That's my position. I don't want to give the UN money (look how dysfunctional and corrupt the WHO is), but I do want military spending to go down. Why make it more politically difficult than it needs to be. What's the benefit of coupling reductions in military spending with giving more money to the UN... These are totally unrelated things and coupling them needlessly achieves nothing.
Matt Gaetz is a single person. The linked article shows that this was an institutional problem at the WHO involving corrupt management. So the analogy is flawed. Also the sex abuse isn't the only thing wrong with the WHO.
One was provided already by another poster. I don't even need to give more because that should be sufficient.
But if you want to dig further, you should look at the timeline of the WHO's actions and see how slow they were to recommend masks, recommend border closures, and declare a pandemic, then ask yourself if they helped or hurt our efforts to contain COVID throughout 2020. No citation is needed for that, it's all in the public domain - their press conferences and their Twitter.
Read the article. The management of WHO covered up sexual abuse, up until an investigative journalist blew it open. Yes, they are a deeply corrupt organization.
That's not corruption as it pertains to their objectives though. That's a crime, one that should be punished, obviously. It doesn't have anything to do with the primary objectives of the WHO, especially not as it pertains to for instance COVID. Corruption would be, hypothetically, taking payoffs or bribes to avoid doing their jobs. You have not, and nor has anyone else here, offered evidence of corruption.
Well I just read the definition of corruption as dishonesty for gain, and this cover-up fits the bill.
Even if they don't fit that definition, they're a broken and grossly incompetent organization that covers up their own criminality, with no mechanism for accountability.
How else do you think a singer of Chinese military propaganda songs got in there, with literally no qualifications? After the CCP's good friend Tedros was elected he made Xi's wife as well as Xi's good buddy Robert Mugabe WHO goodwill ambassadors (the latter was removed again after an international outcry). Not sure how much more obvious it could get. Imagine it was the 1940s and the WHO hired Eva Braun.
It's hard to justify any of the un budget. All of its committees and bureaucracies seem compromised, if not outright corrupt. I'll keep my money at home, where there's at least a minimal chance of accountability.
The UN exists because the alternative is a series of international crises caused by people having literally no idea how to talk to their counterparts.
Let it not be forgotten that some of the finest wires of the Cold War came down to the delays in international diplomatic communications between Washington DC and Moscow due to the need to relay messages via embassies.
People have gotten so used to an international power structure with high speed communications and well defined diplomatic channels that they mistake the purpose of these organizations for their effectiveness. The alternative is a lot worse.
The above is not true. It was not speaking to each other that caused world war 2. It was Mr. Chamberlain talking to Mr. Hitler and believing him that caused the problem.
It was also the League of Nations failing to live up to it's principles when Japan invaded Manchuria.
The UN was a dream to try and resolve things in a multi-laterial world, and sometimes early on was effective (See Korea). after the debacle of the Korean War (Moscow boycotting rather then using their veto), the progress in the cold war was almost always bilateral. (not always though).
In it's current form, it's useful - but I think the WTO / World Bank and the Red Hotlines have been far more useful.
They never mentioned anything about World War 2. They are talking about the Cold War. The nuclear crisis between US and Russia. And I think they are right because I believe they set up a direct line between Moscow and DC right after that conflict ended.
Yeah and this might be too obvious to spell out but can we really expect the UN to be efficient when its purpose is to coordinate organisations that themselves are neither efficient nor willing to cooperate much of the time.
Isn't the only way to make UN more efficient to make nation states more efficient?
> We propose that half of the resources freed up by this agreement are allocated to a global fund, under UN supervision, to address humanity’s grave common problems: pandemics, climate change, and extreme poverty.
Hahaha I’m sorry, but the UN? They can’t be serious...
So the goal is what, Ukraine gives up a portion of its citizens taxes to fund some famine in a far away land? As opposed to military spending on its defense? I’m sure Russia will agree to this lol
I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself.
This is the problem with proposals like this. It’s totally fine for donations, but don’t tax people in one country to help another. It won’t be popular.
> I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself.
