|
Only have a minute? Listen instead |
As recently seen on these pages, the commentary “Pentagon makes us poorer” — authored by the national co-director of Code Pink — argues that taxpayers are being “betrayed” by lawmakers using tax dollars to fund the Department of War. To put a measure on this “betrayal,” the author cites a report finding $4,000 of an “average” American’s paycheck goes to funding defense initiatives.
Stay tuned for more on that figure.
First, let’s explore how — and why — Uncle Sam started dipping into our paychecks.
It wasn’t until 1861 that federal income taxation came into existence — 85 years after the country’s founding. Prior to that, the federal government was primarily funded through excise taxes and — how about this buzz word — tariffs.
What else was going on in 1861?
The start of the Civil War.
The purpose of this new tax was to fund this war effort. After the need for these funds diminished, federal income taxation went away.
An 1894 attempt to revive the tax was rejected by the Supreme Court, finding income tax to be a direct tax that violated Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Even after Congress received clear authority with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, only a small number of top earners were impacted at rates as low as 1%.
The War Revenue Act of 1917 slashed the income exemptions shielding many from the tax. As the name suggests, this legislation was meant to bolster funds to support the country’s efforts in World War I.
The codification of prior acts into the Internal Revenue Code and the passage of the Current Tax Payment Act occurred in 1939 and 1943, respectively. That second act introduced payroll withholding, transforming the income tax into the mass tax on ordinary Americans it is today.
Coincidentally — or not — 1939 was the beginning of World War II. By 1943, the United States had begun its offensive against the Axis.
I think you get the point.
Back to the $4,000 from the paychecks of “average” taxpayers.
The cited Institute for Policy Studies report provides that on “average” nationally, $4,049 of paid income taxes goes to defense spending. This same report estimates the “average” federal tax bill at $20,259.
Step back a second.
This alleged “betrayal” amounts to about 20 cents of every tax dollar being spent on your defense.
Their numbers, not mine.
But the use of average as the statistical measure to evaluate impact on a “typical” taxpayer is problematic. The highest earners in the United States drive up this number.
How much do you need to make to pay $20,259 in income tax?
Factoring in the standard deduction alone, a single filer would have to have around $130,000 in gross income to have that tax bill. Factoring in the standard deduction and the Child Tax Credit, a married couple with two kids filing together needs more than $185,000.
Median — simply the middle number in a dataset — may be a more appropriate measure for such an evaluation.
Using this statistic, let’s look at how much a “typical” local taxpayer pays in income tax.
According to U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2020–2024 5-Year Estimates, Table S1901, the estimated median household incomes of Hidalgo and Cameron counties are $54,338 and $52,602, respectively; Starr County sits at $37,639.
Run those numbers through the actual 2025 tax brackets and the Child Tax Credit, and a “typical” local family of four — married filing jointly, using the standard deduction — owes close to nothing in net federal income tax, period.
For critics arguing the change in statistical measure moves the goal posts, feel free to do the math using average household incomes: Hidalgo County, $74,303; Cameron County, $71,924; and Starr County, $58,715.
Finally, at a time when everything seems to divide us, defense spending seems to enjoy bipartisan support in the Rio Grande Valley.
Just last month, our local representatives — from different sides of the aisle — voted to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, putting aside party politics to ensure support for our military members and families.
The direct benefit of this funding is self-explanatory: our defense.
But South Texas also sees indirect benefits. The military installations and facilities in our region often bring well-paid local civilian jobs and an influx of spending into the regional economy.
And those tech billionaires who are getting “rich” through defense spending are setting up shop in the RGV.
Even the biggest detractors of SpaceX — who may have some valid concerns such as public access reductions and ecological impacts — would likely admit the company’s presence has brought substantial economic value locally.
They are no longer the only show in town.
Saronic Technologies recently announced Port Alpha, which the company claims will bring billions of dollars of infrastructure and close to 10,000 local jobs.
So, maybe the better question is: Do you feel “betrayed” that lawmakers aren’t spending more tax dollars on national defense?
Justin Katusak is a lecturer at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.
