Beto O'Rourke proposes 'war tax' as part of veterans' plan

[pauldun170]

I vote they introduce a tax per conflict where each conflict is strictly defined by specific adversary. Also the tax don't stop until operations stop in each locale. Even if its just a single drone flying over airspace to feed data to our "Partners" or a Ship providing support for someone else having a go at pew pew pew stuff.
None of this generic "War on Terror" bullshit.
So for someone making less than 30K, your tax bill today would include
We'd have $25 for Afghanistan
We'd have $25 for Iraq
We'd Have $25 for Syria.
We'd have $25 for Libya
We'd have $25 for Yemen
We'd have $25 for Libya
We'd have $25 for Somalia
We'd have $25 for Pakistan

In addition to VA care, they could also bring back the old war bonds to cover operation costs.
Want to intervene in someone's civil war because Saudi Arabia doesn't like the one side? Need to destabilize a government that won't sell mining rights and have to fund a militia?
Better get that ad campaign going.
Gotta sell war bonds

(CNN)Non-military households would pay a "war tax" to help cover the health care of veterans of newly-authorized wars under a plan Beto O'Rourke's campaign unveiled Monday.
The former Texas congressman and 2020 Democratic presidential contender's proposal is part of a series of health and economic measures aimed at improving care for veterans.
O'Rourke is in Tampa on Monday for a veterans' roundtable, where he is expected to discuss his plan for the first time. It comes before the Democratic field holds its first debate Wednesday and Thursday nights in Miami.
O'Rourke is also calling for an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with half the money currently being spent there redirected to programs for veterans of those wars.


Money collected through the "war tax" -- which he is proposing for future wars -- would go into a new trust fund for veterans established at the outset of each war.
Households making less than $30,000 per year would pay $25; those making less than $40,000 would pay $57; those making less than $50,000 would pay $98; those making less than $75,000 would pay $164; those making less than $100,000 would pay $270; those making less than $200,000 would pay $485; and those making more than $200,000 would pay $1,000.
"This new tax would serve as a reminder of the incredible sacrifice made by those who serve and their families," O'Rourke's plan says.
O'Rourke had introduced legislation in 2016 and 2017, while he was in the US House of Representatives, to create the same "war tax" and trust funds for veterans of future wars.
The idea is not a new one: Prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States had historically levied additional taxes in times of war. Under former President Lyndon B. Johnson, Congress enacted an income tax surcharge that meant taxpayers eventually owed 10% more. A group of House Democrats sought a similar tax in the mid-2000s, but were unsuccessful.
O'Rourke was a member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee for all of his six years representing El Paso in Congress. He was the lead sponsor of a measure that expanded mental health care for veterans with "other-than-honorable" discharge -- which his campaign says the Trump administration has failed to implement. He also successfully pushed for a measure that requires mental health examinations for those leaving military service.
"We must be willing to pay any price, and bear any burden, to provide the full care, support, and resources to every single veteran who served every single one of us," O'Rourke said in a statement. "Eighteen years into the war in Afghanistan, and nearly three decades after our first engagement in Iraq, the best way to honor our veterans' service is to cancel the blank check for endless war -- and reinvest the savings to ensure every American can thrive upon their return home."
O'Rourke's plan also includes a series of reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs, including requiring the public reporting and display of staffing rations and wait times, expanding telehealth offerings, pushing for an industry-wide standardization of electronic health care data, and mandating a new focus on mental health, addiction treatment and suicide prevention.
O'Rourke is also calling for National Institutes of Health spending on Alzheimer's research to double to $5 billion per year "to confront risks stemming from" military service
His plan emphasizes care for female veterans, pledging to "cover the full spectrum of women's reproductive health care, and include the provision of contraception with no out-of-pocket costs, in vitro fertilization without regard to marital status or sexual orientation, and abortions to the extent they are provided by other federal programs." VA hospitals would also be required to provide free child care.
O'Rourke also says he would require the Defense Department to upgrade the service records of LGBTQ veterans who were discharged due to their sexual orientation.
And he is proposing allowing military service to be a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, according to the plan.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/24/politics/beto-orourke-war-tax-veterans-plan/index.html

 

[ImpulsE69]

I'm a vet, I don't oppose the idea because yes vet care is not good at all either, but I do think that our country has a history of fighting battles it should never have been in. Additionally, I doubt 100% of that money would actually go where it is supposed to go. Our government loves to take money under one thing, and then redirect it for other things. So I'm torn, just like with any other 'solution' that involves taking money out of my hands to give someone else because I simply do not trust our government to actually do the right thing when it comes to money.

