 |
The Tax Man’s Gone Belligerent |
 |
Done your taxes yet? Well, I’ve done mine, and as I tallied the amount Uncle Sam docked from my paychecks, I couldn’t help but wonder what my hard work was funding.
When the end is education for our children, training for workers in our changing economy, health care for our sick compatriots, aid programs for Africa, or rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of our cities, I don’t begrudge the money that skips over my pocket. I do, however, begrudge the money that’s taken from me to finance illegal and unnecessary war.
With the help of the National Priorities Project, I saw my tax contribution broken down proportionally; as a resident of New York City, more than 42 cents of every federal tax dollar goes to military expenditures; more than 10 cents goes to paying off foreign debt. In contrast, education got just 4.4 cents.
I’m fortunate, at present I’m largely untouched by the repercussions of our staggering economy. But others aren’t so lucky; more and more are beginning to feel the pinch. As the Iraq recession deepens, we need to recognize that it didn’t have to be like this, and take steps to make sure that, in the future, it won’t be like this.
That had to be a depressing read discovering where the scratch went. I’d want to do it but I don’t if you know what I mean. This article reminded me of three famous quotes….
You guys got fat while everybody starved on the streets
- Frank White
The pen is mightier than the sword. Give sword lots ‘o’ money.
- Joey Kittens
Face!
- Unknown
I hate to see funds go toward killing instead of educating. That said, I wonder how much of the funds earmarked as “Current Military and War” actually go to specifically war-related activities. I’m currently a university student, and have some experience in the research/academic world. Of the two labs I’ve worked in, both were partially funded by DARPA, which if I’m not mistaken is a division of the military arm of the government. With that in mind, do you think that some of this money is actually going toward higher education and/or groundbreaking research, or just toward senseless colonialism?
While some research dollars via DARPA end up funding research that is useful outside the military, such as ARPA-net, which is the original basis for the Internet, almost all is for military applications or for spying. Spying, including domestic spying, is a large portion of the “Defense” budget.
I was just thinking about something semi-related. I cannot recall ever hearing of anything that the CIA did, or claimed to do, that was not morally reprehensible. And I found it strange to realize that America has a military/intelligence organization that is thoroughly dedicated to accomplishing whatever its goals by way of unrestrained evil.
And I found it ludicrus to imagine what enormous amount of America’s tax dollars must go to fund this ethically devoid entity. Then I thought… How the hell do you end up an agent of the CIA? Seriously: From day to day you might be stirring up civil wars in African nations, resulting in millions of deaths; assassinating democratically elected world leaders; or recruiting spies who will put their lives in danger just so you can know the price of rice on the Chinese black market.
The model of a CIA agent has to be a sociopath! How do you target and recruit people with no empathy and a complete disconnect between their own actions and the resulting consequences? I mean… I know there are probably thousands of paper pushing, position writing analysts on the payroll as well. But, even these have to be willing to be a cog in the most measurably evil machine in the nation.
I wonder how many cents per dollar go to THAT.
As best I can tell, very few CIA operations are not illegal, and most are immoral and decrease security and freedom of the US.
Intelligence analysis is not inherently illegal or immoral. That is one of three major CIA roles.
The 3rd role is intelligence gathering, and illegal methods are often used.
LGS,
Spending 44% of our federal tax dollars on the military seems too high. But wouldn’t that number only be relevant if it was noticeably higher, or even slightly higher, than the historic share spent on that same military? Give me further information on the single premise this article was founded upon. Check out some other time periods, but focus on, maybe, all of them. I did, and if you follow suit, we can get your post removed once and for all.
-GF
LGS,
If you have any time left after focusing on every time period and how military was funded during studied time period call me because I want to go over how to better count the hairs on the back of my ass.
Gus,
You focused on every time period? Nice. Once you get this post removed you only have about 10 million more to go so good luck but this shouldn’t be too hard a task for a man like you considering you studied every time period ever.
The US spends too much on the military. Why do I say that: when one country spends as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, that would be my clue.
The US can no longer afford to be the world’s police man. It won’t be long before the costs of the military enterprise will be too much to bear. The spending will stop automatically.
