If that means curbing the comparatively high consumption taxes in WA, then it's for the best. The lowest income brackets pay an outrageous percentage of their income to taxes compared to the upper brackets because of them.
What about this law makes you think any of the revenue is going to be used to curb consumption taxes? Because that's not what any of this money is being earmarked for. Most of it is basically a government slush fund.
> If that means curbing the comparatively high consumption taxes
“Most of the roughly $4 billion a year the tax would bring it would be devoted to the state’s general-fund budget to pay for government agencies and services. A 5% chunk would be earmarked for early education and child care.
Democrats also say they’d use some of the money to fund free school lunch and breakfast for all kids in K-12 schools, though Republicans pointed out that money is not legally earmarked in the income tax bill.
ADVERTISING
Skip Ad
Skip Ad
Skip Ad
The bill would also exempt more businesses from paying the state’s business and occupation tax. It also would eliminate the sales tax on purchases of diapers, and personal hygiene products such as toothpaste, antiperspirants and shampoo.
It also would expand the state’s Working Families Tax Credit, which sends annual rebates of up to $1,300 a year to lower-income working families. Ferguson had pushed for the expansion of the program and said the revised bill would make 460,000 households eligible for the payments.”
I grew up in WA and as much as I enjoyed the lack of income tax, it's factual that until recently they held the title of #1 most regressive state tax system nationwide (recently bumped to #2 by FL). Income taxes are much better distributed among income brackets than consumption taxes are. I grew up just over the river from Portland, where there is no state sales tax; we got to enjoy the best of both worlds by crossing the state line to OR for large purchases and living in WA.
Ironically, my home for the last decade (MO) has recently moved forward with a bill eliminating the statewide income tax in favor of a higher sales tax. This is in a state where the two largest cities are situated on the borders of other states, so it's essentially a guarantee that this will backfire.
In Missouri, the current proposal is to put it up to a vote, so Missourians will decide what they want. There are safguards builtin where the income tax is only phased out if there is revenue to replace it. Its an interesting experiment setup.
**
The way to make a consumption tax progresive is with a prebate, or if you want to be more complicated, a rebate. With a prebate, every citizen or resident would recieve a check each period for the amount of the consumption tax up to the spending level you set as the curve for regresiveess, such as the federal poverty line.
It would be difficult for Missouri to implement a prebate on its own due to the proximity of the population to other states! (Residents could take the prebate, then travel across state lines to spend it, resulting in a huge loss to the state).
Income taxes are complicated to collect, subject to massive violations of privacy, and generally provide more perverse incentives than consumption taxes.
Given the experience I've had with MO's legislature, I don't have a lot of trust in them to do anything that directly reflects the majority desire. Ultimately they have clearly shown a preference towards Republican dogma than democratic norms, so I fully expect the income tax removal to go through regardless of the balance sheet.
The "free" federal tax filing service I use in Florida, makes their money by charging for state filings. It will add an additional hour or two of effort to every resident of the state, even if they are below the state income threshold which is quite an externality.
>It will add an additional hour or two of effort to every resident of the state, even if they are below the state income threshold which is quite an externality.
Nope, that is false. The language of the bill only requires filing if tax is owed. There will be a handful of folks on the cusp who will need to calculate their AGI to determine their state tax liability but everyone else knows offhand if they need to file.
The language is "Individuals not owing tax under this chapter are not
required to file a return..."
This is one of those things that I question the legality of, but it will never get answered because nobody is going to the Supreme Court over sales tax. I can understand the argument of me sitting at home in State 1, buying something online, and having it delivered to me in State 1, and owing State 1 some sales tax on that.
It is absolutely no business of State 1's what I do when I travel into State 2. Whether or not I buy something and/or the value of that purchase should not enrich State 1 in any way. The only reasonable exception I can think of is if I'm buying things to bring back and resell.
> This is one of those things that I question the legality of, but it will never get answered because nobody is going to the Supreme Court over sales tax
Someone did go the Supreme Court over sales tax on property bought out of state. Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., Inc., 300 US 577 (1937). Text here [1].
Going from a high tax state to a low tax state to purchase goods is not substantially different than going from a state with strict anti-abortion laws to a state with very pro-abortion laws to get an abortion. One is economic, one is healthcare, both boil down to "I shouldn't have to tell the government what I do outside of that government's jurisdiction." I'd rather people have the freedom to vote with their wallets and feet.
Even taking states out of the equation, if I live in a city with a city-specific sales tax, that city doesn't suddenly get the right to lay claim to all my economic activity whether in that city or elsewhere.