The pathway to immigration portion is an interesting take...

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

As long as they let us vote on whether or not we go to interfere in other countries' internal affairs war, sure.

 

[zinfamous]

I further propose that every elected official, regardless of age and regardless of health, be required to serve in a combat capacity in every war that they vote to support. It doesn't stop there: the same goes with all of their children, assuming they are old enough to serve.

Also, POTUS must lead the charge on the first day of any large operation.

 

[UNCjigga]

How about a tax paid for by defense contractors that profit from the conflict? Any publicly-traded company awarded a DoD contract during wartime would pay a flat 10% tax back on any reported profits—that money would directly benefit active duty warfighters and their families.

 

[tweaker2]

A quantum shift in the spending habits that the wealthy have institutionalized into our system of gov't has to happen in order to get the gov't working for, of and by the working class people of the nation.

IMO, the Dems would have the onerous task of taking control of the House, Senate and Executive and bring the Supreme Court back from the Dark Side in order to give the gov't back to the working class and away from the death grip that the wealthy currently have on the government's purse strings.

A noble worthy cause that has to overcome a pathway filled with potholes, land mines, booby traps, IEDs and the dirty backstabbing politicking that goes along with it.

The Class Warfare that the wealthy have been waging against the peasants will have to be won before anything of benefit can be given back to the people.

 

[MovingTarget]

We've been "at war" for so long that we hardly know what peace is by comparison, especially since none of it is currently formally declared by Congress. The proposal is interesting on its face, but the devil is in the details. For this to work, I believe that Congress would have to reassert its war-declaring authority in a decisive way. Things like the AUMF should be declared unconstitutional. Itemized taxation would go a long way to helping correct this.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I’ve said something similar on these forums, where ever more than a bunch of troops get sent somewhere where there wasn’t many troops EVERYONE should automatically pay an extra tax. Low income, middle income, high income all businesses even if they don’t turn a profit should be required to pay
Caring for these guys is the long term expense, we have a volunteer Army and we use private contractors as mercenaries. Far too many of the public are far removed from this stuff which feeds this endless war mentality.
We need public pain regarding troop deployments. That pain needs to be applied to everyone even the retired and veterans.

 

[dainthomas]

Paying an itemized amount for each war might wake people up and get them talking to their congresscritters.

 

[fleshconsumed]

As long as they let us vote on whether or not we go to interfere in other countries' internal affairs war, sure.

They won't. But as @dainthomas mentioned, putting a line item on your taxes puts a spotlight on the problem and gets people talking.

It's similar to how first advice for people in financial trouble is always to list out your expenses so that you know where your money is going and which expenses are necessary and which ones are frivolous.

 

[sactoking]

So a President elected by less than half of the active voters can declare a military action, spurred on by advisors he doesn't like, and the people who actively oppose the whole ordeal can pay more to "support" it?

No thanks, incredibly dumb idea.

 

[fleshconsumed]

So a President elected by less than half of the active voters can declare a military action, spurred on by advisors he doesn't like, and the people who actively oppose the whole ordeal can pay more to "support" it?

No thanks, incredibly dumb idea.

Whether you like it or not you got to pay your bills. Even if we delay the day of reckoning by putting it on credit card, one day sooner or later we will have to pay it off. Putting a war line item on our taxes will keep the issue alive. It's a reminder that yes, we're still paying for wars started 10 years ago, and that yes, we're still paying for vet care 10 years ago and will continue paying for it for the next 40 years. The way I see it, either way we'll have to pay for it, at least this way the problem is visible.

 

[sactoking]

Except it's not a proposal to spend more from general funds and line item it on everybody's tax returns, it's a special use tax levied at specific households.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

They won't. But as @dainthomas mentioned, putting a line item on your taxes puts a spotlight on the problem and gets people talking.