This seems like a very strange model for taxes; maybe it works for military spending? I feel like if this were truly the goal one would not pay taxes at all, as the entire premise of paying taxes is to solve a shared problem--in this case, I am presuming "peace in our time" (I am using the Ultron reference on purpose, btw) as opposed to "a new rail line"--that some people will assuredly benefit from more than others.
Yes it is to solve a shared problem. But it myst be a problem shared by the person paying the taxes, otherwise it’s simple extortion / social engineering
Wouldn’t a global fund for any disaster in the world also be a form of insurance that covers me? I would be happy that there’s a global fund for me if my country goes down the shitter.
Smaller scale is better. It’s closer to the non-politician voters. The UN is many layers removed from me and I have no actual control over what they do or who works there, whereas I can write to and vote for the person who runs my neighbourhood, city, etc.
Ok, I do know/appreciate that it is was itself in that context a Neville Chamberlain reference (though he said "for", not "in" ;P), but I think the contemporary Marvel reference was what people would try to make fun of me for (if they didn't know I "walked into it willingly") because Ultron was a bad idea that caused lots of suffering, particularly among people from an Eastern European country that were already experiencing massive strife due to foreign intervention (a la Ukraine, which was what is being discussed here).
"Peace in our time" isn't from Ultron (originally). It's a quote from Prime Minister Chamberlain justifying his policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany.
Ok, I do know/appreciate that it is was itself in that context a Neville Chamberlain reference (though he said "for", not "in" ;P), but I think the contemporary Marvel reference was what people would try to make fun of me for (if they didn't know I "walked into it willingly") because Ultron was a bad idea that caused lots of suffering, particularly among people from an Eastern European country that were already experiencing massive strife due to foreign intervention (a la Ukraine, which was what is being discussed here).
You pay taxes because someone with guns tells you to. In return they try to protect you, such that you keep paying them.
Beyond that, you probably wouldn’t pay taxes. You’d buy something. It would be much more efficient to buy some shared solution to a problem, as opposed to let someone take your money by force to solve some problem that may or may not impact you.
Classic Libertarian argument. Government has a legal monopoly on the use of force that they employ to obtain tax revenue. The proof of the statement lies in what happens if you don't pay taxes. Eventually, someone with guns will place you in custody or garnish your wages or seize your property.
I am not claiming I haven't heard that argument before or that I don't understand it: I am claiming that I don't think this is what the person I was replying to meant when they said they pay taxes to help themselves and not other people, particularly given the explicit explanation "don't tax people in one country to help another".
That line of thinking breaks down when you consider people can generally move somewhere else.
Taxes have historically paid for civil infrastructure like irrigation systems well into antiquity. It’s unclear when such things originated because they significantly predate any systems of records. In that context taxes are rent paid to live in a society.
"Moving somewhere else" lies between "extremely difficult" and "downright impossible" for most people.
When you move, you leave your friends behind. And your family. Everybody that you've grown to know. Not to mention all those familiar haunts and places.
If you're moving to another country, you have to deal with immigration, and get a handle on new laws, new customs, and more than likely, a new language as well.
I was born in the US, and presently live in Japan. The cost of moving here was high in terms of all of the above, and I got to play on easy mode: Japan is massively accommodating to English speakers and I have highly-demanded job skills.
Large countries are a very modern invention. Currently the only area outside of any countries is Antarctica but our ancestors had a real choice here and countries won at least until the “winners” became capable of large scale conquest.
The modern equivalent of moving outside a city for lower taxes still exists. It’s not framed as a willingness to pay more taxes but rather as access to better schools or parks etc. Still once again people are choosing to pay taxes for access to what taxes provide.
Disagree with this. The people paying the tax for the most part aren't choosing to pay the tax. They just have no practical choice.
Taxes have massively increased over the last hundred years everywhere in the West. As the poster above said, there are large network effects and switching costs (border control and visas as well as actual relocation costs and language/culture barrier and losing family and friends) which practically prevent moving for most people, even if hypothetically they'd prefer to move to a lower tax location. This, coupled with the small number of countries, makes for a dire situation for international competition between countries to lower tax burdens.
It's the same reason crypto exchanges can get away with exorbitant fees. Nobody wants fees but the network effects are too sticky. So everyone pays the fees.
