Approximately $20,000 per person. $1000 a year would have made a nice universal basic income for the last 20 years.
Some consider $1000 too low to be a real UBI, so $83 definitely wouldn’t count.
Economic costs of war
101–110 of 618 posts
Re: Economic costs of war
#102Approximately $20,000 per person. $1000 a year would have made a nice universal basic income for the last 20 years.
In another vein, it would have been cheaper to build a house, give a Ford Mustang, a tractor, and home appliances to every household in Afghanistan than to pay for the war there.
Re: Economic costs of war
#103But we can’t afford universal healthcare. Edit: Y’all, every other OECD country doesn’t have the healthcare challenges the US has, and they also don’t light trillions of $fiat on fire waging useless wars. You should care how tax dollars are spent.
The average 20-year cost of Afghanistan was $100 billion per year. At that cost you’re either getting really crappy healthcare or the program is means tested (which means it’s not so universal.)
Re: Economic costs of war
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can only print so much money though before the dollar becomes worthless, so there is an opportunity cost since you can't print infinite dollars
Except we don't just print money and give it away. The money is borrowed (backed by some asset), and this distinction matters. IOW, the money that gets printed is (generally) non-inflationary. Stop using what you learned in your Econ 1XX level courses to try and reason about government spending and money operations, especially, US government spending and money operations. What you learned is not applicable.
Seems like inflation is skyrocketing to me. Specifically asset inflation. Housing prices, stocks, bitcoin, etc. Basically dollar becoming worth less against these assets thanks to QE.
Re: Economic costs of war
#105Approximately $20,000 per person. $1000 a year would have made a nice universal basic income for the last 20 years.
If all that money was spent in the US, you'd have a much higher inflation. This is another way the US exports the dollar as a worldwide currency, and is able to print money without causing high inflation domestically.
The money was mostly spent domestically, the US military wants domestic suppliers to minimize risks in an actual war. This means they is domestic manufacturing for everything from missiles to socks.
Re: Economic costs of war
#106Approximately $20,000 per person. $1000 a year would have made a nice universal basic income for the last 20 years.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that wages are quite inflated in the USA and $1000/year is not a livable income (i.e. sufficient for cheap housing, cheap food, water, electricity, basic appliances like a fridge and washing machine, heating, and pretty much nothing else) even in Europe where I'm from. Or am I missing the point of a UBI?
Basic living expenses consume the entire income of ~15% of US households, per government and Federal Reserve studies. That's around 20 million households. For these people, an extra $1000 is a lot of money.
$1000/year may not be UBI in a traditional sense but it also isn't nothing. In many parts of the US that is more than the average monthly rent for an apartment.
Re: Economic costs of war
#107Sure glad my taxes are 55%
Since this is based on US spending I am assuming you are talking about US taxes, in which case, no you are not paying 55% in taxes.
I guess if you live in a high income tax state, make more than the AMT threshold, max out your 401k and health insurance, etc. and compare your employer's cost to employ you by what gets deposited in your bank account at the end of the month, you can end up with a number like this. I agree that it's misleading, because your 401k, health insurance, etc. aren't taxes, and neither is your employer's payroll tax (for you anyway), but on some level it makes sense -- $200,000 a year leave your employer's bank account, and $100,000 a year ends up in yours. It's misleading to call that a 50% tax, but more like 50% overhead-some-of-which-goes-to-the-government-and-some-of-it-pays-for-other-peoples-healthcare-and-some-of-it-makes-up-for-how-useless-social-security-will-be-when-you-retire. That's a mouthful, so I can see why people map that to "tax" in their mind ;)
BTW, reading some of the other comments in this thread -- they point out property tax and sales tax. Good call.
Re: Economic costs of war
#108Approximately $20,000 per person. $1000 a year would have made a nice universal basic income for the last 20 years.
> $1000 a year would have made a nice universal basic income for the last 20 years. I think you mean per month, not year. The idea of UBI is to give everyone a subsistence income so they can devote themselves to skill development and career advancement, even/especially while caring for kids. $1000/year doesn't remotely accomplish that.
No, $20,000 per tax payer is $1,000 per year over the last 20 years we've been in Afghanistan.
Which comes out to a whopping $83.33 per month. I think this just illustrates how expensive these UBI plans really are... particularly the ones that flaunt several thousand dollar payments to every tax payer per month.
Re: Economic costs of war
#109Deaths 9/11 2,996 Deaths Covid-19 USA 621,000 207x Lack of understanding of large numbers is a flaw in the human mind we have to figure out how to fix.
I swear dude. I cannot understand just why it is that the average person seems to be so incapable at understanding statistics and large numbers. It's mind boggling. Ever since my freshman engineering stats class, it's like everywhere I look at where there's stupid bullshit happening, a large reason as to why the stupid bullshit is happening is because people have zero understanding of statistics and large numbers. It…
I can say so for politics.
Average Americans don't understand American politics.
To me, the transition from Bush to Obama was paradoxal.
One thing, Obama marketed himself as a change man, as well pretty much everybody. It's very generic.
On the other side, his true colours weren't even hidden, his electoral programme told very candidly about his national security views, views on civil rights, and etc for which he got flak later.
If I haven't seen the name, and explicitly liberal branding on these electoral materials, I could've said it's coming from a conservative, doctrinaire statist very much like Bush.
The point is people are angry at Obama exactly on the points they elected him for.
Re: Economic costs of war
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you buy a house with a mortgage, I think it's reasonable to say you 'spent' the booked value.
It's really not. If you buy a house with a mortgage, and later sell the house before the note is due, you will not owe the full amount of the accrued interest. Unfortunately the resale value of a secondhand war is very low.
the resale value of a secondhand war is very low.
"20 Year old slow-burn war available for reasonable price. Population w/ low morale, lots of growth potential! Motivated buyers only please."