Three members of Congress propose a war tax.

You mean where should the funding be coming from, or where does it actually come from?

 

The 3 members of congress came up with a proposal to direct fund the war w/ a surtax charge.

Lorien suggested an alternative for the $150 billion, by cutting pork barrel spending and waste.

I was following up on that. Total pork barrel (or total earmarks) equals a pretty big number-> but only $30-50 billion dollars as per 2005 or fiscal year 2005.

So I'm curious. Where would Lorien or anyone else find the additional $100-120 billion.

It was suggested that it might come from eliminating waste in government.

Does anyone have a way of identifying or eliminating $100-120 billion in waste?

 

Depending on who you ask, I count this as waste...

Foreign Aid.

 

I don't know what the totals are but I know Israel and Egypt are huge recipients--in fact there are threads here about the money they recieve.

Israel gets $3 billion/year. Egypt gets $2 billion/year.

Its not even close.

Where is the money coming from?

 

i have to disagree with the idea of trying to pay for the war with savings in the budget.war tax should be separated so we know when it ends.
by all means we should stop as much of the waste as we can, but those saving should remain permanent and not be used for the war.

 

I looked at the Federal Budget FY 2007 mid year report.

Total income to the government was in the range of $2.6 trillion and some change.

Total expenditures in the range of $2.8 trillion and something w/ a budget deficit of about $188 billion.

Some other interesting aspects. Total income tax revenues -> about $1.2 trillion; about $200-300 billion in corporate taxes and about $900 billion in social security payments. Then other stuff.


The proposal to generate direct payment for the war through an income tax surcharge with an estimated cost of $150 billion suggests that income taxes be raised by about 12%.

That would suggest that the max rate be changed through the surcharge from 39% to about 43-46%.

Sh!t. That would hurt.

Cutting $150 billion from the budget to cover actual costs of the war would be about 5% of the budget.

Cutting all congressional earmarks seems to cut $30-50 billion. So to find expenses through waste....it seems like you rigorously have to cut about 4% of the federal budget by aggressively trimming everywhere you go.

I'm sure it could be done. If it were done in a corporate environment it would happen aggressively. In the government it would take an enormous mandate and follow up to ensure the actual firings, reductions in expenses etc. were aggressively effected.

Any comments?

 

legalize drugs, and put the money that usually goes to the police and prisons towards it, plus tax the drugs

 

Now that is a good idea

 

Which is exactly why wars must be declared, and Congress must authorize the funding necessary to raise a standing army. Instead, we have a war with shifting objectives, one that the executive is now claiming could go on another 10 years, the population is being taxed for it by currency devaluation and there is no recourse, but to hope a change in the white house can not only end the war, but also bring some measure of fiscal accountability to move back towards a healthier economic balance.

I was originally mad at Bush and Cheney and their neo-con sycophants, but now I realize that Congress has abandoned us repeatedly since 9/11, handing over powers denied under the Constitution to the executive, either due to lack of courage, or partisan politics (Dems and Republicans).

 

Aggressive cuts are necessary, but it will take strong leadership and a massive turnover in the Senate and Congress to enact and enforce change.

The government has progressively become larger and larger to the point where everything we give, they use. When they need more, a resistance to change is to be expected.

 

Tell me is I am wrong, but is it or is it not that the Death Tax is designed to pay for Wars????

cheers

 

why? if they want to have some kind of new tax then why can't they just have equal 2% or 5% or whatever % tax on everybody, rich will still be paying more, so I do not see any point in making tax paying even more difficult in U, S & A.

 

To date not one of the ardent supporters of the war have been willing to aggressively tackle this question.

$150 billion dollars is a rough estimate of the cost of the war in Iraq to American taxpayers. That is an enormous amount of money.

It is more than 5% of total tax monies brought into the US government (somewhere between $2.6-2.7 trillion) and more than 5% of what the federal government spends (between $2.8-2.9 trillion)--(both figures for FY 07).

It makes some other items of recent controversy seem trivial by comparison.

Bush was willing to add $1 billion/year for the SCHIP program. Congress voted for $7 billion/year more. All for a program where we have been spending on average $4 billion/year for the last 10 years.

All of that is trivial compared to the cost of the war in Iraq for one year.

Lorien suggested cutting expenses to pay for the war. D16 agreed and also said he didn't want to pay for it with current taxes.

I looked at what is called pork barrel spending-> Congressional Earmarks. Maybe that is $30 billion or maybe $50 billion/year at current rates.

That doesn't come close to approximating the cost of the war for one year.

People say cut waste. I agree. But that is an enormous and expensive job in its own right.

It would be great if there were a great effort to effectively cut waste in the government and measure it. Nobody in office has done that. Bush hasn't done that. Clinton or other Presidents before him haven't done that.

Waste is a wonderful topic for talk and complaining. Lets see someone step up and tackle that.

So to date, nobody, and especially the ardent supporters, have even the remotest commentary on how to address the $150 billion/year that the cost of the Iraq war will impact American citizens.

What does $150 billion equal? There are 300 million citizens. Maybe every ardent supporter should run around the country collecting $500 per person. That would pay for the war. If you run into a family with 4 young kids and 2 parents--you got to get $3,000 from the parents. BTW. you have to do that every year going forward....as we don't see an end to the war. And when you are doing that tell them its just for the war in Iraq. All other taxes remain the same.