Sounds like you didn't read my post. There are network effects (family) and switching costs that prevent that. It's why Coinbase can charge exorbitant fees. Yes people are "free" to trade on a cheaper exchange tomorrow but in reality they aren't.
You just completely ignored what I just said. Millions of Americans can cut their tax bills significantly by moving 1 mile or less and staying in the same country. In some cases it’s literally a question of which side of the street their on, but only one side gets access to the better school district so it’s also got higher property values because it’s a more desirable location.
That’s got ~zero impact on work, family, or friends and if nothing else they had that choice before moving into that home. Which is real evidence that people are both choosing higher taxes and desire them.
You've picked a niche edge case where the benefits of the local taxes are directly internalized into the individual via materially higher house prices and better schools. Of course I'm not going to opt-out of my taxes if those taxes are directly going back to me in proportion to the SES of my rich neighborhood (which is something that a lot of progressives are unhappy about), and not the person down the road. I also dispute that there aren't switching costs to pulling kids out of school in order to dodge state taxes that are much smaller, and for the large majority of people it is hardly as trivial as just moving down the road. Moving from CA to Texas just to reduce tax burden by a few percent might not be worth the switching costs. What if my family is in CA?
Anyway, this example doesn't translate to the majority of taxation which are more akin to transfer payments, and which are harder to escape from. My ROI from tax I pay into public health care is about -98%, which is much lower than the ROI of tax spend that goes into my own kids' school district or which directly pumps up my own house price. Just because I'm not abandoning my family doesn't mean that I'm choosing to fund public healthcare. In practice, I'm being coerced.
> I also dispute that there aren't switching costs
There are always switching costs to moving even within an apartment condo, but when someone decides to move picking a location has more freedom. Just as someone deciding to move across the country have freedom to pick inside or outside of a city so does someone from the UK moving to the US had a lot more freedom to consider Canada. Rates of migration consider each year in isolation, but over say a 50 year period a large percentage of the global population does move long distances and most of those people have significant freedom.
The idea of taxes being a rent payed to live in society seems like it would be fairly consistent with not swapping military spending out for foreign aid.
It isn't obvious how giving money to the UN is going to contribute to a better society for a given taxpayer. The UN isn't really an executive body, it is a diplomatic mission to try and stop governments fighting each other without a bit of discussion beforehand.
If I am paying rent for the privilege of living in a society, someone can reasonably demand that rent spent on something they recognize as part of their society as opposed to propping up competing societies. Society needs a physical fighting force to guarantee its integrity & it is unclear why a 2% reduction is deemed better than the current trend. I'm doubting that current trend even keeps up with the rate of money printing.
> I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself.
Not really. You pay taxes to fund the fabric of society. That means self-defense, but it also means other common goals such basic infrastructure and social services. You may not want to, but you do, and your individual want isn't the sufficient to change where your contributions actually go. We live in a democracy, and in a democracy, the majority rules even if the minority is vocal and irritated by that majority decision. Subject to the constitution, of course.
It just seemed somewhat contradictory because the limitations placed by the Constitution specifically are designed to prevent the rule by majority statement you made in the beginning.
>I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself.
Helping people in other countries does protect yourself. Having stable regional neighbors for example is very desirable. Any money used to keep things this way is very well spent. Trying to stem the flow of thousands of refugees or dealing with conflict is hugely expensive.
> I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself.
Whatever helps you justify paying taxes but that doesn't make much sense in view. Protect yourself from what? Taxes pay for public services, infrastructure, often health.
I work in natural science and have fled a very repressive state, where I grew up. In my experience a lot of scientists who grew up and live in more open and liberal societies are incredibly naive when it comes to authoritarianism and politics in general. The worst we can do is listen to these people's opinions regarding geopolitics, it plays right in the hands of evil regimes. Listening to some of my colleagues explaining the world to me often reminds me of the 'Actors Guild' in Team America. That's exaggerating a bit of course, but you may get my point. They have no idea what they're saying, they are a danger to society and themselves when it comes to this topic. There worst part is many are otherwise genuinely smart people and are of course convinced they can't be wrong. And the general public tends to listen to them because they're respected in their fields and have won awards. Add to that a good dose of Western arrogance, it's a recipe for disaster.
