Let's have a law automatically raising taxes whenever we go to war.

[Capitalocracy]

How about that? Any military action automatically comes with a tax increase, in which each tax bracket's rate is raised by a formula based on the percentage of the wealth that bracket controls by our most recent economic figures to pay for the cost of the military action.

Crazy talk, right?

[RKP5637]

1. Add the draft to that and I bet we would see the US out of these wars pronto. n/t

[Drale]

2. Yeah how about we don't

The politicians don't care if you or I get drafted, they and their families will be exempt just like every other time there has been a draft. If they start the draft again, you'll see violence in the street the like of which has not been seen since the draft riots of the Civil War.

[RKP5637]

5. Maybe we need that to wake this country up. The reason I say that is

IMO to many these wars are out of sight, out of mind.

[Capitalocracy]

21. I see what you're saying with the draft

but I'm just going to say two wrongs don't make a right on that one.

[RKP5637]

26. Yep, I agree!!! n/t

[yurbud]

3. How about a user fee for our military for oil companies, sweat shop and plantation owners?

Republicans love user fees. Make the primary users of our military pay for their services--especially those who don't otherwise pay any taxes.

[Capitalocracy]

18. Barring actually getting rid of gasoline, sweatshops, and plantations...

sounds fair to me.

[Donnachaidh]

4. Automatically raise the taxes of the war profiteers to 90%

I'm tapped out -- let them pay my share.

[KT2000]

6. Yes - there used to be

laws that forbid companies from making excess profits off of war. Wonder what happened to that?

[Kaleva]

7. A national sales tax of about 3% would cover it.

With 1% of that being refunded to the states to cover collection costs and enforcement.

[Selatius]

9. A sales tax falls too heavily on the working poor and the middle class.

I would support a war tax in the form of a higher top marginal tax rate on the top 1% of income earners in combination with a higher capital gains rate on them to fund a war. It would fall less heavily on the poorest among us who typically end up fighting the war compared to hitting them with a sales tax.

[Kaleva]

11. Would that raise approx. 150 billion annually?

[Selatius]

13. Easily, if the raises are done right.

We've done war taxes before without instituting a sales tax. We didn't institute one when we were fighting World War 2, so why now?

[Capitalocracy]

12. A national VAT or sales tax is a staple of fascist nations

Argentina still hasn't shaken the 21% VAT imposed on them by their military dictatorship from the 70s.

I don't have too much of a problem with existing sales tax on a state level, but taxation should be progressive. Flat taxation for a nation with our level of income inequality is unacceptable.

[Kaleva]

15. The VAT is common in Europe.

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all use it.

[Capitalocracy]

16. I'm still against it in a nation with our kind of income inequality.

The very concept of a fair share is extremely different between classes in the U.S.

[A Simple Game]

22. The VAT may be common in those countries but so are

public transportation, a living wage, health care, national retirement, etc.

Apples and Oranges.

[Kaleva]

29. So, would you agree that the VAT is a staple of fascist nations or not?

[Egalitariat]

48. Does it have to be a war declared by Congress? Or can it be like Libya?

[Capitalocracy]

50. Any military action is what I would go with

Pretty much all-encompassing. Apparently nothing counts as a "war" anymore. Every bullet fired should lead to a tax increase.

[Romulox]

23. So is a comprehensive social safety net.

:hi:

[Xithras]

39. The states would never approve it.

Federal taxing authority derives from the 16th Amendment, which only permits the taxing of income from domestic citizens. Implementing a national sales tax would require a constitutional amendment, and you'd never get 38 states to go along with that.

People aren't going to magically come up with more money, so a 3% sales tax increase means a reduction in overall consumer spending (money that is currently going to other things will have to go to taxes). I don't normally pay much attention to this anti-tax argument, but it's valid in the case of sales taxes. When you increase the overall price of an item, you reduce the number of the items that will sell.

Many states are heavily dependent on sales taxes, and any downturn in sales will impact their state tax revenue. The states would, in essence, be giving a portion of their existing sale tax revenue to the federal government.

Some states might go along with that, perhaps a lot would, but not 38. And when we're talking about amendments, there's no difference between 37 and 1.

[Qutzupalotl]

8. The poor pay disproportionately now with their loved ones.

This proposal would allow the rich to ease their consciences a little.

[Capitalocracy]

20. Not necessarily

I mean, our wonderful legal system has pretty much pinpointed the monetary value of a human life, and a young soldier is probably only worth a million or two. There are billionaires who pay that much in taxes. Who says they're not contributing to the war effort?

In case it's necessary, :sarcasm:

[fascisthunter]

28. the lowerclasses not only built this country, they defended it

and that's why we deserve every entitlement the wealthy now take for granted.

[unblock]

10. actually i've long advocated tax rates that fluctuate with gdp

at least for the top bracket or two. if the gdp's cranking at 6%, the rich can sure as shit afford a tax hike, and the government has no excuse not to balance the books when the economy's booming. and if a tax hike takes some heat off the economy, so much the better -- too much growth too quickly can cause all sorts of problems.

conversely, if the economy tanks, the tax cuts are automatic.


politicians would never go for this because if there's a tax cut, by gum they want their name on it. they can't take credit for automatic.

[RegieRocker]

14. That sir is an excellent idea.

But first get rid of all exemptions and everyone pays the same percentage except for the lower income level.

[Confusious]

17. Flat tax?

A flat tax is crap so the rich don't have to pay as much.

graduated income tax is the only fair way.