That tax is a "use" tax. It is basically for having/using things in the state that you didn't pay state sales tax on.
You don't have to tell the state why no sales tax was paid--maybe you bought it in another state but maybe you bought it at a garage sale or from someone on Craigslist or something like that that doesn't collect sales tax.
The use tax is only legal if it is complementary to the sales tax (which means that the total you pay cannot be more than the sales tax rate) so that if you did buy it out of state and paid sales tax in that state your state can only charge you the difference between what the sales tax would have been in state and what you paid to the other state.
That does mean that you will have to tell the state where you got it if you want to get the reduced use tax rate, but as a practical matter most people only pay use tax on items that they have to tell the state about anyway, such as cars, where they will be telling the state that information even if no use tax is owed.
The Use tax is levied when you bring items from State 1 into State 2 and use it within State 2's jurisdiction.
Not State 2 taxing you for using items within State 1's jurisdiction.
As far as I remember from my tax days they are also limited to the difference between the tax you paid for in the originating state and the state you use the item in, much like US federal taxes for citizens abroad.
In practice as well, no government gives a fuck about regular consumer abuse at that level. You get hit for violating the taxes when you either were A: committing other crimes and this was more of them throwing the book at you, or B: are a company or organization abusing the tax difference at large, such as a laundromat in Massachusetts buying 500k of machines in New Hampshire and thinking your'e so clever for tricking the tax man.
> The Use tax is levied when you bring items from State 1 into State 2 and use it within State 2's jurisdiction. Not State 2 taxing you for using items within State 1's jurisdiction.
That's what I understand it to be as well, sorry if that wasn't clear. But to use your washing machine example what business is it of the state where I bought this washing machine? Why does Massachusetts get a percentage cut of this washing machine's purchase price. The electricity is already taxed, the water is already taxed, so hooking up to the grid doesn't seem to be a very good reason.
> In practice as well, no government gives a fuck about regular consumer abuse at that level.
Oh so this is one of those things where the government can just choose to arbitrarily enforce it against entities it doesn't like.
Maybe the government shouldn't be able to pass tens of thousands of pages of law every single year and not enforce them until they decide that you are Bad and, as you put it yourself, "[throw] the book at you." Maybe laws should be like copyright where if the government has a history of not enforcing them, they go away.
> But to use your washing machine example what business is it of the state where I bought this washing machine?
It’s their jurisdiction and they made a law for it. I don’t subscribe to libertarian beliefs so it’s not very hard for me to grok.
> Oh so this is one of those things where the government can just choose to arbitrarily enforce it against entities it doesn't like.
Not for 99% of cases although there are times I recognized it gets abused. It’s not enforced on the smaller violations as a result of it taking X amount of dollars to enforce to only get >X dollars in tax revenue. It’s not a vice tax where they are trying to stop behavior but a revenue generator so there is no reason to waste the money.
You get similar behavior in large businesses accounting departments where under a certain value they will just accept the loss instead of spending the time trying to fix discrepancies in their accounts.
> Also, I would be wary bragging about buying your goods in Oregon, you technically may owe WA use tax
In my experience, this is well-known around Vancouver and elicits nothing but eye rolls when mentioned. If there is any enforcement whatsoever for that rule (a big if), it's clearly toothless and people don't worry much about it. A Best Buy opened a couple miles north of the river in the late 2000s and didn't make it much more than a year because another one existed in Jantzen Beach, immediately across the state line. The Vancouver location amounted to a showroom before people decided if they wanted to drive the extra 15 minutes.
The great thing about sales tax is that everyone can bypass it. You don't need to be the kind of person who can hire a tax expert to coach you; all you need to do is drive over the state line!
I think any effect on Samsung, positive or negative, would be negligible. It would help their PR slightly, but mostly among a relatively small part of their customer base.
On the negative side, it would probably have a minor impact on the number of new phones sold if old ones were able to be "refurbished" in this way. Again, probably not significant, but if it's even a penny cash flow negative, why invest their resources in it?
Overall the only significant gain to be made is the announcement because it can be spun and quoted to the average consumer as Samsung being more eco-friendly. It's akin to enabling consumerism, and consumers generally don't go to check if companies were telling the truth about this stuff.
While I agree with you that the issue is far worse with larger vehicles, I do find that backing up in my wife's 2011 camry (without a backup camera) feels significantly less safe than I feel backing up my 2017 accord with a backup camera. I'm all for fixing the structural issue you are referring to, but I think the requirement for those cameras is sane in an age where the added cost to the manufacturer is miniscule.
