Not a fan. Why not just allocate budget to provide for veterans? I don't believe in punishing anybody for not choosing to serve in the military. Edit: Addendum: I'm not sure why democratic...
Not a fan. Why not just allocate budget to provide for veterans? I don't believe in punishing anybody for not choosing to serve in the military.
Edit: Addendum: I'm not sure why democratic candidates keep finding new inventive rube goldberg machine ways to tax the rich. It's not hard, it's called increasing the marginal tax rates. But I suppose that's not popular with voters...
I think it's more a hamfisted attempt to say you shouldn't get to vote for war without having to pay some kind of price for it. But it ends up creating a weird sense of trying to put price on...
I think it's more a hamfisted attempt to say you shouldn't get to vote for war without having to pay some kind of price for it.
But it ends up creating a weird sense of trying to put price on human lives, which is something only a bloodless dweeb who is more spreadsheet than man would ever come up with.
It's less a way to tax the rich and more an incentive to "Put your money where your mouth is," I'm guessing. Force the rich (also known as the only group with political influence) to put up for...
It's less a way to tax the rich and more an incentive to "Put your money where your mouth is," I'm guessing.
Force the rich (also known as the only group with political influence) to put up for the wars they lobby for and you might see a change in the amount of wars the US is in at any given time.
Makes sense for a candidate as continuously anti-war as O'Rourke.
Regarding your edit, I think at this point some of them are just throwing "out-there" ideas out there to drum up interest in their campaigns. Probably not a coincidence that Sanders announced his...
Regarding your edit, I think at this point some of them are just throwing "out-there" ideas out there to drum up interest in their campaigns. Probably not a coincidence that Sanders announced his plan to abolish student loan debt a few days after reports of Warren closing the gap and starting to poll better and better. Now he's dominating headlines. And with this idea, maybe O'Rourke will for a few hours. Nothing really wrong with that, but I think it's wise to take all of these ideas with a pinch of salt because it's just rhetoric at this point.
Warren's tax is a wealth tax. This means that, regardless of how much money you earn in a year, if you have more than $50 million, you get taxed at 2%. A marginal tax is what Alexandria Ocasio...
Warren's tax is a wealth tax. This means that, regardless of how much money you earn in a year, if you have more than $50 million, you get taxed at 2%. A marginal tax is what Alexandria Ocasio Cortez proposed which is taxing any money earned after somebody has already earned $10 million at 70% (in here case, the numbers can obviously vary for different proposals). Either way, both taxes are far better than O'Rourke's convoluted idea.
I really like Warren's plans for the 2% tax and the student loan wipe, however she also argued for a Net Worth Tax which I think most courts would call unconstitutional.
I thought that's what Warren's plan is. Just a flat 2% tax on everything over $50 million.
I really like Warren's plans for the 2% tax and the student loan wipe, however she also argued for a Net Worth Tax which I think most courts would call unconstitutional.
This...is dumb. Just dumb. O'Rourke has been dogged by criticism of being not specific enough on policy, and this is a big swing and a miss. The US has notoriously not formally declared war, as...
This...is dumb. Just dumb. O'Rourke has been dogged by criticism of being not specific enough on policy, and this is a big swing and a miss.
$1,000 in a new tax for each war embarked on by the United States.
He did not specify what types of war, or the scale and origins of the wars, on which the tax would be levied.
The US has notoriously not formally declared war, as required by the Constitution, since WW2.
So, what counts as a war? Iraq and Afghanistan are the two big obvious ones. Does the War on Terror count as a single war across multiple countries, since it was all authorized by the 2001 AUMF? Or do we assess a separate charge for bombing Syria, bombing Yemen, etc?
Suppose the US takes the point of this tax to heart and winds down the Iraq & Afghan wars and doesn't get into any new ones. I think that's unlikely to the point of absurdity, but consider it as a thought experiment. That would cause this tax to not generate any new revenue, and yet we'll have Iraq and Afghan war veterans who need healthcare from the VA for the next 50+ years.
Regarding your final point - if in your hypothetical the US stops chucking it's military weight around entirely, their military budget won't need to be quite such a vast proportion of tax revenue...
Regarding your final point - if in your hypothetical the US stops chucking it's military weight around entirely, their military budget won't need to be quite such a vast proportion of tax revenue so finding a few hundred million for veteran care should be easy. I don't have numbers on hand but it doesn't seem unimaginable that with the money saved by shutting down the war machine, everyone's taxes could go down and they could afford universal healthcare and free higher education into the bargain.
If this dude's goal is reducing wars, I think he's going about it in the wrong direction. Penalising people who don't contribute to the military seems backwards. Perhaps (while we're doing wild thought experiments) there should be a voluntary contribution to run the armed forces, and only that. If people want them, those people can pay for them. We'll see how many wars - or military escapades or extended drills or whatever they're calling things now - can be afforded then. It's not like the US is in danger of being annexed by Canada anytime soon, they don't actually need all that much of a military.
Where I live used to be part of Denmark. I would love for them to come back. I actually think it's a pretty good solution to the brexit conundrum. I'm sure some house/job swaps could be arrange...
