Interesting thought about taxes

[wmw999 2,452]

I was reading Newsweek last night (I'm sure some of you will comment on that), but in one of the columns, there was a comment on the tax cuts, and some things that could be done to make the taxes more equitable.

One of the proposals was to have a "war tax" when we're at war, because, well, war is expensive. I'm sure that hairs could be split as to the definition of "at war," but right now we're spending a shitload of money on very dangerous training exercises if we're not at war.

Anyway, the idea was to have a 10% surcharge (i.e. if your tax rate was 10%, make it 11%, etc), unless you have a member of your immediate family in the armed services. An interesting proposal -- a way to let folks share some of the cost of war, while exempting those who are already paying it.

I thought it was kind of cool. Obviously it's simplistic, and picking at little points is easy -- let's try not to just pick the low-hanging fruit, OK?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,998]

I'd go for that. It would be a good idea (I think) to make war slightly more than an abstraction to people, more than a few video clips on CNN. And it would help pay for the massive costs we're incurring.

Or better yet how about this - a balanced budget in wartime provision that requires income to match expenditures, via taxes on everyone except military and their families. That way the costs of the war are essentially passed indirectly to the voters of the US. The direct costs, of course, will still be borne by the US military and their families; it would be nice to give them a financial break.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Anyway, the idea was to have a 10% surcharge (i.e. if your tax rate was 10%, make it 11%, etc), unless you have a member of your immediate family in the armed services.

I read an interesting editorial the other day that would disagree with this idea. The author was proposing bringing back mandatory draft because right now we have a de-facto draft of the lower class. In essence, because of the cost of college and other factors, many of the lower class don't have much option other than going into the military after high school. If there were a mandatory draft across the board, then those with money may not be so quick to send their kids to war. Giving a monetary benefit for serving during wartime would promote an even larger discrepancy in enlistment between those who can afford it and those who cannot.

Not saying I agree, but that's the theory I read.

[Jimbo 0]

That is, in my opinion, absolutely the wrong reason to reinstate the draft.

Bill, why should the families of those at war be exempt from paying taxes?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[lawrocket 3]

I like the idea. If the American people will support an additional tax, you know they will support the war.

If the public views the tax increase as unjustified, it can certainly make it's view know that the war is not worth supporting.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

That is, in my opinion, absolutely the wrong reason to reinstate the draft.

Why? Shouldn't every group share equal responsibility?

[lawrocket 3]

You should not use the draft strictly for social engineer. Social engineering in response to a necessary draft is a different story.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Can we have a tax for those with children, or remove the deduction for mortage interest? I don't get any benefits for those expenses.

The motivation for such a tax is obvious - no one would support any sort of military action that is outside our borders. But is that good foreign policy? No.
We could accomplish nearly the same results if DC had to more or less balance their books every year the way states do. Want a war? Ok, what are you willing to give up for it? But again, do you want national security (in general, let's not be specific to this war) dictacted in part by accounting?

And shouldn't the exemption be limited to those actually serving in a war zone? Someone doing logistics in Kansas isn't paying any more of a cost of this war than any civilian.

[PhillyKev 0]

Good point. What about mandatory service after high school for everyone, then?

[Jimbo 0]

I think that's a fine idea, really. Those who don't wish to join the military can do time as a volunteer firefighter, police officer, EMS, or any one of the many civil service jobs. Honestly, I think that this country would be a better place if more people actually served the communities that they live in.

That said, if you want to limit the post-highschool service strictly to the military, I'm OK with that too.

OK - Thinking more about this... Doing this would create a surplus of those in the military. The logical thing to do in this case, I think, is to put these people to work doing service projects right here in the U.S.A. However, that's going to displace the hard working fire fighters, police officers, EMS crews, etc... How do we deal with that problem?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[billvon 2,998]

>no one would support any sort of military action that is outside our borders.

You are honestly saying that americans are so callous that the idea of killing ten thousand Iraqis doesn't bother them, but paying another $500 in income taxes would? I, for one, refuse to believe that we would be so greedy and uncaring.

>We could accomplish nearly the same results if DC had to more
>or less balance their books every year the way states do.

I'd go for that, too.

[billvon 2,998]

>Bill, why should the families of those at war be exempt from paying taxes?