I have to agree. Backing up my Tundra (8' bed) feels substantially safer since I can see immediately behind the vehicle than any pre-regulation vehicle I've driven. That doesn't even account for the convenience with lining up for towing, hauling, etc. (It's no replacement for GOAL—Get Out And Look—but it definitely helps!)
I bought a new car last year (my first actual _new_ car, vs pre-owned) and one of my most important features was a 360 camera. That extra visibility is just amazing for safety.
Another was a HUD. Being able to see how fast I'm going, what the speed limit is, and other info; all while keeping my eyes on the road... is safer.
Give me a backup camera without a screen and then we’ll talk. Doubly so because once you’ve got that screen, no automaker will resist making it do other things.
My SO's Buick Enclave has a screen behind the rearview mirror that can be set to show the backup camera. Works okay, but I prefer the actual mirror and just use the dash display. That said, vision issues, so not driving since around this time last year.
I think it was a Dodge Neon from the early 00s that had the worst rear view I'd experienced. My Challenger was close, but the backup camera and blind spot sensors helped a lot. You could hide a bus in the blind spot on a Challenger, not to mention the passenger seat headrest blocks most of the corner/A window.
Its not just the added cost, its the supply chain. Putting cameras into cars requires processors, ram, all manner of chips and compnents that a car didnt need before.
There was the chip shortage during covid which held car production back becasue the auto makers couldnt source their chips fast enough. I am waiting to see if the current supply issue for ram chips modules will produce a similar effect.
> Putting cameras into cars requires processors, ram, all manner of chips and compnents that a car didnt need before.
Was there a single mass market consumer car sold in the United States in this millennium that didn’t already have processors and RAM in them?
I would be absolutely shocked if there was a single car for which the relatively recent backup camera requirement required them to introduce processors and RAM for the first time.
oh yeah. I've once bought a $10ish one on Amazon out of curiosity.
There's the yellow composite plug, a 12V input, and a small bit of wire to be cut to rotate image 180 degrees, at the other end of a 30ft cable from the camera. The composite goes into the existing infotainment. There would be a wire from shifter to infotainment that switches the display to external composite video when the gear lever is in reverse. I think it even came with a miniature hole saw in size of the camera module.
$10 and one afternoon later, I could have upgraded a dumb car to have one, complete with auto switch to backup on reverse. No software hacking needed. It's fundamentally an extremely simple thing.
I believe that in some vehicles the backup camera actually runs on a separate (possibly real time, otherwise certainly heavily nice'ed) system. Tesla has a recall where they had to nice the backup camera software. The problem was if the display freezes or is delayed, then the driver is backing up and not aware that he doesn't see where he is going (he thinks that what he sees is representative of the area around the car currently).
In Hyundai and Renault I've seen it first hand that it's a separate subsystem that works even when the infotainment is dead/unresponsive/glitchy (it's like that probably everywhere, these two are just the sample I have).
I mean you can buy add-on 3rd party backup cameras for like $20. They don't have any cost excuses for including backup cameras, camera sensors and display screens are literally cheaper than dirt.
Legacy automakers still use these for upselling trims.
It's so silly when they make some "Advanced Technology Package" with a VGA camera and a 2-inches-bigger infotainment screen that's still worse than junk from Aliexpress, and charge $3000 extra for it.
I know it's just a profit-maximizing market segmentation, but I like to imagine their Nokia-loving CEO has just seen an iPad for the first time.
That's great for cars built before the regulation were put into place. Without that regulation, you'd then be dependent on the end user purchasing an after market part and installing it. The vast majority of them won't. So if it is so important to have, you make it part of the car. They did not leave seat belts up to the owners to install after market versions.
My point is that if a 3rd party manufacturer can produce and sell a combination screen and camera for $20 for a profit, an automotive manufacturer has no reason to complain about the "expense" of such a setup. It is even cheaper for them than a 3rd party addon supplier since they buy in larger bulk and can integrate mounts for those devices into the car, rather than trying to devise some sort of one-size-fits-all mounting system that the addon manufacturers need.
They might as well be complaining about the costs of a rear view mirror, it is nonsense from the start. If a $20 gadget breaks the bank on a $30,000 minimum vehicle, they are a shitty business to start with and we should all be clapping our hands when they go out of business.
