Progressive Income Taxes and Expenditure

Why do We spend so much for Defense? This article explores one sector of the Argument. The American military posture relies on excessive funding of weapon systems of relatively little long-term value, mainly as Business promotion utilize huge lobbying budgets to get legislative support. The article claims that the U.S. spent over $600 billion on the Military last year. This would be about Ten times what Our next closest rival has spent. Is there something wrong with this Picture? I would examine another aspect of the Military situation: the fact that American military Casualties (in Percentage terms) do not vary significantly from other supplied Military forces in the World. The Money spent does not go to reduce the Risk of Our military personnel, or provide more adequate health care for the Injured. Any Keynesian impulse in the military expenditure is equally lost, as military R&D as practiced in the United States stands as the probable most-expensive Research conducted in the World, with little Employment per Dollar expenditure and extremely high Capital expenditure. Americans should worry about an Expenditure which rivals the Cost of Child Rearing in this Country.

I do not agree with this Post, but insist (that’s a laugh) that it should be read: it being the basic defense of the allowed extreme Wage differentials. The author may not realize he also presented the basic premise for a Progressive Income Tax. Occupations affect various numbers of People, and are paid commiserate to the number of People influenced. Reward for Occupations relies, therefore, not upon the quality or quantity of the labor supplied, but solely on the number of People served. An evaluation of the structure asserts that Quality is not served at all in the Process, though I will not enter into a Critique of fat Comedians or Vocalists who cannot stay on Key. I am sure that Economists would agree that the expansion of Supply for any Good or Service requires an increased level of responsibility, as the Injury potential has increased; the famous liability conundrum which Business attempts to nullify through lobbyist action in Congress to eradicate or restrict the Process. A Progressive Income Tax applies a poor system to equate a proper Quality control on Income generation, insisting that quality labor serving fewer People be awarded a greater advantage, while presenting a restriction of the earning potential of that labor which impacts a large number of People.

The Above paragraphs approach the same Problem from different directions. Taxes should be adjusted to provide Incentive to the quality of labor, irrespective of the number of people affected by that labor; and Expenditure of those Tax revenues should be spent to the benefit of all Taxpayers, not just to enhance the Earning capacity of already-privileged segments of the labor force. Economists might acclaim that such integrated Quality Control is not necessary for an economy to function well, but Keynesian theory will operate if and only if the total of the labor force is swayed; Sector or Segment funding will impact the Retail industry adversely, creating an Inflationary environment with distortionate economies of scale. This is not to say that Incentives should be destroyed, or that any Income tax should be so high as to cripple the Growth pattern of the economy. lgl