Because the families of ordinary citizens may have to give up an extra $500 or something, and the families of the military might have to give up their sons or daughters. They are already willing to pay a much higher price.

[Jimbo 0]

No they aren't. Those who are serving are willing to pay a much higher price. It's unfortunate if a family loses a loved one due to a military conflict, but it's the soldiers who have proven their willingness to pay that higher price, not their families. Soldiers on active duty and in a combat zone already receive their wages tax free.

Should the families of those killed on Flight 93 be exempt from paying taxes? Their family members payed the ultimate price, and from all we know, willingly. How about the families of active duty police officers, fire fighters, EMS workers, those who willingly work in high crime neighborhoods...

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Good point. What about mandatory service after high school for everyone, then?

Sure, its a good idea for everyone who's finished high school already, those who haven't might have a different view.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,998]

>Sure, its a good idea for everyone who's finished high school
>already, those who haven't might have a different view.

Agreed. But with the troop levels we're going to need to support for the next ten years or so, I don't see many ways around a draft.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>no one would support any sort of military action that is outside our borders.

You are honestly saying that americans are so callous that the idea of killing ten thousand Iraqis doesn't bother them, but paying another $500 in income taxes would? I, for one, refuse to believe that we would be so greedy and uncaring.

I believe it. Americans worry about suffering that affects them. Americans worry about the suffering of the troops abroad and about the number of "our boys" killed in action. As a whole, there could care as much about the "ragheads" today as they did about the "Japs" and "Krauts" - old and young - in WWII.

Hit John Q taxpayer where it hurts, and he'll respond. Sad, but true. I see this in my practice all the time. "I want to get her." "This is a matter of principle." "Let's keep going on this." Then I have to explain, "This "Matter of Principle" will cost you, at a minimum, 4 thousand dollars." 9 times out of ten, they could care less about principle when they see what it'll cost them.

When principle costs, it better be damned good principle.
This is against

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nightjumps 1]

Quote

Then I have to explain, "This "Matter of Principle" will cost you, at a minimum, 4 thousand dollars." 9 times out of ten, they could care less about principle when they see what it'll cost them.

Ya know, if you quit saying that you could earn an extra 36k/annum.

[billvon 2,998]

Update on the draft:


Washington (CNN)
Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel . . . raised eyebrows Tuesday when he suggested the United States may need to reinstitute the draft.

On Wednesday, he said he was not advocating a return to military conscription, which ended in 1973 -- but the government "should start realistically exploring what our options are" and should consider some mandatory national service.

"If we, in fact -- as the president says and I agree -- are in a generational war here against terrorism, it's going to require resources. The mission must match the resources," said Hagel, who was an infantryman in Vietnam.

"The second question here is: Who is doing all of the fighting? This is also a societal issue. Should we continue to burden the middle class, who represents most all of our soldiers, and the lower-middle class?"

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I'd go for that. It would be a good idea (I think) to make war slightly more than an abstraction to people, more than a few video clips on CNN. And it would help pay for the massive costs we're incurring.

Or better yet how about this - a balanced budget in wartime provision that requires income to match expenditures, via taxes on everyone except military and their families. That way the costs of the war are essentially passed indirectly to the voters of the US. The direct costs, of course, will still be borne by the US military and their families; it would be nice to give them a financial break.

You know how anti-tax I am, but I'd support something along these lines. Do you think the pols would make this a tax for everyone or would they start a "progressive tax" ie. "tax the rich"? I'm guessing the later. Then it becomes a political football.

[TheAnvil 0]

I don't support this at all. In a way, that would penalize families who have no children, single folks, and families whose children didn't decide to volunteer or were turned away by the MEPS Nazi's for some medical reason. Nice in an idealistic sense, but not really fair by any measure.

I think we're going to see a further shift of taxes to the higher-achievers in the near future - in the form of raising the salary cap for SS taxes. Given the impending retirement of so many baby-boomers, it's probably inevitable. The bad thing is, if the employer-matching cap is raised as well, it will seriously impact small businesses and larger ones as well in the profit scene - at a time when a massive amount of $$ will be moving from high/medium to medium/low risk investments. Lower profits + lower capital from stock revenue for many businesses. Not a good thing.