The 3rd party guy isn't paying someone $40/hour to install the $20 unit. The $20 unit will not be as integrated into the car and will have the look of an after market part. Does the $20 part only come on when the car is in reverse, or is it on all the time? There's a lot of reasons the after market thing can be $20 and a lot of reasons the auto manufacturer's is not. It's not all down to greed
Was it ever a problem to get the kind of phone SoC or camera chips you'd need for a backup camera if you were willing to pay an extra $20? I thought the issue was more specialized things. And you need one gigabyte of ram or less.
You shouldn’t need any dedicated RAM. A decent microcontroller should be able to handle transcoding the output from the camera to the display and provide infotainment software that talks to the CANbus or Ethernet.
And the bare minimum is probably just a camera and a display.
Even buffering a full HD frame would only require a few megabytes.
Pretty sure the law doesn’t require an electron app running a VLM (yet) that would justify anything approaching gigabytes of RAM.
I just went on Amazon and a 1GB stick of DDR3 ram is about 30% cheaper than a 128mb stick of RAM. Why would any RAM company make tiny RAM chips when they can make standard-sized chips that work for every application that needs less?
I really feel like a lot of the people objecting in this thread are people who have just written web apps in Python whose closest experience with the audio-visual space is WebRTC.
Tech for cars is “standard-sized”. Not everything revolves around datacenters and tech, the car industry easily predates the computer industry and operates on a lot tighter margins and a lot stricter regulations.
So having a smaller, simpler chip that ultimately costs less physical resources at scale and is simpler to test is better when you’re planning on selling millions of units and you need to prove that it isn’t going to fail and kill somebody. Or, if it does fail and kill somebody, it’s simpler to analyze to figure out why that happened. You’ve also got to worry about failure rates for things like a separate RAM module not being seated properly at the factory and slipping out of the socket someday when the car is moving around.
Now - yes, modern cars have gotten more complex, and are more likely to run some software using Linux rather than an RTOS or asic. But the original complaint was that a backup camera adds non-negligible complexity / cost.
For a budget car where that would even make sense, that means you’re expecting to sell at high volume and basically nothing else requires electronics. So sourcing 1GB RAM chips and a motherboard that you can slot them in would be complete overkill and probably a regulatory nightmare, when you could just buy an off-the-shelf industrial-grade microcontroller package that gets fabbed en masse, dozens or hundreds of units to a single silicon wafer.
I simply refuse to believe the cost difference between a CPU with hundreds of megs of DRAM is cheap enough to be an appealing choice over the same chip with a gig of RAM. We're not talking about a disposable vape with 3kb of RAM, this is a car that needs to power a camera and sensors and satellite radio and matrix headlights or whatever. If it's got gigahertz of compute, there's no reason it's still got RAM sized for a computer from 30 years ago.
The original comment was complaining about backup cameras seemingly adding significant electronics requirements.
In practice, you’re not going to tie intimate knowledge of the matrix headlights into the infotainment system, that’s just bad engineering. At most it would know how to switch them on and off, maybe a few very granular settings like brightness or color or some kind of frequency adjustment, not worrying about every single LED, but I can’t imagine a budget car ever exposing all that to the end user. Even if you did, that would be some kind of legendarily bad implementation to require a gigabyte of RAM to manage dozens of LEDs. Like, is it launching a separate node instance exposing a separate HTTPS port for every LED at that point?
Ditto for the satellite radio. That can and probably is a separate module, and that’s more of a radio / AV domain piece of tech that’s going to operate in a world that historically hasn’t had the luxury of gigabytes of RAM.
Sensors - if this is a self-driving car with 3D LIDAR and 360-degree image sensors, the backup camera requirement is obviously utterly negligible.
Remember, we had TV for most of the 20th century, even before integrated circuits even existed, let alone computers and RAM. We didn’t magically lose the ability to send video around without the luxury of storing hundreds of frames’ worth of data.
Yeah, at some point it makes more sense to make or grab a chip with slightly more RAM so it has more market reach, but cars are manufactured at a scale where they actually are drivers of microcontroller technology. We are talking about a few dollars for a chip in a car being sold for thousands of dollars used, or tens of thousands of dollars new.
There is just no way that adding a backup camera is an existential issue for product lines.
Back in the mists of time, we used to do realtime video from camera to display with entirely analog components. Not that I'm eager to have a CRT in my dashboard, but live video from a local camera is a pretty low bar to clear.
Yeah, I cannot understand why people are thinking a gigabyte of RAM in this context save for their context being imagining what this would take with a python HTTPS server streaming video via WebRTC to an electron GUI running out of local docker containers or something. Because that ought to be enough memory for a hour of compressed video.