> don’t tax people in one country to help another. It won’t be popular.
I know you're expressing a common sentiment that likely the majority of people in most countries share, but planetary emergencies don't care what country you're in. The country model is ill-equipped to deal with emergencies on a global scale - I mean, just look at the past 2 years as a case study...
I agree that many people would perceive it in this way, but the truth is that your country would be paying as one, but receiving from many in a crisis. Thats the whole point of it.
>World military spending has doubled since 2000. It is approaching 2 trillion US dollars per year, and is increasing in all regions of the world (*).
giving that 1/3rd is US, it means that US is supposed to fund the 1/3rd of the new fund. Without any comments on the merits of that specific arrangement, i think that just wouldn't fly with US voters.
In general such proposals are built on the "marketing law of big numbers" like a pitch to sell something to China - "even if our market is only 0.1% that immediately makes for 1.5M customers!"
The USA funds 22% of the UN anyways. That's not abnormal. We also fund a order of magnitude more of NATO (once you include the actual costs of soldiers, infrastructure, logistics, etc) then any other participant.
But I agree with the point - looking at the "signatories" - this seems to be mostly tax Americans more and give it to the UN, because Europeans think so.
Not really, no. Their monetary contributions allow them outsized influence. It was originally, intentionally, set up this way after the war. It would be in EU citizens interests to participate equally.
I keep vacillating back and forth, on one hand, it's good to outline what is possible with a relatively small effort, on the other hand, this comes off as worse than virtue signaling - It's turning a blind eye to the complexities of what makes the world the way it is and whoever signed this is just trying to wash themselves of the human condition.
military spending needs to go down, but social spending needs to go down as well. Last I checked social spending dwarfed military spending and I can only assume a big chunk of it is as wasteful as military spending.
It's massively outpaced inflation on the total timeframe 2000 - 2021 (2.3x vs 1.6x), but dropped from 2011-2014. Also a % of GDP it's on par with 2002 today.
Military spending has roughly doubled since 2000, both globally and in the US.
Globally military spending has been driven by massive increases in Asia. In the US, spending shot way up after 9/11/01 and kept increasing until the end of the Iraq War in 2011. Since then, it's been down then up and overall flat for about 10 years.
Military spending isn’t measurable in a reliable way.
Military spending has many other dependencies beyond accumulating destructive force, eg jobs, petrodollar concerns.
Disarmament treaties have a clear game theoretic rationale for the most powerful countries. This proposal does not, in fact it disadvantages the biggest militaries.
I'm confused about the calculation. They say we are approaching 2T a year on military spending. Over 5 years that's 10T. 2% of that is 200B - a fair sum, but no the 1T advertised. What am I missing?
They're proposing reducing 2% a year each year, so that after 5 years, you will have reached 10% of military spending each year.
I missed that the first time I read that, and now that I see they're proposing sustained year-on-year reductions... it makes it even more of a daft proposal than I thought it was.
So... basically further encourage a lack of transparency and funnel more resources into black ops at the expense of the altruistic and naïve -- that should be interesting. But meh, simple is simple I suppose :D
To have a hope of working, you'd need to get the blessing of all of the US, Russia, China, and India (and maybe a couple of countries, but those 4 for sure)--without them, there's simply not enough money in the pie otherwise. And why should those countries agree?
The appeal is that it mutual agreement has resulted in arms treaties in the past, but the closer you inspect those prior treaties, the less rosy things look. The interwar naval treaties paused battleship construction for a decade--but even at best, countries were only in nominal compliance with many of the terms, and the construction pause was driven in part by the fact that several countries were rather literally bankrupting themselves trying to keep up, so stopping meant they no longer had to spend money they didn't have. Or you can look at SALT/START, which has lasted longer. But New START is currently on rocky roads, and I wouldn't count on it lasting past this decade. The other US/USSR (now Russia) treaties have been failing (e.g., INF).
