US bombers fly over the Gulf amid tensions with Iran

Dibble it out across every low income household in America? Not a lot of difference. What would help would be if
politicians on both sides of the spectrum making a commitment to serious tax reform, not necessarily tax increases - reform. One of the great throw away lines of last century was one by Warren Buffet where he asked something along the lines of why it was his secretary had to pay so much more of her annual income in tax (as a proportion) than he did as a billionaire? Answer? You need money to win a seat in Congress and the Senate, lots of money and who has that money? Not your 'poor folks'.

As for the structure of the UN Security council? Agreed it hardly ideal but it's also a construct of history (the outcome of WW2 specifically) the major victors from that war only came on board if they got a controlling nay say over the demands of smaller nations. And its 'mission' ? - you could read the official charter. Or just accept the fact that its a talk fest that, on rare occasions manages enough of a (brief) consensus for it to issue a mandate for action or whatever on important in international problem 'X' and then give that mandate some notional moral authority however scanty. Other than that its a convenient place to corral a lot off diplomatists and have them let off a lot of steam without anyone actually getting shot at.

Notice I'm not signing its praises here, just acknowledging that from a certain viewpoint its better than not having any international forum at all. And to date successive US governments on all sides of politics seem to agree. And the downside of leaving. You no longer have a say over who runs the circus.

 

Warren Buffett makes his money off of capital gains via the stock market. And he should know he pays just 15% on his investment income before any legal loopholes the rich can use to lower their tax rate further whereas his secretary pays 18% or more on her earned income and because of her lower income she does not have many loopholes to lower her tax rate or the high priced lawyers Buffett has on retainer to find the legal loopholes. Even if the UN moved to another country the US would still retain what little control they have now but with a reduced cost to play. The US should not be sponsoring an organization that caters to a bunch of prima donas who are just looking for a place to blow off some steam and doing very little else. I'd rather see the money saved go to thousands of Americans who pay taxes who could use some help.

 

That was Buffet's point why was his income from investments taxed at a lower rate than his secretaries income from labor? Ad as note previously the working poor have almost none of the former and not enough of the latter. As for the rest those are your real reasons for wanting the UN gone. Which is fine. I was simply commenting on the 'cost saving' argument - where I think my point still stands. So that's probably it for me.

 

The lower tax rate is used to promote investing. People unfortunately have to work but they do not have to invest. Death and taxes...

 

To 'invest' you have to have surplus capital to begin with, the poor (everywhere) don't. Only the wealthy have such surpluses. The middle class can and do build up a surplus over time via retirement planning and (sometimes) the purchase of a home. Although how much of an 'investment' property is will vary from place to place. But again they don't receive the effective tax breaks the very wealthy receive.

I have no problem with paying taxes. I do have a problem when the poor shoulder more of the burden as a % of their income than the rich do. So why not equal portions?

 

I agree with equal portions - and perhaps more -- but this at least. There is no way that Publicly traded Oligopolies and other large corps should be paying less than the citizen.

How does this relate to the topic though - would you like to comment on Military Spending ?

 

It's only relevant in that it relates to previous comments about the size of US deficit and the fact that the presence (or not) of the UN in New York city basically has diddly squat impact on that size. I.E. it doesn't effect it one way or the other because the cost is so small.

That being the case the only real change in the deficit can come from;

1) changing imbalances in to the tax structure (as per your comment above);
2) using sustained economic growth (of the entire economy) as a means of reducing the size of the deficit. Which basically means growing the economy while at the same time 'fixing' the size of the deficit in proportion.

As far as defense spending goes it falls under the 'discretionary' spending component of the US Federal Budget I referenced earlier. As opposed to the 'mandated' spending on social security and medical expenses I also mentioned earlier. Those latter are the financial 'Godzilla's' that are doing to the Federal Budget what the monster concerned did to Tokyo.

So Defense spending is not the issue apart form the fact that the US has adopted a policy (via intensive lobbying from US defense contractors) of only buying US 'made' defense systems. Mostly this doesn't matter but in specific cases it does. For example US naval shipyards are (in terms of surface combatants at least) prone to horrendous cost overruns. So it might make economic sense to outsource at least parts of certain programs to reliable allies.

In reality? That's never going to happen. The sphincters of every US Senator and Congressman whose districts have jobs on the line would relax at the mere thought! But as I said the problem isn't really defense spending - fix the other issues and its manageable - possibly even essential given China's shenanigans.

 

I agree with you on the poor not having money to invest. I was pointing out why Buffet's income was taxed at a lower rate than his secretary whom I sure makes a pretty good income. But since it is considered earned income his secretary will pay a higher tax rate than Buffets income from investments. Capital gains received from investments is taxed at 15% before loopholes, whereas his secretary is taxed at a earned income tax rate which is higher. The lower capital gains tax rate is to encourage people to invest, especially folks who have a little money to invest need that incentive.

 

I am going to move the goalposts just a nudge and talk about Total Military spending (TMS) - rather than just defense - so this includes the VA - spies - intelligence - Homeland Security - Dark Projects - "Other foreign spending" - and other military related spending.

In 2000 - TMS - was roughly 300 Billion - and we were not exactly "weak" - the homeland was secure.

After 8 years of Bush - the total was over 900 Billion - and under Obama topped 1 Trillion. Had we maintained 2000 spend levels - increasing with inflation - we could have diverted 500 Billion/yr x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to infrastructure, technology, education, ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium.

Instead we threw this money down the toilet - fighting wars on the basis of falsehood - to pad the pockets of the International financiers who own the Military Industrial Complex - and dictate foreign policy.

Healthcare: 3.5 Trillion was the Total spend in 2018. Fed Revenue was 3.6 Trillion for comparison

We spend double what other first nations pay - for middle of the road care - 1.75 Trillion per year - on the table .. But - instead - we pad the pockets of the International financiers who own the healthcare Oligopolies - (same folks who own the MIC incidentally).

You do the math x 16 years .. and add to the above total.

We will not be reducing our deficit any time soon .. Obama handed Trump 500 Billion .. which - as Red Princesses with Credit cards love to do .. Reagan being the worst - massively increased deficit spending - was at least going to be 1.2 Trillion pre Covid - Now of course it is a mess and we are looking at 30 Trillion in debt by the end of Biden's term ... Can't imagine he will be able to get the deficit down below 1 Trillion during his term.

Interest on this borrowed money- (Paid to same international financiers) is now roughly 500 Billion/year - Should interest rates on our debt rise - this would be catastrophic - financially . On 30 Trillion 1% = 300 Billion.

Having the world reserve currency is our main cushion - allowing us to borrow cheap - but this is changing .. and competition is fast afoot.
which will put upward pressure on interest rates on our debt.

At the same time - we were in the middle of an Global and local economic slowdown prior to covid - once the lockdown ends - the Economic Tsunami will hit - after a brief surge of Euphoria post end of lockdown - the effects of which will carry on through the end of Biden's term.

The only Bright Spot - is that Covid took some of those who are draining health care the most (on a per individual basis) ave age 82.

As the baby boomers move into their high HC cost years - the costs of HC will experience upward pressure - at the same time - Social Security is in the red .. due to the Gov't stealing the interest for the past number of decades.

After the 2008 crash - Fed Revenue dropped from 2.7 Trillion down to 2.1 Trillion - and took 4 years to recover.
Economists and prognosticators are predicting that this is going to be far worse ..

But - take heart - for the time being - money is falling from the tree - and this is huge economic stimulus so we are in the eye of the storm - and everything is calm .. until the money stops falling from the tree .. and .. then we will have the storm.