War tax?
 

Now that the White House has made their plan for Afghanistan public, I am hearing that some house Dems are talking about a "war tax" to finance military operations in Afghanistan.

My knee-jerk reaction was "oh man, here they go again with yet another tax." Then I thought about for a bit and have decided that the idea of such a tax has merit - as long as the monies collected don't go into some general fund, but are collected into a specific fund only to be used for Afghanistan. It shows greater fiscal responsibility than just printing money and selling debt to the Chinese, and the average taxpayor would finally be sacrificing along with those serving in the military.

So am I a jerk or what?

you jerk.

edit: while i'm not sure whether such a tax is a good idea, i do agree that it would be better than many alternatives.

It's an interesting concept. While I don't necessarily trust Congress to be able to implement it right, the fact is that we're looking at a cost per person (assuming 300,000,000 Americans) of $3300 apiece for the wars so far. We're going to have to come up with that money somewhere.

I do find it quite disturbing that we have to do drives for supplies for our troops - a bunch of my peers did a drive for the company that an employee's son is in; they needed socks FFS. So, I'd be willing to put another couple percent of tax on my federal return if it means taking care of the troops and paying for this war up front.

I'm always in favor of paying as we go. If that means cuts that's fine. If it means taxes that's fine too. It drove me crazy that the costs of war were always kept off budget in the last admin and I hope obama does not pull that shit.

It sounded from his speech last night that he was going to actively avoid doing that this time round.

Let's hope it's true.



Of course, it'd be nice if the American people would put a little skin in the game, too. Our uninvolvement with this conflict is disturbing.

I vote for cuts in the trillion they have added to the budget.

but if its to be taxes (like there was ever a doubt) then its across the board.

If the idea is that everyone has to sacrifice to pay for the war it follows that the so-called "poor", i.e. the half of America that doesn't pay income taxes, will be asked to pay their share but I'm sure democrats will not make them pay up. This will be another excuse to soak the "rich", i.e., anyone who is presently paying the income tax.

lol if they don't have any money to contribute how do you propose collecting it from them?

How about we withhold it out of their benefits check just like they withhold it from my pay check? Good idea, yes?

And make them even poorer? Fucking Awesome.

If we are all in this together then if I have to sacrifice and become poorer why should they get a pass? Maybe they would have to give up the texting and data services on their cell phones. That's what sacrifice means.

Or, maybe just maybe, since we area obviously not all in this together, and the democrat's president is obviously not committed to winning, we should get the hell out of this war right now before another thousand graves are dug at Arlington.

Great idea mate, just take away money from those already don't have enough, just to let those who have more pay less... Brilliant logic there batman.

But on the war tax, it sounds like a good idea. This is a major cost for the US and its going to have to be paid at some point.

Yawn. So, then, what is 'committed to winning'?

We need to charge every american resident - except the immediate families of active duty troops - a monthly tax (including illegal aliens) which is itemized strictly to pay for the war. It could be scaled to the prior year's taxable income so everyone is paying the same percent of their income.

Everyone needs to see how much money war costs. That won't bring home the human cost, but it would make people far more interested in what is going on with regard to our multiple wars. Our troops are putting their lives on the line every single day. The least the american citizenry can do is pay attention to what is going on and pay for it.

who does not benefit ?

Well, maybe they will have to give up texting and data services on their cell phones. There is a lot about being "poor" in America that you are not up to speed on, boy wonder.

If it's about sacrifice I want them finally be forced to share in a sacrifice and I don't give a damn what a snotty, uninformed British elitist thinks about that.

It's about sacrifice? That's rich, given that the entirety of these two wars has been done on credit, and the only POTUS in the history of the country to not only not raise taxes during the wars, but rather institute tax cuts during them, was the one who started them.

Sacrifice? Whatever could you possibly be talking about?

Got a mouse in your pocket?
Those men I met on the job with missing arms and legs put a little skin in the game.

Not really, but why should the tax payer finance a war that the MIC contractors are getting wealthy off of? Sounds like more socialism-for-the-rich to me.

I see your point, that a tax increase involves all of us - but since we don't have any say (and Congress only listens to their lobbyists), the public can no longer dictate policy. The tax would be just another subsidy to those profitting from war.

As an aside, I find it interesting that we have "no money for health care" (a real national security issue), and spent months and months fighting about it, but hell, if we need a war escalation, not a word is said about "fiscal responsibility."

Fucked up priorities.

lol welcome to the 21st century, sulayman.

what kind of an alternative do you propose for cell phones? land lines? half the time those are more expensive than cell phones anyway. as for texting, that is also usually a cheaper alternative to increased talk time.

poor people need phones too, guy. how could a poor person help themselves out of their situation if they are unable to provide a phone number on a job application?