There's a lot less trust between US, Russia, and China now than there was a decade ago, and with that loss of trust, the threat of war looms larger. Wars--the big messy wars between great powers especially--tend to break out because one side miscalculates what the other side's red lines are. It doesn't even necessarily need to be a direct act by one country that breaks the red line: recall that the proximate act instigating World War I was a terrorist group outside the influence of any of the great powers. So in the current environment, anyone suggesting massive cuts to military spending seems woefully naive.
> A chunk of familial diaspora is "disabled", but only on paper.
...what does "some might game the system" have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people?
> A climbing gym I used to frequent installed wheelchair access at great expense [...]
...what does any of that have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people?
> If by "disabled" you mean "unable to contribute to society", since when?
Ever since people were moved by hardships of those around them. Beggars have existed for all of recorded history I believe? And they don't beg for fun.
> Resources are finite, and every culture has to figure out where it draws the line.
Could you spell out what you are implying here? "Resources are finite" only contributes to the "taxation is extortion" argument if you insist that any non-zero amount spent improving the lives of non-contributors is better spent maximizing economical gain. Following that logic quickly leads to "kill retirees immediately".
> Socialized healthcare uses political power to determine who lives and dies -- the Prime Minister and his friends are guaranteed better care than your grandma.
Not to a significant degree, no. If they get cancer, they'll more or less have the same treatment options available to them. Also, why shouldn't the prime minister get more encompassing treatment? Society also pays for bodyguards for them, but not for grandma. Why is that?
> Privatized healthcare uses money -- Jeff Bezos and his friends are also guaranteed better care than your grandma.
Again, how is that relevant to "should society support disabled people"?
You've tried really hard to come up with scenarios where society is (under certain narrow criteria) worse off chipping in. That... does exactly nothing to answer the question whether there are cases where society should chip in. And whether taxation to accomplish that goal is therefore extortion or not.
106 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 172 ms ] threadChild sex abuse, for starters
[citation needed] - but like, an actual one. I know this is a popular conspiracy theory at the moment.
But if you want to dig further, you should look at the timeline of the WHO's actions and see how slow they were to recommend masks, recommend border closures, and declare a pandemic, then ask yourself if they helped or hurt our efforts to contain COVID throughout 2020. No citation is needed for that, it's all in the public domain - their press conferences and their Twitter.
Even if they don't fit that definition, they're a broken and grossly incompetent organization that covers up their own criminality, with no mechanism for accountability.
Let it not be forgotten that some of the finest wires of the Cold War came down to the delays in international diplomatic communications between Washington DC and Moscow due to the need to relay messages via embassies.
People have gotten so used to an international power structure with high speed communications and well defined diplomatic channels that they mistake the purpose of these organizations for their effectiveness. The alternative is a lot worse.
It was also the League of Nations failing to live up to it's principles when Japan invaded Manchuria.
The UN was a dream to try and resolve things in a multi-laterial world, and sometimes early on was effective (See Korea). after the debacle of the Korean War (Moscow boycotting rather then using their veto), the progress in the cold war was almost always bilateral. (not always though).
In it's current form, it's useful - but I think the WTO / World Bank and the Red Hotlines have been far more useful.
Isn't the only way to make UN more efficient to make nation states more efficient?
Hahaha I’m sorry, but the UN? They can’t be serious...
So the goal is what, Ukraine gives up a portion of its citizens taxes to fund some famine in a far away land? As opposed to military spending on its defense? I’m sure Russia will agree to this lol
I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself.
This is the problem with proposals like this. It’s totally fine for donations, but don’t tax people in one country to help another. It won’t be popular.
This seems like a very strange model for taxes; maybe it works for military spending? I feel like if this were truly the goal one would not pay taxes at all, as the entire premise of paying taxes is to solve a shared problem--in this case, I am presuming "peace in our time" (I am using the Ultron reference on purpose, btw) as opposed to "a new rail line"--that some people will assuredly benefit from more than others.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_in_Our_Time
It’s been the basis of taxes for all time.
You pay taxes because someone with guns tells you to. In return they try to protect you, such that you keep paying them.
Beyond that, you probably wouldn’t pay taxes. You’d buy something. It would be much more efficient to buy some shared solution to a problem, as opposed to let someone take your money by force to solve some problem that may or may not impact you.
