Three members of Congress propose a war tax.

Three members of Congress proposed a war tax to underwrite the costs of the war in Iraq. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/02/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3318517.shtml

The tax would roughly raise about $150 billion/year. It proposes a surcharge on taxes that would range from about 2%/year to 12-15%/year.

The surcharge would be lower for lower income people and higher for higher income people.

Currently the war in Iraq is supported by debt. Taxpayers in the future will pay for it. That includes you in later years and your children.

If you support the war, would you support the tax?

If not what alternatives would you suggest?

 

Ever find it amazing that congress cannot go a year without voting themselves billions of dollars in pork barrel projects? Hmm?

And Carbon tax:

That'll help the environment by, you know, funding such things as:

Those environment related type things.

 

See the last link in my sig. I always hope that it inspires some to donate. I know Lorien does.

 

Lorien, GTech:

I guess you guys are incapable of making serious comments about this proposal.

Does that mean that you are for it or against it?

 

I thought my comment was obvious Earl.

Would this come close to funding 10 senators taking a dump? Of course not. You are just falling for a tired old argument.

So, why aren't you seriously looking at congress stopping pork barrel spending - which would immediately input like $300 billion into the budget each year - instead? Curious.

 

I'm Canadian, but if I was an American I would NOT support the tax..Income tax in both our countries was supposed to be a temporary measure to underwrite the cost of WW2...and here we are more than 70 years later still paying it. Our children's children's children will still be paying...

 

I am for it!!!!
The right-wing warmongers may temper their excitement for war if they have to pay extra taxes for it. At the moment, these people are just acting like cheerleaders for war and don't have to make any sacrifice. Other people children are dying for the wars they are pushing for.

 

It's not worthy of such. I am against partisan democrat hacks like murtha, who openly convicted Marines without a trial in the court of public opinion and later when they were proven innocent, he refuses to issue an apology.

This is just another "ploy" by the democrats. It's partisan politics at the highest level. This is confirmed here:

So, now to you earlpearl. Do you support this partisan effort?

 

I can't believe that it has been in a supplemental budget this whole time. There should have always been a war tax for this high cost war. If there was we probably wouldn't be there still and it would have been managed much better. Less $$$ stolen by the administrations corporate connections. But $150 million/year doesn't even cover much considering we spend around 2 Billion a week on it...

 

Cutting pork barrel spending is a good alternative. Would you suggest that all Congressional spending is eliminated?

One thing I noted and cited here earlier is that 4 members of congress supported items that raised spending but were utilized to expedite delivering protection of armor to soldiers in Iraq.

Should it all be eliminated or just some?

mkss: my mistake....the proposed funding would be $150 billion. roughly covering the cost of the war. I'll edit and correct it.

GTech:

btw; the house democratic officers said they are against the proposal. it is not a democratic ploy. It is a proposal by 3 members of congress who are democrats. There is a big difference.

Hiding behind your hatred of murtha is an easy excuse to not argue the case on its merits.

What would I do?

I would have it fully debated in Congress. It might have merit. It might generate other worthwhile funding comments. Lorien came up with one alternative that is debate worthy.


Ablaye: I couldn't give a rats ass what you think

 

As I give a sh*t. I am going to speak my mind though. Whether you like it or not.

A war tax isn't enough!! Bring back the draft!!!

 

Lol, in a way ablaye is right. A tax and draft would see this President impeached post haste.

But the tax is a red herring. Our existing income taxes only serve to cover the interest payments on the national debt. The reason they want this war tax is because any more debt spending would risk collapsing the economy.

In a strange way, this is GWB and the Iraq war's moment of truth.

One has to wonder if these Congressmen are politically suicidal or trying to create the perfect storm. The war is so unpopular right now, a tax would be a major kick in the shins for anyone seeking re-election.

 

How so? It's sponsored by three democrats. I wouldn't think it fair to say it's a Republican proposal. Would you?

I'm honestly surprised that you don't take issue with what murtha did. He openly convicted our soldiers, during war time and without a trial, in the court of public opinion by proclaiming their guilt. Of which they have since been proven innocent. Now he refuses to issue an apology to those honorable soldiers. That just reeks of partisanship. I really do want to think you are not so partisan, as to not be able to see how bad that is.

I see no merit to this. As I took the quote out of the article above, it's pure partisan politics. You don't believe it's a partisan ploy?

