[marcinzm]

The US sent something like $100 billion to Ukraine last year which comes out to a grand total of 1.5% of the US budget and 0.4% of the US GDP. Large in absolute terms but not relative terms.

That is also about how much the US spent on Afghanistan per year and that was sustained for over 20 years.

[lesuorac]

I mean typically the US doesn't airmail dollars to the warzones.

Typically it's a numerical value for the goods & services provided. This means the USG is paying Americans to do stuff for Ukraine which increases demand for US stuff which helps the US economy.

[badpun]

> I mean typically the US doesn't airmail dollars to the warzones.

A significant portion of the help wasn't dollars, but obsolete weapons and ammo from the army's stockpiles, that US gave Ukraine instead of basically disposing of it locally.

[maerF0x0]

Except that it's $100Bn more "printed" and against a high interest backdrop.

The fed had to create that $100Bn to loan it to the US govt. The US government has to pay going interest rates for debt.

It's a very very expensive choice for something that is not our war.

It's something like $1200 per tax payer[1]. I do not support us funding Ukraine's war to the tune of $1200, personally.

[1] - https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income... ~50% of people even work, and 99% of the taxes paid are by the top 50% of earners. ~350M ppl in US --> $100Bn / (350M ppl * 50% work * 50% pay) ~= $1200

[marcinzm]

And all that matters to the discussion how? We're talking about the long term economic impact on the US of supporting this war. By your own math each tax payer already pays $75k/year to support the federal budget. An extra 1.5% isn't going to destroy or slow down the economy even if it's literally burned. And as others have pointed out that 1.5% will mostly go back into the US economy so it's an upper bound on the impact.

Fun fact is that the US made something like $4billion/month last year from gas exports to the EU. Significantly more than previously due to increased demand and increased prices caused by the ongoing Ukraine war. That alone covers half the cost of the aid provided last year. I suspect if you count everything the US aid to Ukraine has already been a net positive for the US economy in terms of ROI.

[cmrdporcupine]

In cold hard political-economic terms this war will pay off for the US far more than the Afghan or Iraq wars did. It's dark and imperialistic, but a weakened Russia is a stronger US. They're an economic competitor (petroleum exporter) of both the US and many of its G7 partners, as well as a geo-political rival and competitor for control of post-colonial markets. That was made clear by their (Russian) interventions in Syria, especially. US elites are expecting to see a payoff from funding a war in Ukraine by weakening Russia.

And at the same time European elites are clearly rattled and threatened by a war on their borders, so are seeking enhanced security. And I'm sure quite tempted by the prospects of integrating Ukraine's (cheap) labour force and agriculture exports into the European market & trade area.

[lisasays]

Fun chart. Let's take your math up a notch, shall we?

Because you know - the share of taxes paid also has a distribution within the upper 50 percent. Using that fun table you posted, let's see how 100b splits across the following 3 segments:

  Top 5%     - [95,100)  62 billion
  Upper 45   - [50,95)   35 billion 
  Bottom 50: - [0,50)     3 billion

If you're in the top 5% - screw you, I don't want to hear your whining about having to pay your fair share to support matters of this nature.

If you're in the upper 45 - I can see how $1200 would start to hurt. But that's not what the math says. Which is that there are 157.5m of you pooling together for a 35b share of the tab. Which comes out to $222.22 per head.

Is that what you're so indignant about?