I think that if you are going to ardently support the war you should take a level of responsability for it. If you aren't fighting over there but mouthing off about anyone who makes any commentary that the ardent supporters deem unacceptable....but are unwilling to take financial responsability....then you should keep your mouth shut. If you are supporting the war you should put your efforts into convincing people the effort is worth it.

Neither the Democrats or Republican parties have taken any responsability for the proposal.

It was made by 3 democrats who are ardently against the war. Both party leaders immediately slammed it. As a proposal it won't go anywhere.

But it does point out the enormous costs...and by suggesting it gets tagged onto income taxes it very clearly demonstrates what it is costing America.

Income taxes contributed a little over $1.2 trillion dollars to the total of between $2.6-2.7 trillion in total take by the US government. That is between 40-50% of how the government gets its funds.

Adding $150 billion is equivalent to adding 12% to that income tax total.

It doesn't matter how that would be distributed amongst tax payers. It would hurt enormously and stick out like a sore thumb. If your not making much money and struggling to pay for food, clothing, education, etc. It would suck big time. If I was a big time guy on wall street making $100's of millions/year and being taxed on preferential lower rates for risk income--I'd be pissed. The feds would have snagged me and cost me millions.

Its no wonder no one wants to tackle it.

Make no mistake. I have no answers. I am for fighting terrorism and fighting or confronting what I consider dangerous Islamic nations that sponsor terrorism and/or are building dangerous nuclear weapons.

Likewise I am disgusted with this war in Iraq which is as much a civil war/ a war amongst tribes and gangs/ as it is a war to fight existing al-queda in Iraq or other named terrorist oriented groups.

The cost elements don't address the security issue. They likewise don't address the death of over 3800 American soldiers and injuries to about 27,000 more soldiers. Roughly 1/2 of those injured go back into service in a few days. That means about13,000 soldiers have suffered serious injuries on top of the 3800 or more dead.

All for a war that is questionable with regard to the fight or effort to defend against terrorism.

I could go on....but that would become redundant.


There are no magic bullets. I think the people that support the war at the top should be willing to address this issue and more significantly the worthiness of the war in the midst of a long effort to protect American interests.

I thought this proposal was a wonderful way to highlight how serious the war is and the size of the impact across the board to all Americans.

Too bad it won't be pursued.

 

there is no death tax, there is an estate tax which only applies to people with .... ESTATES

 

Ah yes...the death tax, more appropriately known as the estate tax. I like to call it the Paris Hilton Tax. It is a tax on accumulated wealth when passed on to descendants. There are existing limits on it, so estates valued up to some number in the millions don't get hit at all.

Bush wants to cut it.

Yup more money for Paris Hilton. Meanwhile he doesn't address the total cost of the war. Nor do his supporters. Though they do seem to support cutting the estate tax. Likewise they don't address the cost of the war.

Having reviewed the budget I think the total estate tax brings in something in the $20-30 billion range a year.

I'm impressed by the Bush proposals when compared to one another. Don't address the current costs of the war. It turns into debt so future generations pay for it. Cut the estate tax so Paris Hilton gets more of the money from her parents.

 

Its pretty obvious that the war cheerleaders don't actually want to serve in it or pay for it at this point, do you guys just look at yourselves and say "wow, I am full of BS" or what

 

They sure make great cheerleaders though. Perhaps they could cheer for an NFL team this season!
Donate their pay to the cause

 

I have to say it, the Neocons are notorious chickenhawks. They love to yell and jeer pro-war, but when you ask them about a war that won't end, and our great-grandchildren paying for it, they disappear. When you ask them to define the enemy, they cannot. When you ask them to explain the loss of civilian life, they are silent.

It's consistent with neo-conservatism, because NeoCons are liberals who crossed over to the right because that is where most of the power has lain in the last 3 decades. It's strictly a power play, a drama for the ideologically centrist right.

So you have these liberal ideologist/interlopers promoting war, nation building, who have yet to learn how to master a budget, reduce the size of government and halt socialism (which are defining characteristics of true conservatism).

Courage is when they send someone else to fight. Sacrifice is when other people pay the costs. Righteousness is an escape clause for accountability.

The usual nonsense.

 

Dudes:

When I saw the proposal I knew it was more about revealing truisms about the Iraq effort than anything else.

As a proposal in Congress it won't go anywhere. Still, it gets to the issue. Are you going to take responsability for the war or not. The other thing it does is articulate this....EVERYONE is involved. Put it out there. Tax everyone now.

Then argue its merits. Everyone is affected. Not just a relatively small number of military families.

A debate with everyone facing serious consequences of one sort or another will in time override the noise about being defeatists, terrorist supporters, etc. The debate will get real.

I am definately for a strong defense and strong actions against both terrorism and dangerous and potentially dangerous nations that are trying to add nukes and other wmd.

I am definately against wasting our resources in the midst of a somewhat civil war/somewhat war with terrorists in Iraq.

I don't see perfect answers. I see better answers that don't get all caught up in the current political bs environment of name calling.