On top of that, the money spent on the military could be spent far better within the borders of the US to strengthen the economy and assure a better future for generations to come.
The present live fire drill in Iraq and Afghanistan is doing nothing but lining the pockets of big oil [highest profits of any company in the world, they still get tax breaks] and the finest assassins-for-hire on the planet.
I look forward to an American people who stand up to their leaders and remind them who is working for who again.
In the mean time 42 cents of every cent are wasted while there are so many more worthwhile things to do.
I didn’t plan on becoming a cynic. I just started reading and thinking a lot. It happened automatically.
Ditto.
Federal taxes should go towards federal defense… there is no reason education needs to be federalized. I’d support 0% of federal expenditures being education. Remember we’re in a republic, people!
Federal dollars go to education so that a rural village that doesn’t want Walmarts and cookie-cutter housing developers ruining their sense of community could still afford to provide an equal education to their children.
It’s the general idea that the smarter our children are, the less likely they are to destroy themselves, each other, and the planet as they take the reigns. So those of us who tend toward idealism imagine that it wouldn’t be such a horrible thing if the most affluent, excess-enamored nation in the world were to provide the funds so that a child would have equal access to quality k-12 education nomatter where they lived. (And maybe even beyond grade 12 - gasp!)
Because that is one of the few things that the states and local governments can not assure themselves. Thus we propose the Federal government take some of that $2,000,000,000,000.00 per annum, forcibly collected from all, and provide for the areas that don’t have three K-Marts’, two Piggly Wigglys’ a Meijers, and 17 strip malls’ loosing them of their souls and destroying the entrepreneurial spirit, whilst collecting taxes that go to fund their fifth grade science fairs. We’d prefer they still get to hold those fairs, even without dropping to their knees to suck at a giant blood engorged corporate dick.
But hey, to each his own.
Why would Federal funds go to education? It’s paid for by your state via property taxes.
Excise taxes pay for most government services. Income tax pays for almost none of them. Check the facts.
I’m all for great public education but, as Ryan points out, education is a state’s responsibility. The federal government bears no responsibility in this matter. There are only a couple of reasons why they try to butt their noses in:
(1) Because it plays well with the voters to talk about “the kids.”
(2) They can leverage the dollars spent on education (i.e., bully the states) into other concessions from the states (e.g., Real ID, road funding, etc.)
All that said, I agree with the notion that our federal government spends too much money. Notice how I didn’t need to qualify that with any particular department or category of spending.
Actually, we’re not paying much of it; we’re borrowing it for our kids to pay off with interest. There are roughly four quarters of the budget: the military, Social Security + Medicare current payments, interest payments on what’s already been borrowed, and everything else. Every year we borrow an amount very roughly equal to one of those because people don’t want to pay taxes for the full amount. So you can pick one: in effect we’re borrowing all the money to pay Social Security and Medicare, or we’re borrowing all the money to pay interest, or we’re borrowing all the money to operate the military, or we’re borrowing all the money to do everything else the federal government does.
Bogus Alert!! …the actual figure is 21%… and this includes salaries and benefits for soldiers… Its still a bunch, but it has always been in this range… and its about the same as spent on Social Security… Get your figures right!!
I’m pretty sure the figure still stands. With a smaller military, we’d be paying less out for benefits and salaries of active duty soldiers (though I think we still need to take care of our vets to the fullest). So I’m pretty sure the figures quoted here are accurate. This is what it costs to maintain our military at its current size.
You are implying that defense is ordinarily not one of the largest expenditures of our tax money, and that it is the Iraq war that is responsible. We always spend a lot of money on the military, and while there is no doubt that Iraq is costing us a lot of money, I think the way this article is presented is misleading.
Also, our economy has taken a larger hit from the mortgage crisis than it has from the Iraq war…
While I’m not a fan of war, your comparison to federal money going to education is somewhat flawed. Education is primariy a state and local concern (while there are federal dollars provided). The point is that throwing MORE money at education doesn’t yield what you might think. There a studies enough proving this. You don’t have to position military spending next to education spending at the federal level to make sense … try coming up with an argument based on why military spending is “bad” and you’ll get some points.
I would have thought that about 2.75$ of every federal tax dollars went to the war in Iraq. Or does the US not spend more than it collects in taxes?
