3 ms·

The tax money would be spent on nukes, not public services.

by s_kilk 10y ago

wutbrodo 10y ago
You really shouldn't believe whatever you hear: whoever told you that grossly misinformed you. Even if we assume that "spent on nukes" is hyperbole for "spent on the military", the military is 16% of the federal budget, absolutely dwarfed by the rest of the budget (which mostly consists of items fairly described as public services). And that's the federal budget alone: state taxes obviously don't even have _that_ small proportion allocated to military spending so are even more heavily predisposed to social services.
- monort 10y ago
  Imagine you are not required to pay taxes and everything is voluntary. Would you donate to an entity, that spends just 16% of donation on killing people? Why do you feel different when this entity is your government?
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    I'm not interested in your irrelevant pet political issue: FWIW, I'm far from an advocate of reflexive govt action or high military spending. Neither of those views warrant misleading implications about tax dollars going to nukes and not social services.
- huxley 10y ago
  The US Department of Defense has received about 19% directly and that amount doesn't include defence related spending by other departments nor does it include spending in Iraq and Afghanistan (or other overseas adventures).
- tmd83 10y ago
  16% is small? what would be considered big?
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    Uh, the 84% that does go to services? I should have known that correcting an inaccurate insinuation would only bring out those who are incapable of thinking without their preferred political lens. If someone says "taxes go to social services" and is responded to with "no they go to nukes" it's entirely relevant to point out that something like 6x the spending goes to services than to the military. For those of us who aren't desperately trying to pattern match everything into a tired old political script that they have a hope of comprehending: I didn't say anything about whether I think it _should_ be higher or lower.

The tax money would be spent on nukes, not public services.

by s_kilk 10y ago

The tax money would be spent on nukes, not public services.

You really shouldn't believe whatever you hear: whoever told you that grossly misinformed you. Even if we assume that "spent on nukes" is hyperbole for "spent on the military", the military is 16% of the federal budget, absolutely dwarfed by the rest of the budget (which mostly consists of items fairly described as public services). And that's the federal budget alone: state taxes obviously don't even have _that_ small proportion allocated to military spending so are even more heavily predisposed to social services.

monort 10y ago
Imagine you are not required to pay taxes and everything is voluntary. Would you donate to an entity, that spends just 16% of donation on killing people? Why do you feel different when this entity is your government?
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  I'm not interested in your irrelevant pet political issue: FWIW, I'm far from an advocate of reflexive govt action or high military spending. Neither of those views warrant misleading implications about tax dollars going to nukes and not social services.
huxley 10y ago
The US Department of Defense has received about 19% directly and that amount doesn't include defence related spending by other departments nor does it include spending in Iraq and Afghanistan (or other overseas adventures).
tmd83 10y ago
16% is small? what would be considered big?
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  Uh, the 84% that does go to services? I should have known that correcting an inaccurate insinuation would only bring out those who are incapable of thinking without their preferred political lens. If someone says "taxes go to social services" and is responded to with "no they go to nukes" it's entirely relevant to point out that something like 6x the spending goes to services than to the military. For those of us who aren't desperately trying to pattern match everything into a tired old political script that they have a hope of comprehending: I didn't say anything about whether I think it _should_ be higher or lower.