4 ms·
It's really hard to get a precise number of how much money we spend on military. The budget for the military is snuck into other line items and obscures the tr
by spacehome 8y ago
It's really hard to get a precise number of how much money we spend on military. The budget for the military is snuck into other line items and obscures the true cost. For instance the VA is not included, even though we only need the VA due to having veterans. And the costs for nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants are included in the Department of Energy's budget.
- lwf 8y agoThe VA is a weird case — if we had comprehensive medical coverage for all Americans, the because-of-military costs would only be those incurred due to care for wounded veterans. I believe that's a minority of the VA's expenditures, but sometimes it is hard to separate. For example, my grandfather receives a hearing aid from the VA — is that because of too much time spent around jet planes, or just due to age?
- Fjolsvith 8y agoHe probably receives a hearing aid from the VA because he was in the military, irregardless of how he lost his hearing.
- rileyphone 8y agoThe point they are raising is whether that's a negative externality of the military - had he not been in the military, would that hearing aide not have been needed.
- Fjolsvith 8y agoIf he had not been in the military, the VA wouldn't have given him one.
- nickserv 8y agoIt's not uncommon in countries with comprehensive health care for veterans to receive additional benefits (even for non combat/service related injuries). But you're right that much of the VA could be replaced with a national system.
- spacehome 8y agoWithout a doubt, but as it stands now, it's part of the total compensation package that is offered to service members and should be accounted as such.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoIt's not appropriate to include in terms of proportion of GDP because they'd be spending that money on healthcare anyway.
- spacehome 8y agoIt still is appropriate because it's compensation for a job. VA benefits are part of the package deal a service member signs up for. Without those benefits the military would have to offer a higher salary to recruit the same number and quality of employees, at the margin at least. It's like saying a government pension shouldn't be counted as part of the cost of employing government workers because the workers would still have to buy food and housing whether or not their career was with the government.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoBy that logic you could affect the spending numbers by charging military spouses rent and making up for it with daycare pay to compensate them for watching their kids. It's just a difference in accounting.
- spacehome 8y agoI'm confused about what you're arguing. If governmental funds are being spent on military spousal housing, that's a cost of the military, whether it's accounted as salary to the service member who pays rent or if the military builds the house directly. My original point is that nobody (at least publicly) knows the true spending on the US military because the accounting is so baroque. The VA is just one agency whose rather significant cost is typically forgotten when quoting these numbers, but it's far from the only example.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago> It's really hard to get a precise number of how much money we spend on military. Not as hard as it is to get a precise number on much money China spends on its military. China's soldier support spending is pretty significant as well, probably much more so than the US.