And let’s not forget that with all the spending on education in the US (The highest in the west) we are still a country of nincompoops. The best education currently in Europe are in Belgium and France. They actually spend very little compared to their neighbors. The way they do it? They leave lots of children behind. If you practically can’t fail (As in the US, germany, England etc…) your diploma becomes meaningless!
(Washington DC spends $25,000 per student: This is all school below higher education. All e xpenditures including pension obligations administrative etc.. divided by students; DC has the worst SAT scores in the nation).
Throwing money at education is nonsense!
Hajo
hajo, your comments about european education are largely poppycock. france and belgium don’t leave more kids behind than their neighbors, nor are the education systems in germany and the UK such that you practically can’t fail - far from it. furthermore, last time i checked the english a-levels and the german abitur (along with the french bacc) were among the internationally most highly acclaimed diplomas of secondary education. though the education systems in europe do indeed have their differences, they are generally pretty damn good compared to the u.s. average and they’re all public, i.e. government funded, with private schools being an extreme rarity. your conclusion that throwing money at education is nonsense is thus nonsense.
well said caspar.
It makes me sick that people can argue that education isn’t the responsibility of the federal government. I’m not an expert on federal and state budgeting at all but I do know the difference between right and wrong. The federal government should be spending money on education because a smarter nation benefits all, and that means all states. That is a concept that is right.
Spending nearly half of our tax dollars on the military is not necessary, no, war is not good business. Destruction is not construction. Destroying our credibility in the international community is wrong.
The federal government has done not but dumb down this nation in order to do whatever it is that they please. The federal government not funding education is a clear indicator of that. I mean what would happen if we actually invested in the people of this country and gave them an education? Uh-Oh the people just might start to see that what is being done in our name is not right and we might actually reign in our government. And I will say this one more time because I think that too often people forget, this is OUR government, so lets take it back and TELL them how to spend our tax dollars.
I think you’ve got your math wrong. Education is just a fraction of a cent of every dollar.
Nothing will change. McCain will win in November, because when it comes right down to it, Americans talk the talk, but don’t take action. Welcome to the further sinking of your country into nothingness.
I swear, I haven’t any idea where you people are coming from. Real quick… Any non-whites in the room? Hmm? I believe you might have a different perspective on the Federal funding of k-12 schools toward the effort of creating equality within our education system if you had grown up black, Hispanic, and/or poor.
What, beyond all logic, compels a man to say “Nope. Funding schools is a bad idea!” The notion that each state and each county and each city and each town and each village throughout the U.S. should rely solely on the free market’s operations within their borders to provide the funding of their children’s education is well beyond what civilised cultures call ignorant.
For Christ’s sake, so long as we are paying in to these Federal taxes, I should think that you people would want to get something worthwhile back out of them. What, pray tell, do you suggest is a more important usage of unapportioned tax dollars then making sure the next generation isn’t as illiterate and incapable of critical thought as this one?
Shall we fill in potholes or fill in the abscesses of the mind?
Shall we erect more bridges, or as Thoreau put it: “If it is necessary, omit one bridge over the river, go round a little there, and throw one arch at least over the darker gulf of ignorance which surrounds us.”
The question I remit again: What is a more worthy use of tax dollars then educating the coming generations? I await all clever means of dancing around the question.
Personally, I say lets save ourselves some money and cut the 4.4 cents that’s being wasted on education. Face it, the forefathers of this country were lucky if they had ONE book and learned in a class filled with students of multiple ages. And they were geniuses! Goes to show, it’s not how much money you spend on education, it’s the values the family instills in the homes. No amount of money is going to change that. Our current system of education produces a 48% drop out rate in So. Cal. and helps the administrators get richer. Screw that!
O.K. Roy. I challenge you to tell me how much money it would take to yield one kid with a 140 IQ. You talk as if money is the sole issue. That’s ignorance squared. I’ll take a kid who gets interested in learning because he’s been challenged by an underpaid private school teacher who loves teaching over a government school any day of the week. See … it doesn’t take a lot of big words to make a point.