Taxes have historically paid for civil infrastructure like irrigation systems well into antiquity. It’s unclear when such things originated because they significantly predate any systems of records. In that context taxes are rent paid to live in a society.
When you move, you leave your friends behind. And your family. Everybody that you've grown to know. Not to mention all those familiar haunts and places.
If you're moving to another country, you have to deal with immigration, and get a handle on new laws, new customs, and more than likely, a new language as well.
I was born in the US, and presently live in Japan. The cost of moving here was high in terms of all of the above, and I got to play on easy mode: Japan is massively accommodating to English speakers and I have highly-demanded job skills.
So, no, one does not just "move somewhere else".
The modern equivalent of moving outside a city for lower taxes still exists. It’s not framed as a willingness to pay more taxes but rather as access to better schools or parks etc. Still once again people are choosing to pay taxes for access to what taxes provide.
Taxes have massively increased over the last hundred years everywhere in the West. As the poster above said, there are large network effects and switching costs (border control and visas as well as actual relocation costs and language/culture barrier and losing family and friends) which practically prevent moving for most people, even if hypothetically they'd prefer to move to a lower tax location. This, coupled with the small number of countries, makes for a dire situation for international competition between countries to lower tax burdens.
It's the same reason crypto exchanges can get away with exorbitant fees. Nobody wants fees but the network effects are too sticky. So everyone pays the fees.
That’s got ~zero impact on work, family, or friends and if nothing else they had that choice before moving into that home. Which is real evidence that people are both choosing higher taxes and desire them.
Anyway, this example doesn't translate to the majority of taxation which are more akin to transfer payments, and which are harder to escape from. My ROI from tax I pay into public health care is about -98%, which is much lower than the ROI of tax spend that goes into my own kids' school district or which directly pumps up my own house price. Just because I'm not abandoning my family doesn't mean that I'm choosing to fund public healthcare. In practice, I'm being coerced.
There are always switching costs to moving even within an apartment condo, but when someone decides to move picking a location has more freedom. Just as someone deciding to move across the country have freedom to pick inside or outside of a city so does someone from the UK moving to the US had a lot more freedom to consider Canada. Rates of migration consider each year in isolation, but over say a 50 year period a large percentage of the global population does move long distances and most of those people have significant freedom.
For much of history, most people lived in empires.
I've seen it suggested in jest that to get people on board with paying taxes, reframe them as a subscription service to USA+.
It isn't obvious how giving money to the UN is going to contribute to a better society for a given taxpayer. The UN isn't really an executive body, it is a diplomatic mission to try and stop governments fighting each other without a bit of discussion beforehand.
If I am paying rent for the privilege of living in a society, someone can reasonably demand that rent spent on something they recognize as part of their society as opposed to propping up competing societies. Society needs a physical fighting force to guarantee its integrity & it is unclear why a 2% reduction is deemed better than the current trend. I'm doubting that current trend even keeps up with the rate of money printing.
You pay taxes so that there are roads, healthcare, schools, libraries, firefighters, etc, and yes police and the military.
The bulk of taxation in pretty much every country - even the US - goes to supporting the common good, not some naive idea of protection.
-----
You pay taxes so that there are roads, healthcare, schools, libraries, firefighters, etc, and yes police and the military.
The bulk of taxation in pretty much every country - even the US - goes to protection, not some naive idea of supporting the common good.
-----
Also note how all of your examples are nationally bound, not global services.
Not really. You pay taxes to fund the fabric of society. That means self-defense, but it also means other common goals such basic infrastructure and social services. You may not want to, but you do, and your individual want isn't the sufficient to change where your contributions actually go. We live in a democracy, and in a democracy, the majority rules even if the minority is vocal and irritated by that majority decision. Subject to the constitution, of course.
Helping people in other countries does protect yourself. Having stable regional neighbors for example is very desirable. Any money used to keep things this way is very well spent. Trying to stem the flow of thousands of refugees or dealing with conflict is hugely expensive.
Whatever helps you justify paying taxes but that doesn't make much sense in view. Protect yourself from what? Taxes pay for public services, infrastructure, often health.