It’s like saying your family of four is going to take a vacation, so you might need to reserve an entire Hyatt for a week, rather than a single room in a Motel 6.
> I cannot understand why people are thinking a gigabyte of RAM in this context save for their context being imagining what this would take with
Who's people? It isn't me, I was rounding to the nearest positive integer. And bastawhiz is arguing in the abstract about RAM prices so I don't see how they fit this complaint either.
> It’s like saying your family of four is going to take a vacation, so you might need to reserve an entire Hyatt for a week, rather than a single room in a Motel 6.
From my point of view, it's more like each room only holds one person so you can't just say "a room" (megabyte), and renting a whole hotel would only be 0.1% of the total vacation budget, so I simplify it and just say "rent a hotel" (gigabyte). It doesn't mean I think it's necessary, it means I'm pointing out how cheap it is and don't need to go deeper.
I tried to think of a wording that wouldn't get this response, I guess I failed. Ram is generally bought in gigabytes, "1 or less" is as low as numbers go without getting overly detailed.
So what microcontroller do you have in mind that can run a 1-2 megapixel screen on internal memory? I would have guessed that a separate ram chip would be cheaper.
But mostly it’s the fundamental problem space from an A/V perspective. You don’t need iPhone-grade image processing - you just need to convert the raw signal from the CMOS chip to some flavor of YUV or RGB, and get that over to the screen via whatever interface it exposes.
NTSC HD was designed to be compatible with pretty stateless one-way broadcast over the air. And that was a follow-on to analog encodings that were laid down based on timing of the scanning CRT gun from dividing the power line frequency in an era where 1GB of RAM would be sci-fi. We use 29.97 / 59.94 fps from shimming color signal into 30 fps B&W back when color TV was invented in the early-mid 1900s, that’s how tight this domain is.
That board has a DDR3 chip on it. Is there one with HDMI that doesn't?
> But mostly it’s the fundamental problem space from an A/V perspective. You don’t need iPhone-grade image processing - you just need to convert the raw signal from the CMOS chip to some flavor of YUV or RGB, and get that over to the screen via whatever interface it exposes.
> NTSC HD was designed to be compatible with pretty stateless one-way broadcast over the air. And that was a follow-on to analog encodings that were laid down based on timing of the scanning CRT gun from dividing the power line frequency in an era where 1GB of RAM would be sci-fi. We use 29.97 / 59.94 fps from shimming color signal into 30 fps B&W back when color TV was invented in the early-mid 1900s, that’s how tight this domain is.
If you're getting a signal that's already uncompressed TV-like then you probably don't need a processor at all. But I didn't want to assume you're getting that, running a multi-Gbps signal over a wire in a very hostile environment.
The more generic solution needs the ability to hold a couple frames in memory. Which probably means a ram chip. Please don't focus so hard on the way I rounded the number. The point was that it's a negligible number of dollars. And you can use a much smaller chip than a gigabyte, but that doesn't save a proportional amount of money and the conclusion is the same, negligible amount of dollars.
I guess I could have said "gigabit". Anything that got into specific numbers of megabytes would have been pointless detail. And it's megabytes minimum if there's a frame buffer.
As someone who can only afford cars that are 10+ years old, i've never owened a car with a backup camera. And in a way-- good. That part of my brain, let it continue to develop. I am much better at "feeling out" where a car is than my friends who rely on back up cameras.
I understand your skepticism 100%, but I suspect you might change your mind if you, say, rented a car with it for a week. It's definitely a net positive for safety, and it probably costs the auto maker less than the seat belts (literally).
I've owned cars with backup cameras since about 2014. I still mostly back up the old fashioned way, and really only use the camera for very tight situations where a few inches matter.
ive owned two cars. the modern backup camera means the new one has small "stylish...." rear windows. it is wayyyy more dangerous than the older one with no sensors
i only have those two data points; but give me an older car with larger windows every. single. time.
like a vehicle touching a body in a speed of 3/4 km/h and the kid shouting or stepping away? or worst case your motion sensor beeping?
how much the conversation diverts on a commentary about someone not wanting a car shipped with an OS capturing telemetry even of farts on the right back seat
I used to be ornery about this but having a camera mounted on the back of the trunk that can see all the way down both ways of the aisle is actually a huge boon when backing out of a spot. Especially if I am parked next to something that is taller than my golf, which is most vehicles.
This is what changed my mind too. I was firmly in the “can’t you just learn to drive?” camp before.