There is no way money is the sole issue, but to say it is not an issue is just as wrong. More money into education is a broad statement, but we should also be talking about more efficient money, and more equal distribution of money, etc…
Boy I called it, huh?: Way to skirt the question, Dennis. Not too creative a method, but it got the job done.
By the way, those big words… I got them from my public school education. They allow me to not only “make a point,” but also to substantiate its claims effectively, and in a rebuttable manner. It’s what we call an argument. And typically it takes more than a three-line paragraph to form a cogent one.
Money buys books and desks and dry erase markers. Money buys us more teachers and therefore smaller classrooms. Money buys technical equipment that allows students to prepare for their future jobs. And money - our tax money - is what our elected representatives are, each day, deciding how and when to allocate, where. So, it’s of interest to me whether they spend it sporadically killing brown people for yet another century or, just maybe, giving every single citizen a fair shake at an education that’s worth something; that won’t require remedial study in zero-level courses should a person choose thereafter to pursue a college degree.
Therefore I reiterate for the slow amongst us: What better use of the common wealth - that $2T per year - is there than spreading wisdom while quelling the swelling tide of the present American intellectual lethargy?
Make an argument, not “a point.”
I thought that’s the way it always was - hence the uneducated, half-brained soldiers in Iraq..
Education is a the primary responsibility of parents. This makes it a local issue. Money sent to and distributed by the federal govt is wasted by (estimates say) about 80%. Don’t believe me? Do the math. Federal govt is hugely inefficient.
I am glad to see a conversation about what our federal taxes are used for. I would like to expand upon this theme by adding two thoughts: War Tax Resistance/Redirection (”wtr”), and the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act (HR 1921, or “ptf” for short).
War tax resistance has been around continuously in the US since at least 1637, when Algonquins refused to pay military taxes demanded by their Dutch oppressors. Today it is normally practiced by conscientious objectors to war. Usually the taxes owed are either pooled and redirected to groups providing social service, or deposited in escrow accounts which use the pooled interest to provide grants to similar groups. These tax resisters are distinguished from the “tax deniers” by a commitment to paying taxes as part of the social contract - but not for war, or at least the type of aggressive campaigns the US has consistently engaged in following independence from Great Britain. WTR is a nonviolent act of civil disobedience, with consequences which need to be considered before action is taken.
The Religious Peace Tax Fund Act (HR 1921 in the 110th Congress), should it become law, would create a federally administered fund to receive the taxes of conscientious objectors to war. Before the word “religious” throws anyone into a tizzy, please consider that one of the First Amendments guarantees is Freedom of Religion. The First Amendment is the first Constitutional basis for conscientious objector status; “religion” is understood to be “deeply held spiritual or moral beliefs” and need not include a brand name.
The importance of the fund’s existence - and use - would at first be a convenience for those taxpaying CO’s who would have the relief of using it. However, the greater importance would be giving the justice and peace community a number, because currently our campaigns take a lot of effort, and our letters, faxes, phone calls (and marches) are usually ignored by our elected employees. This alone causes a paralysis of fatalism for many, if not most, citizens.
Of course, the PTF is not a perfect tool. (Please, show me your silver bullet.) I don’t have just one type of hammer, or screwdriver, saw, or wrench - etc - in my toolbox. And We the People cannot rely on just one tool, or one kind of tool, to wrench our nation away from the thrall of imperialism and militarism (among other stupidities). The PTF is just one of the essential tools we must have, and use, in order to bend this nation back to it’s ideals (never realized, but at least given more than lip service.)
We in Oregon, especially those of us in Congressman Blumenauer’s district (perhaps the most liberal in Oregon) need to pressure our elected employees to cosponsor - and work for the passage of HR 1921. So far, in Oregon, only Peter DeFazio consitently cosponsors the act. Congressman Blumenauer is on Ways and Means, as well as on several other financial/tax committees. I firmly believe that he’s neither perfect nor the devil incarnate - he just needs to hear from enough of his employers to be swayed our way. It’s a numbers game.
More information can be found at these websites: http://www.nwtrcc.org (for war tax resistance); http://www.peacetaxfund.org; and http://www.pcti.ws (the international site for all ptf campaigns).
It was Bertrand Russell, who said, “Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education.” (I think one sentence gets the job done).