this. He wants to pressure them into paying their share for protection. Since he's mentioned this, supposedly some countries have started paying into it. Third, he doesn't actually want to go to war. War is pretty expensive, so building up a military to project strength without actually using it could be cheaper if we pull out of all on-going wars.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    > Third, he doesn't actually want to go to war. War is pretty expensive, so building up a military to project strength without actually using it could be cheaper if we pull out of all on-going wars. But... it's already by far the most well funded and advanced military in the world with a navy that ensures the US can deploy strength anywhere quickly.
josho 10y ago
> I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better. I find it interesting that in the US people are comfortable discussing improving military efficiency, yet its taboo to discuss reducing the size of the military. With a concerted effort it would be a major accomplishment to improve military efficiency by 5-10%. Or you could cut the military budget by 40% and still outspend every other nation's military. Yet, I don't recall ever hearing a candidate suggest reducing the military's budget. Hell even after the cold war didn't spending go up after a brief decline?
- totalZero 10y ago
  You're right. A small percentage of a massive industrial complex is actually a ton of money. There are some situations where US aircraft will fire half-million-dollar heatseeking missiles at empty sky, just in case enemies fire SAMs. That's an expensive habit. The military doesn't constrain itself financially unless it's forced to. They care more about the mission and the warfighter, as they should. But the guys in Congress who are tasked with constraining the military are too chicken to endanger their support from active duty, veterans, and their friends and families.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Spending on the military peaked during the cold war at about 10% GDP. Right now it's down to about 4%.
- cobookman 10y ago
  The US is a superpower because of our military might. A lot of the technological achievements were due to military research. If we reduce our military size to be `reasonable` we loose our status as a super power.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > The US is a superpower because of our military might. IMO, the causality is Economic might --> military might + "soft power" --> superpower (look at how China's trajectory). Prioritising military over economy in peace times seems short-sighted

knz 10y ago

I take it you missed the last point: > Restoring National Security Act: Rebuilds our military by ... expanding military investment; It reminds me of the "plan" to replace the ACA/Obamacare. Sounds great on paper but probably does fuck all to address the real issues.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
I didn't miss it, but here are some things I've heard him say on that issue: The first method is to control costs on military projects, and audit their finances. I think he'll do fine on this boring executive work, though I don't think better project management alone is going to get a 35% tax cut on the middle-class. Second, there are foreign members of NATO that are supposed to pay 2% of GDP for a defense pool that are not doing this. He wants to pressure them into paying their share for protection. Since he's mentioned this, supposedly some countries have started paying into it. Third, he doesn't actually want to go to war. War is pretty expensive, so building up a military to project strength without actually using it could be cheaper if we pull out of all on-going wars.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > Third, he doesn't actually want to go to war. War is pretty expensive, so building up a military to project strength without actually using it could be cheaper if we pull out of all on-going wars. But... it's already by far the most well funded and advanced military in the world with a navy that ensures the US can deploy strength anywhere quickly.

josho 10y ago

> I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better. I find it interesting that in the US people are comfortable discussing improving military efficiency, yet its taboo to discuss reducing the size of the military. With a concerted effort it would be a major accomplishment to improve military efficiency by 5-10%. Or you could cut the military budget by 40% and still outspend every other nation's military. Yet, I don't recall ever hearing a candidate suggest reducing the military's budget. Hell even after the cold war didn't spending go up after a brief decline?

totalZero 10y ago
You're right. A small percentage of a massive industrial complex is actually a ton of money. There are some situations where US aircraft will fire half-million-dollar heatseeking missiles at empty sky, just in case enemies fire SAMs. That's an expensive habit. The military doesn't constrain itself financially unless it's forced to. They care more about the mission and the warfighter, as they should. But the guys in Congress who are tasked with constraining the military are too chicken to endanger their support from active duty, veterans, and their friends and families.
gozur88 10y ago
Spending on the military peaked during the cold war at about 10% GDP. Right now it's down to about 4%.
cobookman 10y ago
The US is a superpower because of our military might. A lot of the technological achievements were due to military research. If we reduce our military size to be `reasonable` we loose our status as a super power.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > The US is a superpower because of our military might. IMO, the causality is Economic might --> military might + "soft power" --> superpower (look at how China's trajectory). Prioritising military over economy in peace times seems short-sighted