It's similar to how first advice for people in financial trouble is always to list out your expenses so that you know where your money is going and which expenses are necessary and which ones are frivolous.

That's a dumb comparison. The former just pisses people off, and ensures that someone who makes boisterous claims about how 'things are gonna change' gets elected instead of focusing on actual problems. You are never actually in control of the 'finances' in the former, you just get to vote on what way you're fucked. In the latter, you are in full control of your expenses and where the money goes, when, how, etc.

Now if you wanna talk about discretionary spending, I'd love to have a true democratic taxation system. At the end of my tax prep, let me decide what percentage of my taxes go to what program. I bet you'd see some marvelous things happen then.

 

[HomerJS]

How about a war tax paid by everyone with income over 200K? Higher the income, higher the tax. Income from any source not just salary. Flat charge not deductible.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

How about a war tax paid by everyone with income over 200K? Higher the income, higher the tax. Income from any source not just salary. Flat charge not deductible.

"They should pay more, NOT ME!"

Good ol' greedy shitbag Americans that are too scum to pay for anything.


It's hilarious how people like you are still too inept to understand the basic premise of what Beto was looking to do here. The obvious initiative would be for EVERYONE to have to pay these taxes - in an effort to enlighten the lower and middle class to scrutinize the government to stop going to war since they are paying for it.

 

[HomerJS]

"They should pay more, NOT ME!"

Good ol' greedy shitbag Americans that are too scum to pay for anything.


It's hilarious how people like you are still too inept to understand the basic premise of what Beto was looking to do here. The obvious initiative would be for EVERYONE to have to pay these taxes - in an effort to enlighten the lower and middle class to scrutinize the government to stop going to war since they are paying for it.

Want to do that, bring back the draft. I would focus on the people who create/start wars but don't want responsibility for them.

Remember when Obama wanted to scrap the AUMF and make a new one for Syria? Republicans were too chickenshit because they would have to put their names to it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I further propose that every elected official, regardless of age and regardless of health, be required to serve in a combat capacity in every war that they vote to support. It doesn't stop there: the same goes with all of their children, assuming they are old enough to serve.

Also, POTUS must lead the charge on the first day of any large operation.

We used to glorify combat, with the ruling class expected to participate in long standing military traditions. We called them monarchies. The British royal family still observes some of those traditions, if only ceremoniously, although to their credit a few of them have deployed to combat zones.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The problem is it would not work. The first year the tax his Americans the next politician that campaigned on a promise to remove the tax would win by a landslide. After that politicians would be falling all over themselves to vote that tax away. Nothing is more popular than lowering taxes.

 

[tweaker2]

I can see where a result of enacting this war tax would be to have everyone's personal interest in financing such wars become much more of a concern thus limiting our leader's abilities to finagle their way into starting them.

However, the "easiest" way to keep our adventurous leaders hogtied in the way of starting wars of opportunity is to take the ability to make a profit out of it and apply personal punitive damages (fines and jail time) to any and all who proposed and enabled these wars should it be found not necessary, not in the interests of the public at large and of which actually endangers the security and well being of the nation.

Would Cheney and Bush have been able to get us into the Iraq debacle had these conditions been applied? Who knows, but it definitely would have helped in preventing it.

 

[Jhhnn]

I can see where a result of enacting this war tax would be to have everyone's personal interest in financing such wars become much more of a concern thus limiting our leader's abilities to finagle their way into starting them.

However, the "easiest" way to keep our adventurous leaders hogtied in the way of starting wars of opportunity is to take the ability to make a profit out of it and apply personal punitive damages (fines and jail time) to any and all who proposed and enabled these wars should it be found not necessary, not in the interests of the public at large and of which actually endangers the security and well being of the nation.

Would Cheney and Bush have been able to get us into the Iraq debacle had these conditions been applied? Who knows, but it definitely would have helped in preventing it.

You underestimate the depravity of the Neocon/warmonger headset. The problem with having a giant military as deterrence is that it doesn't deter our own warmongers but rather enables them.