I know you're expressing a common sentiment that likely the majority of people in most countries share, but planetary emergencies don't care what country you're in. The country model is ill-equipped to deal with emergencies on a global scale - I mean, just look at the past 2 years as a case study...
giving that 1/3rd is US, it means that US is supposed to fund the 1/3rd of the new fund. Without any comments on the merits of that specific arrangement, i think that just wouldn't fly with US voters.
In general such proposals are built on the "marketing law of big numbers" like a pitch to sell something to China - "even if our market is only 0.1% that immediately makes for 1.5M customers!"
But I agree with the point - looking at the "signatories" - this seems to be mostly tax Americans more and give it to the UN, because Europeans think so.
It's massively outpaced inflation on the total timeframe 2000 - 2021 (2.3x vs 1.6x), but dropped from 2011-2014. Also a % of GDP it's on par with 2002 today.
Globally military spending has been driven by massive increases in Asia. In the US, spending shot way up after 9/11/01 and kept increasing until the end of the Iraq War in 2011. Since then, it's been down then up and overall flat for about 10 years.
But is this in nominal or real dollars? Because a large potion of that would have eroded to inflation at this point if nominal.
Military spending has many other dependencies beyond accumulating destructive force, eg jobs, petrodollar concerns.
Disarmament treaties have a clear game theoretic rationale for the most powerful countries. This proposal does not, in fact it disadvantages the biggest militaries.
I missed that the first time I read that, and now that I see they're proposing sustained year-on-year reductions... it makes it even more of a daft proposal than I thought it was.
1) It's 2% cut a year, so you save 200B the first year cuts, 160B the second year cuts etc.
2) This calculation is based on happening several years out, with significantly higher military spending.
But I still "only" see .65T in savings when they start cutting 2% a year in 2025 from 2.2T budget
The appeal is that it mutual agreement has resulted in arms treaties in the past, but the closer you inspect those prior treaties, the less rosy things look. The interwar naval treaties paused battleship construction for a decade--but even at best, countries were only in nominal compliance with many of the terms, and the construction pause was driven in part by the fact that several countries were rather literally bankrupting themselves trying to keep up, so stopping meant they no longer had to spend money they didn't have. Or you can look at SALT/START, which has lasted longer. But New START is currently on rocky roads, and I wouldn't count on it lasting past this decade. The other US/USSR (now Russia) treaties have been failing (e.g., INF).
There's a lot less trust between US, Russia, and China now than there was a decade ago, and with that loss of trust, the threat of war looms larger. Wars--the big messy wars between great powers especially--tend to break out because one side miscalculates what the other side's red lines are. It doesn't even necessarily need to be a direct act by one country that breaks the red line: recall that the proximate act instigating World War I was a terrorist group outside the influence of any of the great powers. So in the current environment, anyone suggesting massive cuts to military spending seems woefully naive.
...what does "some might game the system" have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people?
> A climbing gym I used to frequent installed wheelchair access at great expense [...]
...what does any of that have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people?
> If by "disabled" you mean "unable to contribute to society", since when?
Ever since people were moved by hardships of those around them. Beggars have existed for all of recorded history I believe? And they don't beg for fun.
> Resources are finite, and every culture has to figure out where it draws the line.
Could you spell out what you are implying here? "Resources are finite" only contributes to the "taxation is extortion" argument if you insist that any non-zero amount spent improving the lives of non-contributors is better spent maximizing economical gain. Following that logic quickly leads to "kill retirees immediately".
> Socialized healthcare uses political power to determine who lives and dies -- the Prime Minister and his friends are guaranteed better care than your grandma.
Not to a significant degree, no. If they get cancer, they'll more or less have the same treatment options available to them. Also, why shouldn't the prime minister get more encompassing treatment? Society also pays for bodyguards for them, but not for grandma. Why is that?
> Privatized healthcare uses money -- Jeff Bezos and his friends are also guaranteed better care than your grandma.
Again, how is that relevant to "should society support disabled people"?
You've tried really hard to come up with scenarios where society is (under certain narrow criteria) worse off chipping in. That... does exactly nothing to answer the question whether there are cases where society should chip in. And whether taxation to accomplish that goal is therefore extortion or not.