So you are not sure if you are for it or against it? If it weren't so blatantly partisan, I'd support something along these lines, as long as the money wasn't going to line pork barrel projects for democrats. I liken that position to the professional sports player that goes on TV promoting XYZ sports drink, but every time he's seen in public, is drinking a cola.

Kudos! We can agree there!

 

So would you fight for America, or against her?

 

Guerilla: Total taxes, no matter where they are coming from, pay for much more than just debt. But currently we are running a debt based on the Congressional methods of determining the budget. If the government redid the budget system to reflect accrual accounting (as is done for the vast majority of the private system) the debt would be incredibly larger.

I do agree that discussing paying for the war currently...rather than through debt would change the character of discussion about the war. On impeaching Bush....it aint happening.

GTech: By your reasoning, should Ron Paul propose that we leave Iraq immediately...that would be a Republican proposal.

Since the Democratic leadership has already stated they are against the proposal it is simply a proposal made by 3 congressmen who are democrats.

you and I have discussed murtha repeatedly. You hate his guts. I think people that go ballistic about people like murtha (like you) are out of line. I thought OJ was guilty but a jury let him off. What does that make me.

I like to reserve judgement on complex issues until I have heard a lot. Like I said earlier, Lorien proposed a worthwhile comment on alternative funding. Let it all come out in debate and analysis. Then I'll see where I stand.

On the issue where we agree.....that makes chili, our attitude on Ablaye, and one or two other things. Other than that we tend to disagree.

 

I suppose if someone wanted to try and argue he's really a Republican and not a Libertarian running under the Republican banner because Texas wouldn't elect him otherwise.

So we agree it's not going anywhere?

OJ wasn't an elected representative of the United States who defamed soldiers and openly convicted them in the court of public opinion. I'm sure you have your reasons for not taking issue with him over that. I just find it surprising and partisan. I don't take treason lightly and I believe his behavior was border-line, if not actually, treasonous.

 

Total taxes are more than income taxes. This is an income surtax. Let's talk turkey here. They aren't taxing business, they aren't adding tariffs. No mention specifically of dividends or investment income. No VAT or POS consumption tax.

Looks like they are targeting the American people, specifically the wealthy (read: influential).

Traditionally, corporate tax was meant to cover the cost of defense, and the income tax was created in 1913 along with the Federal Reserve almost explicitly for the purpose of servicing the debt.

I get the game these Dems are playing, the question is, does Pelosi have the stones (in the figurative sense) to actually challenge the Executive Branch (could Bush veto a war tax, and if he did, what would it say about his position on the war)? So far, Pelosi has been the Democratic Sentry, working to undermine the Republican party with bills she knows are doomed to fail, while working towards a strategy of gaining a Democratic Presidency.

She has, in her oath to the Constitution, failed by playing partisan footie.

 

Just the un-necessary spending and waste. And while you are lobbying for good alternatives, why don't you suggest the government cut down on fraud before turning to needless tax increases.

Still wierd that neither thought entered your mind before considering a tax increase.

 

This is not a Democratic proposal. Get it through your heads. Steny Hoyer, nuber 2 person in the house already disavowed it. I suspect that means Pelosi also disavows it. (not sure since this is so soon after the announcement but I suspect Hoyer wouldn't have disavowed it without checking w/Pelosi.)

Democrats and Republicans, particularly the leadership play crazy partisan politics all the time.

This is a straight up suggestion to fund the war with current dollars rather than debt dollars. It is not sponsored by either leadership group from either party.

Like I suggested earlier if the debate comes up many alternatives might be discussed. Lorien offered one earlier. Alternative taxing suggestions may arise. Possibly alternative cuts might be suggested. Who knows.

No doubt the suggestion about making it an income tax surcharge hits right at the American public versus any other way of looking at it.

GTech:

I didn't say the issue was or wasn't going anywhere. It is a suggestion to tax the cost of the war through current taxes.

It might have taken Lorien all of five minutes to come up with an alternative suggestion. Guerilla referenced other methods of funding.

It would generate healthy real discussions that would look at the cost of the war in today's dollars rather than debt.

The less that the leadership of either party is involved the better.

 

I didn't say it was a democratic proposal. There is nothing partisan about this war tax. It's sole purpose is to halt the war.

That my friend, of course, goes without saying. What I am saying is that some members have proposed this, in my inexpert opinion, to put a new spin on the power of the purse game. They are forcing Bush and Congress's hands.

That doesn't mean the individual members do not have an agenda.