[Capitalocracy]

19. I was transcribing a meeting of health care providers

and they were talking about health care reform. They were talking about how one of them had been advocating for reform and had a website, so I checked it out. The guy wants single payer with equal access for all, and a flat tax. It made me think of Family Guy where they play "would you rather", they give you two bad options and you have to choose one. Would you rather have a broken health care system but progressive taxation, or would you rather have single payer and a flat tax? Tough one, if you ask me.

[RegieRocker]

31. That is bullshit. The rich have so many write offs and loopholes

they don't pay shit. Do the research then come back and respond. Looke up Warren Buffet does not pay as much a percentage in taxes as his secretary.

[Confusious]

34. And?

If they're not paying now, will they pay under a flat tax? I think not.

All you would have accomplished is increasing the burden on the poor and middle class.

loopholes and graduated tax are not synonymous, nor are they exclusive.

[RegieRocker]

45. That is futile thoughts and statement.

[Confusious]

53. Futile is a flat tax.

there's a picture of it under "futile," "stupid," and "braindead" in the dictionary.

[RegieRocker]

54. Grow up and be an adult.

A picture of what? Flat tax? What a crock of b.s.

[Confusious]

55. I could say the same about you

Only teenage boys seem to think libertarian ideas will work. Flat tax included. Most grow out of it. The delusional ones keep working at it.

[RegieRocker]

56. Only teenage boys? More crock. Your agenda is clear.

Anyone who lives on a sailboat in the San Francisco Bay is a wealthy person to the average American. I can see why you're against a Flat tax. As I stated. the percentage was to be scaled according to income levels with no deductions or loopholes. Some might say that is not a flat tax. They can say what ever they wish. That certainly doesn't make it true. The same goes for you.

[Confusious]

57. A flat tax is a flat tax

your first post:

But first get rid of all exemptions and everyone pays the same percentage except for the lower income level.

everyone pays the same percentage. what is the lower income level? below $100000? below $30000?

if its 30, you're pushing a flat tax. teenage boys, etc,etc.

[RegieRocker]

58. Flat tax it is then. Look up those against flat tax,.crooks, rich, etc. etc.

It was a starting point. I still know your agenda though and your reference to teenage boys is really quite immature. Looked in the mirror lately.

[WatsonT]

24. Or just add a flat 10% to their current tax burden

So come next tax season you figure out what you owe then add on 10% more to that.

I'd be ok with that. A mandatory tax plan to be implemented every time our troops fire on someone else to be continued to the next tax period following the last shot fired.

[Romulox]

25. Many Democrats seem to be arguing that the 14th Amendment gives the President the "right"

to borrow money for war, irrespective of the laws the Congress passes.

:shrug:

[ileus]

27. That would make the RW's think before saying yes.

[Eddie Haskell]

30. Brilliant!

And, since we do the fighting, let the corporations pay the higher taxes.
:nuke: = < $

[uponit7771]

32. amen!!

[Snoutport]

33. yes please!

[Xithras]

35. No need. Just prohibit war spending from being treated as a regular budget item.

Give the Pentagon a base annual budget. That budget should include only the funding needed to purchase or upgrade existing hardware, to maintain domestic troop levels, and to maintain domestic military facilities.

Beyond that, levy a NEW tax for every overseas military action or occupation. We should be paying a progressive Libya Military Tax, Iraq Military Tax, Afghanistan Military Tax, European Military Occupation tax, Japanese Military Occupation tax, Korean Military Occupation tax, etc. All overseas military activities need to be approved by Congress, and the law needs to state that all Congressional military approvals include the identification of an existing military tax source to fund it, or the creation of a new military tax source for that particular intervention.

Each of these taxes should be calculated and listed on your 1099 based on your income. Not one bullet gets fired by any American soldier overseas, for any purpose other than self defense, without the replacement cost of that bullet being directly billable to a particular military tax.

[Capitalocracy]

37. I like the idea of it being itemized and listed on your tax forms.

"Wait, HOW MUCH am I paying for this??!11!?"

[Xithras]

40. It should also be levied after deductions and credits are calculated.

Iraq, for example, has cost us about $788 billion so far (according to CostOfWar), and we've been there for 8 years, so it costs us about $98 billion a year on average. According to the IRS, there are currently about 134 million taxpayers in the United States currently. That works out to about $731 per taxpayer, per year. It should be applied progressively, so some would pay less, and some more, but that gives you a ballpark.

And that's just for Iraq. Similar taxes should be levied for all of our other military actions.

Come April 16th, the anti-war movement would explode.

[Cool Logic]

36. I have a better idea...

How about we follow the law and never go to war in the first place?

[Capitalocracy]

38. Also a good idea.

More crazy talk. :toast:

[ThoughtCriminal]

41. If only the rich were drafted

wars would be fought with pillows.

[FourScore]

42. THAT would get people to think twice. n/t

[southerncrone]

43. Also a 75% tax on profits made from such wars!

[L0oniX]

44. It used to be that way. WW1 the rich paid 80% of net income over $1,000,000.

[Agony]

46. add a rider that makes war profiteering illegal and ban contractors from all war zones...

simple isn't it.

Why don't we hear these ideas from the Democratic party?

[Capitalocracy]

49. Because they're not really on our side.

Some of them are, like the ones that wrote the people's budget, but nobody pays attention to anything they say.

[Agony]

52. The Grijalva/Ellison PB is a sweet spot in the land of SOUR

Yes, too bad it will not see the light of day...

Cheerio!
Agony

[rurallib]

47. and automatically invoke anti-war profiteering committees and laws.

Taxes to be heavily weighted to the rich.

[treestar]

51. Great idea!

I'm all for that. Let the warmongers put their money where their mouths are!!!!