Where I live used to be part of Denmark. I would love for them to come back. I actually think it's a pretty good solution to the brexit conundrum. I'm sure some house/job swaps could be arrange for people wanting to be in Mercia and vice-versa.
I think the timing of this shows it's just a play to push back against the current President. It should be expensive to be a war-monger and words should have consequences, and this is one of those...
I think the timing of this shows it's just a play to push back against the current President. It should be expensive to be a war-monger and words should have consequences, and this is one of those consequences, this Democratic candidate is aiming to be President. I'm sure this idea won't get very far, but it should grab headlines and get attention.
I feel rather than taxing the rich for not fighting in a war, mandate that all wars must be funded by war bonds, and not a general budgetary line item. Want to go to war? Buy war bonds.
I feel rather than taxing the rich for not fighting in a war, mandate that all wars must be funded by war bonds, and not a general budgetary line item.
Not a fan. Why not just allocate budget to provide for veterans? I don't believe in punishing anybody for not choosing to serve in the military.
Edit: Addendum: I'm not sure why democratic candidates keep finding new inventive rube goldberg machine ways to tax the rich. It's not hard, it's called increasing the marginal tax rates. But I suppose that's not popular with voters...
I think it's more a hamfisted attempt to say you shouldn't get to vote for war without having to pay some kind of price for it.
But it ends up creating a weird sense of trying to put price on human lives, which is something only a bloodless dweeb who is more spreadsheet than man would ever come up with.
It's less a way to tax the rich and more an incentive to "Put your money where your mouth is," I'm guessing.
Force the rich (also known as the only group with political influence) to put up for the wars they lobby for and you might see a change in the amount of wars the US is in at any given time.
Makes sense for a candidate as continuously anti-war as O'Rourke.
Yeah, I just think there are just so much better options if you want to be anti-war that I'm disappointed that this is what he proposed.
Regarding your edit, I think at this point some of them are just throwing "out-there" ideas out there to drum up interest in their campaigns. Probably not a coincidence that Sanders announced his plan to abolish student loan debt a few days after reports of Warren closing the gap and starting to poll better and better. Now he's dominating headlines. And with this idea, maybe O'Rourke will for a few hours. Nothing really wrong with that, but I think it's wise to take all of these ideas with a pinch of salt because it's just rhetoric at this point.
Don't get my wrong, I'm not arguing against war taxes. I'm arguing against the specific implementation.
I thought that's what Warren's plan is. Just a flat 2% tax on everything over $50 million.
Warren's tax is a wealth tax. This means that, regardless of how much money you earn in a year, if you have more than $50 million, you get taxed at 2%. A marginal tax is what Alexandria Ocasio Cortez proposed which is taxing any money earned after somebody has already earned $10 million at 70% (in here case, the numbers can obviously vary for different proposals). Either way, both taxes are far better than O'Rourke's convoluted idea.
I really like Warren's plans for the 2% tax and the student loan wipe, however she also argued for a Net Worth Tax which I think most courts would call unconstitutional.
This...is dumb. Just dumb. O'Rourke has been dogged by criticism of being not specific enough on policy, and this is a big swing and a miss.
The US has notoriously not formally declared war, as required by the Constitution, since WW2.
So, what counts as a war? Iraq and Afghanistan are the two big obvious ones. Does the War on Terror count as a single war across multiple countries, since it was all authorized by the 2001 AUMF? Or do we assess a separate charge for bombing Syria, bombing Yemen, etc?
Suppose the US takes the point of this tax to heart and winds down the Iraq & Afghan wars and doesn't get into any new ones. I think that's unlikely to the point of absurdity, but consider it as a thought experiment. That would cause this tax to not generate any new revenue, and yet we'll have Iraq and Afghan war veterans who need healthcare from the VA for the next 50+ years.
Regarding your final point - if in your hypothetical the US stops chucking it's military weight around entirely, their military budget won't need to be quite such a vast proportion of tax revenue so finding a few hundred million for veteran care should be easy. I don't have numbers on hand but it doesn't seem unimaginable that with the money saved by shutting down the war machine, everyone's taxes could go down and they could afford universal healthcare and free higher education into the bargain.
If this dude's goal is reducing wars, I think he's going about it in the wrong direction. Penalising people who don't contribute to the military seems backwards. Perhaps (while we're doing wild thought experiments) there should be a voluntary contribution to run the armed forces, and only that. If people want them, those people can pay for them. We'll see how many wars - or military escapades or extended drills or whatever they're calling things now - can be afforded then. It's not like the US is in danger of being annexed by Canada anytime soon, they don't actually need all that much of a military.
Oh, if only... I'd love for Canada to annex my state.
Where I live used to be part of Denmark. I would love for them to come back. I actually think it's a pretty good solution to the brexit conundrum. I'm sure some house/job swaps could be arrange for people wanting to be in Mercia and vice-versa.
I think the timing of this shows it's just a play to push back against the current President. It should be expensive to be a war-monger and words should have consequences, and this is one of those consequences, this Democratic candidate is aiming to be President. I'm sure this idea won't get very far, but it should grab headlines and get attention.
I feel rather than taxing the rich for not fighting in a war, mandate that all wars must be funded by war bonds, and not a general budgetary line item.
Want to go to war? Buy war bonds.