Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economic costs of war

watson.brown.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 618 posts

Re: Economic costs of war

#131

Post by pessimizer »

ketralnis wrote: post #56
dlp211 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The top US tax bracket is 37% and top California bracket is 13.3% for a total marginal rate of of 50.3%. If you're self-employed or a contractor you'll have the employer side too so I could see that hitting 55%. And that's just income tax; property and sales tax could easy push higher than that. A poor person isn't paying that rate, but a wealthy person may well

Having your entire income taxed at the top marginal tax rate is like running a marathon with no legs.

Re: Economic costs of war

#132

Post by mellow-lake-day »

lmilcin wrote: post #19

Nah... probably large portion of this was paid to US corporations and citizens. Spending on the level of government is counterintuitive. If you are government you hand out money but it gets back to you. Unfortunately, interest on that debt is real and is owed to other countries.

Funneling money from US taxpayers to US corporations at unprecedented speeds

I would say that the fabricated wars started by Bush/Cheney have been very successful and had great return on investment

Re: Economic costs of war

#133

Post by babesh »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #84
dlp211 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're making $10 million per year in a high tax state like California, your effective tax rate is still only 52%

You need to add sales tax and property tax possibly. Sales tax is approximately 9%. Property tax is about 1% of inflation adjusted value of the property.

Re: Economic costs of war

#134

Post by lucb1e »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #106
lucb1e wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> more than the average monthly rent for an apartment

Sure so you get, in a good case, 3 months' rent out of it and then you still need to eat. Yes it helps, yes it would be great in addition to other social benefits, but a UBI it is not unless I have a wrong impression of what a UBI is supposed to be.

Re: Economic costs of war

#135

Post by ineedasername »

markdown wrote: post #89
glitchc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not the what, but the how. A terrorist attack on home turf is a slap in the face of every American. Outrage is to be expected.

Patriotism is a sickness that the world would be better without.

I'd replace the word patriotism with jingoism. A certain amount of pride in your country seems reasonable.

Re: Economic costs of war

#136

Post by Smoosh »

el_jay wrote: post #118

To those here riffing on the theme of “this misrepresents the volume and beneficiaries of the transactions involved” - you’re not wrong. Accurate representation of public info like this is a top organisational problem for our species at the moment. But I do think you miss the point, so aptly put by Mr Eisenhower: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a thef…

I think of this when people say we can't afford to mitigate climate change.

Re: Economic costs of war

#137

Post by kevinventullo »

chickenpotpie wrote: post #70
ketralnis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top US tax bracket is 37% and top California bracket is 13.3% for a total marginal rate of of 50.3%. If you're self-employed or a contractor you'll have the employer side too so I could see that hitting 55%. And that's just income tax; property and sales tax could easy push higher than that. A poor person isn't paying that rate, but a wealthy person may well

50.7% for income over $518,400. The effective income tax rate for everyone but billionaires is far below that.

There are three orders of magnitude between the number you quoted and one billion. Also note that at the billionaire scale, there are cost effective ways to avoid taxes such that one’s effective rate is less than that of a typical hundred-thousandaire.

Re: Economic costs of war

#138

Post by jandrewrogers »

thechao wrote: post #52
lucb1e wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Discretionary income for a lot of families is — functionally — zero. The result is that any sort of financial issue becomes a devastating (possibly lifelong) burden. Most of these issues are single-occurrence and probably fall in the 200–500$ range. A 1000$ a year UBI would be life-changing for them. And by "them" I mean, like, 50% of the country. I'm in Texas, and the maximum amount of cash assistance possible — mar…

Per the US BLS and Federal Reserve, the median discretionary household income is $1000 per month. That is after all ordinary expenses, not just necessary ones.

There is a significant percentage of the US that has no discretionary income in any meaningful sense, and that is something we should be concerned about, but it is nowhere near 50%.

Re: Economic costs of war

#139

Post by OJFord »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #123
OJFord wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you do, you're just typically rolling it into another mortgage on the next place. Anyway I didn't say and didn't mean it's the only valid interpretation of 'spent', just that it is one.

No, you don't. You might in a state of nature, but the US has laws against prepayment penalties for mortgages. (Well, against the mortgage originator charging prepayment penalties.) You don't owe interest until it accrues.

Right, you 'owe the full amount of accrued interest'... Which is not as much as the amount that would've accrued if held to term. I think this is rather beside the point anyway!

Re: Economic costs of war

#140

Post by valzam »

Retric wrote: post #66
valzam wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

`nobody is going to be lending the US money if we don’t pay our debt,` 1) The Fed can loan money by simply creating new dollars and purchasing treasury bills. This has been happening for a long time, T-Bills do first get offered to private institutions but the Fed backstops all auctions. 2) There is literally no way for the US Gov to go involuntarily bankcrupt because of 1). It is the sole manufacturer of US dollars…

Read up what happens when countries start creating money from thin air rather than borrow it. Very bad things happen. 100 quintillion (10^20) pengő, the largest denomination bill ever issued, Hungary, 1946.

Well, apparently they become economic superpowers because that is what all powerful nations with monetary sovereignty and fiat money have been doing under the guise of government debt.

Hyperinflation largely happens in countries where the money wasn't really worth much to begin with because it's value was pegged to the price of gold or other currencies. Or because most of the economy functioned on foreign currency and the government borrowed in foreign currency. In this case printing more money to service foreign debt or imports can quickly spiral out of control because as soon as the trust in the local currency erodes it essentially doesn't matter anymore if you have 100 or 100T of it. It's worthless paper.

Post reply on HN