Random thoughts from a tired Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Ron 10]

Quote

I read an interesting editorial the other day that would disagree with this idea. The author was proposing bringing back mandatory draft because right now we have a de-facto draft of the lower class

Rangel....NY.

I like the idea of a manditory draft. But his reasoning is BS.

I like my idea better...On welfare? In the Army you go. Don't like that idea? Get a J-O-B. Does not have to be the military... You could be put to work cleaning up highways for the paycheck. But I would not just ship money out to you. You would have to do some kind of public service..Crossing guard, Paint the courthouse, dig a ditch, work for Meals on Wheels ect.

But I like the idea of manditory public service for welfare recipients.

As for the higher tax for families without an active service member...Well what about those that already served? Should a guy that has been deployed to the first Gulf war have to pay? He already did his time.

I think ALL 18 year olds should serve atleast a year.

Quote

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

• Quote

[TomAiello 26]

While I'm not sure I disagree with you, Ron...

Quote

On welfare? In the Army you go. Don't like that idea? Get a J-O-B. Does not have to be the military.

What about someone who can't find a job but has children? When you send the parent to the military, what do you do with the kids?

You can't send them into the military, too. They just aren't going to be effective soldiers. And you can't just hand them a welfare check. Massive state orphanages? Might be cheaper just to keep handing out individual welfare checks.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Botellines 0]

Quote

But I like the idea of manditory public service for welfare recipients.

[sarcasm]Now, that would be a highly motivated team[/sarcasm]

Some questions about mandatory draft (spain had it till 4 years ago)
How much the paycheck? (something symbolic as it happened here would put profesionally and economicly at a disadvantage whoever is not going to finally join the army)
For how long? (Can you in one year and with no further training make an efficient army 5 years later?)
Will be mandatory for woman as well? (Should be, if no it would put profesionally men at disadvantage)
What are the conditions for being declared unfit for the army? (you will see i huge rise in very bad allergies, miopy, heterosexuals claiming to be gay, etc etc)
Will people who are declared unfit to join the army be entitled to welfare or other tax benefits?

I don´t think it would be a popular regulation...

[Darius11 12]

I like the idea of every one serving at least a year right after 18 only if it is made sure that the senators sons and daughters are serving also. I think people in the high up would look at war differently if one of there own was going to get shot at.

I bought my way out of the Iranian army because I didn't believe in any thing the government stood for.
So my only problem with the draft is
What if the government starts a War you absolutely disagree with?
I understand that the US government is a much more of a Just government then Iran.


I think if the current satiation stays the same the people who do serve should get a huge tax exempt status for life. We should start taxing the rich a much higher percentage.
In some countries they tax the rich a much higher percentage and the standard of living is higher for all.
Free education, health, Ect. Ect.

Edit to say by Exempt i ment tax brake

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I like the idea of a manditory draft. But his reasoning is BS.

I'm not convinced this is a good idea. I think one of the reasons we have such an awesome military today is because it is a volunteer force. Instituting a mandatory public service is a good idea. I would even suggest it be extended to immigration, where 2 years mandatory military service or a suitable alternative would be required.

Quote

I like my idea better...On welfare? In the Army you go. Don't like that idea? Get a J-O-B. Does not have to be the military... You could be put to work cleaning up highways for the paycheck. But I would not just ship money out to you. You would have to do some kind of public service..Crossing guard, Paint the courthouse, dig a ditch, work for Meals on Wheels ect.

Not convinced mandatory military service for welfare is such a good idea. You will then end up with too much dissent and low moral. I'm not sure I want a weapon in someones hands who obviously has "issues".

Quote

But I like the idea of manditory public service for welfare recipients.

Agreed. I believe we already have "workfare". Don't know how well it's working now, but I remember it was a Republican issue that Clinton signed into law.

Quote

As for the higher tax for families without an active service member...Well what about those that already served? Should a guy that has been deployed to the first Gulf war have to pay? He already did his time.

I think those who have an immediate family member currently serving shouldn't have to pay any income tax. I wouldn't extend this to the parents, only a spouse.

Quote

I think ALL 18 year olds should serve atleast a year.

Again, not sure if mandatory military service is a good idea. I do agree there should be some public service required. I think the current requirement can be somewhat of a joke because credit is given for working on a political campaign and even attending an anti-abortion rally. This gives politicians free labor for doing mail-outs etc.