USA Military Expenditure: Why Spend So Much?

[JollyGood]

Some estimates show between 54% to 57% of tax contributions (made by USA taxpayers) is spent on the military.

Some estimates lower this figure to 20% based on other calculations such as what spent directly on serving personnel and costs for existing hardware rather than conflate the percentage figure with total spending on research and development at military contractors and other expenses.

Imagine how much better of quality of life the average American would have if their taxes were spent in a far more conducive manner that could help those millions upon millions of citizens that are from underprivileged backgrounds.

What are your views on this? Does the US really have to spend that much on military expenditure? Could those tax dollars be spent in more appropriate ways?


Here are some figures for the fiscal year end 2018: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2019/tax-day-2019/where-your-tax-dollar-was-spent-2018/

"The average taxpayer contributed $230 to Lockheed Martin’s Department of Defense contracts, the Pentagon’s biggest contractor and maker of the ill-conceived F-35 jet fighter.

That’s twice as much as the $109 taxpayers contributed to child nutrition programs like school breakfast and lunch.

The average taxpayer contributed $102 for Department of Defense contracts for Boeing – whose former executive Patrick Shanahan is now the acting U.S. Secretary of Defense.

The average taxpayer paid $3,457 for the Pentagon and military, almost nineteen times more than for all diplomacy and foreign aid ($183)."

[jrrsparkles]

So called most superpower nation of this planet USA supposed to have strong military force but the percentage looks quite dangerous and I doubt they are really spending 50+% of total taxes just for the security of the nation.

[OgNasty]

So called most superpower nation of this planet USA supposed to have strong military force but the percentage looks quite dangerous and I doubt they are really spending 50+% of total taxes just for the security of the nation.

I don't think that is accurate.  I believe for it to reach 50% of tax contributions you'd have to add in interest on the national debt.  Still, half of tax contributions going towards debt and war probably isn't the best money management technique.

[Mauser]

The USA is the last remaining super power leading in the air force and navy. The army is just not such a big focus for USA as with controlling the sea and skies you can dominate the rest. With countries such as Russia, China and India trying to become a super power, the USA needs to invest more and more in research and development. Just look at all the new aircraft carriers and destroyers being build right. And then of course you nerd new planes for those. It's constant struggle to stay on top of everyone else. I am glad the Americans are still dominating with their mitilitary. We will be in deep double once China is on the top.

[JollyGood]

I am not sure about the exact percentage of tax they use for military expenditure because it varies from the root of calculation used by experts but is all that money being spent "just for the security of the nation"?

The US has so many bases around the world, literally all over and each of them has many admin and ground staff as well as stationed army/navy personnel. Are they absolutely necessary?

So called most superpower nation of this planet USA supposed to have strong military force but the percentage looks quite dangerous and I doubt they are really spending 50+% of total taxes just for the security of the nation.

[Jet Cash]

The dominant military power in the world is the Five Eyes Alliance, and the US is the fall guy who takes all the blame for the aggression. The military expenditure is important to suck money from the American taxpayers, and feed it through to the ruling dynasties. When you are considering the cost of this military expenditure, you can't just look at the cost of the hardware. You need to include the cost of transport, personnel, medical care, pensions for the personnel and administration as well as the salaries. You should also reflect on the loss of life, and the cost of that to the economy. Then there is the damage to trade as a result of military aggression.

[jrrsparkles]

The US has so many bases around the world, literally all over and each of them has many admin and ground staff as well as stationed army/navy personnel. Are they absolutely necessary?

So called most superpower nation of this planet USA supposed to have strong military force but the percentage looks quite dangerous and I doubt they are really spending 50+% of total taxes just for the security of the nation.

Not really necessary from the citizen's point of view but for the government it maybe a necessary one and by this only they are dominating the world from different sectors even they are controlling lot of countries with their military forces.

[JollyGood]

Why does US administration after administration follow the same path with expenditure? Something needs to change otherwise the status quo will continue and those funds which could have been spent elsewhere to help needy and underprivileged citizens is being spent on the military.

So called most superpower nation of this planet USA supposed to have strong military force but the percentage looks quite dangerous and I doubt they are really spending 50+% of total taxes just for the security of the nation.

I don't think that is accurate.  I believe for it to reach 50% of tax contributions you'd have to add in interest on the national debt.  Still, half of tax contributions going towards debt and war probably isn't the best money management technique.