I can use my eyes and look around but I can’t see through objects.
The camera and sensors have an incredibly wide view. I only have to get my rear end out a few inches to be able to see everything I couldn’t before. Pray and pull out isn’t very safe.
Backup camera are insanely nice. Modern cars give you things that even great awareness won't give you. The bird's eye view you get with multiple cameras is sheer magic.
I find it surprising that more people aren't dismayed at how many advertisements we are being exposed to daily. I think that once you're used to it, you don't feel much concern about it, but when you manage to cut a lot of them out (e.g. I have a pi-hole filtering a large portion of ads in my whole home) it becomes extremely upsetting to be dropped back into a place where they are everywhere.
Few things upset me as much as driving around a beautiful place and having billboards plastered up and down the highway. A few states have come to their senses and banned them.
The issue as a whole is that it genuinely is eroding the human experience. Being alive in a world where your eyesight is real estate to be filled with images that are meant to leave you with negative emotions with the intent of taking your money from you is bleak.
I don't often watch live/terrestrial TV. On the odd occasion I do, I'm taken aback. I forget how frequent, jarring, and obtrusive they are. And in recent years, it seems that gambling ads are more and more common. It's really quite astonishing.
Many people have TV on in the background all the time. I wonder if there's correlation between a "ads aren't so bad" and TV watching.
I worry that such a tax would create a self-reinforcing monopolistic effect by making it harder for smaller companies to do it, thus enriching those that can afford to do it. Even if there's a threshold under which it's not taxed, it still benefits big corporations.
That's the benefit of just such a "Microsoft model": one throat to choke, as a manager once told me. A tightly regulated and taxed ad monopoly system would be a lot tamer, at least until it captures the regulators.
It's my totally uneducated perception that you need to start out as explicitly unaffiliated in order to execute on a shift like that (e.g. South Park). If you start fighting in one direction, I imagine it's near impossible to start punching backwards (once your audience is established) without alienating a substantial portion of your base.
Surprised the French get the "lives" in this, given that the soviet union lost about 40 people for every french person while having a population only about 4.5x larger.
The quote is a little messed up because many of those 'soviet tanks' were Lend-Lease tanks produced by allies. Iirc it goes "WW2 was won with British intelligence, American steel, and Russian blood"
Indeed, USSR casualties (including civilians) were off the charts. USSR, then China, then Germany and then Indonesia. [0] 'Russian blood' part is something of an understatement.
The lend lease part is not correct. Lend lease went mostly to UK (Google AI says about 60% of lend lease went to UK & the rest of lend lease was split between USSR & China. Take that with a grain of salt)
Not to be taken with a grant of salt, according to wikipedia: "Most tank units were Soviet-built models but about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army, eight percent of war-time production. " [1]
Also per wikipedia, USSR produced about 30k light tanks, 65k medium tanks (eg: t-34), and 13k heavy tanks. [2]
>The lend lease part is not correct. Lend lease went mostly to UK (Google AI says about 60% of lend lease went to UK
UK sent stuff to USSR, too, including probably some of the stuff they got from the US, and they delivered it to Murmansk (rather than requiring the Soviets to come get it) during which their convoys and sailors took losses from the German navy.
I heard that the USSR received $1 trillion worth of stuff in 2025 dollars from it WWII allies. The US sent advisors, too, e.g., in how to build factories.
Of course, a few years later the US was sending stuff to Germany as part of the Marshall Plan, one of the purposes of which was to build up Germany so it could resist future Soviet aggression.
Yes, but that wasn't part of the "lend lease" program.
The quantity of materials sent from the UK to the USSR was significant. Just it was not part of the lend lease program. (Arguably this is something better, just direct aid without strings attached).
The quantities of what the UK gave to the USSR was a sacrifice of blood and treasure: "food and raw materials, roughly £30 billion in today’s money. This included 5,000 tanks and 7,000 aircraft, while public charitable donations provided approximately £5.3 million (roughly £490 million in today’s money) in medical stores...."
"Some of these supplies were purchased in the United States (US) by the UK for delivery directly to the USSR. Most British supplies were carried by sea to Northern Russia, docking at Archangel or Murmansk, by a series of Arctic convoys, which were subject to sustained German attacks from three dimensions from powerful German forces based in Northern Norway" [1]
> I heard that the USSR received $1 trillion worth of stuff in 2025 dollars from it WWII allies
Sounds plausible (I would hesitate to repeat it without seeing the data behind the numbers). I'm curious how the number breaks down as a relative amount.
reply