I am not sure either. I think the supporting the troops is mostly lip service. However, there is currently no way to raise taxes and have the money go to supporting the troops. All tax dollars are fungible so we would end up supporting all kinds of unrelated things. Of course we would be told otherwise by the Washington propaganda machine.
H Zj Res 59 2014 Federal Budget
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
I have a great idea
defense fee. Not a tax. Some possibilities
* direct levy to individual tax payers
* fee charged to other government agencies - retainer fee and operational fee (i.e. Federal government pays a retainer fee to maintain an armed force and whenever we are deployed State Department pays the operational cost)
Of course, it's only a shell game as regardless what we call it and who in the government pays for it, ultimately tax payers payy.
Funny! What do they think we are, morons? Perhaps they are right because we continue to put up with it.I have a great idea
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Ask meteor, but yes, they probably think we're morons.... and many of us are.
Fees and subsidies are "taxes". Most we gobble up without knowing it.
I bought a $10 ticket on TicketExchange to a Washington Capitals game. I was changed two different fees, around $5 and $4, to almost double what I paid. I don't think it had anything to do with the government, but I still paid. And I hated it.
Everyone wants a great defense that others pay for...
There are certain (but few) operations of government that are funded through dedicated fees on the services provided. The more services that are funded this way, the less "fungible" the tax dollars become.
I have a great idea
Some possibilities
* direct levy to individual tax payers
* fee charged to other government agencies - retainer fee and operational fee (i.e. Federal government pays a retainer fee to maintain an armed force and whenever we are deployed State Department pays the operational cost)
Of course, it's only a shell game as regardless what we call it and who in the government pays for it, ultimately tax payers payy.
I wouldn't mind having various fees assessed on incoming boats/planes/e-commerce that is dedicated to paying for the military and other agencies that protect that overseas trade as long as that money collected is offset in other taxes collected against things (like income) that the government doesn't have a direct role in protecting.
From an economic perspective, this would properly allocate the costs of "cheap imported oil and other goods" and reflect the true cost to our society of these goods whose protection is paid for by the population at large instead of those benefiting from those goods. Would also put our domestic industries on a fairer footing considering the protection provided to our foreign competition. If those other countries want to ante up to protect ships at sea, planes in the air, etc. then exempt them from the taxes to the extent that they contribute. If the Chinese want to tie up our navy patrolling their self-declared waters, let the taxes to pay for this nonsense come from duties on goods shipped to and from their harbors.
We have the greatest market opportunities in the world, so other countries should not be costing our population money through defense spending so they can trade with us.
Exactly!
And quite frankly, most Americans can't fathom the scales of the costs of government versus the benefits. And they would be afraid to pay for the benefits they get from it because they feel they are getting a "bargain" right now.
And the political classes like it that way. They can bamboozle the population into giving them the control of their liberty and their wallets out of the fear that things could be worse otherwise.