Would you support a War Tax and if so then why?

[LooseChange]

Well this ought to make some of us cringe a little bit. With so much being put into the health care debate its obvious that sooner or later the mere thought of a War Tax seems ludicrous. Then again we might have to make more sacrifices and since Congress and the president are hell bent on pushing health care reform I guess this so called War Tax is nothing more then a bluff on the part of the Democrats to call out the republicans and the conservatives to put them on the spot. If it is then it's no surprise that this is starting to get some momentum and sooner or later Republicans are going to have to come out and either support this and face the wrath of voters or go against it and be labeled un-patriotic for not supporting the troops. All I can say is that despite the Democrats losing a little ground in the polls they have once again outsmarted their opponents and will push for this putting a lot of Americans on the spot. Hopefully I'm wrong...and it wouldn't bother me one bit if I was.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Most likey yes, last I checked wars are not free...That means pay for them, not cut taxes while increase spending

 

[Bunz]

Well there is historical precedence for a "war tax" the first income tax was instituted during the civil war on the union side.

Then in most cases in history, during war time taxes went up, and generally there was a draft instituted. It wasnt until the 21st century did we attempt tax cuts during war time, and undertook considerable simultaneous military action without the draft.

Ill let the individual decide how that has worked out to date.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Well this ought to make some of us cringe a little bit.

Yeah....some (o' you), more than others.....

The Fightin' Romneys!!!!​

"The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it."​

So, what's it gonna be, "conservatives"....your kids....or, your BUCK$??!!!!

When do YOU start sacrificing???????​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Most likey yes, last I checked wars are not free...

Yeah....but, you're not a BUSH!!!!!

"Determined to cut taxes while waging war, President Bush is bucking history.

Taxe$ have been increased for every war the United States has foughthttp://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/politics_democratic/99253, with the exception of the war against Mexico in the 1840s."​

 

[LooseChange]

Yeah....some (o' you), more than others.....

The Fightin' Romneys!!!!​

So, what's it gonna be, "conservatives"....your kids....or, your BUCK$??!!!!

When do YOU start sacrificing???????​

Your Kids or your Bucks??? Couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the question is, since where so against government spending on social issues then why would we be against something like supporting the troops??? It just doesn't make any sense. I do agree we're going to have to sacrifice something and it might be both the Bucks and the Kids....

 

[BigRob]

Most likey yes, last I checked wars are not free...That means pay for them, not cut taxes while increase spending

Isn't that what President Obama just did? After all, didn't he "cut taxes for 95% of Americans"? And spending sure has not gone down.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I do agree we're going to have to sacrifice something and it might be both the Bucks and the Kids....

No doubt........​

"The only fair Draft would be to call up everyone: men and women, rich and poor, with no deferments for college and no lottery. Real opposition to the Vietnam War began with parents of children facing The Draft. It was fine, was it not, when "other people's kids" had to go?"

 

[PLC1]

We should have proposed a war tax before engaging in an elective war. If we couldn't pass it, then we shouldn't have gone to war. If the voters want a war, then they have to want it badly enough to pay for it.

I'd like a new bass boat. If someone gave me one, I'd be happy with it. Since I don't go out and spend 20 grand on one, I suppose I don't want it badly enough. It's the same with government. We say we want this or that, but are we willing to pay for it? If not, then we don't want it very badly.

We should have passed a bailout tax as well. If it didn't pass, then no bailout.

If we're going to have universal health care, then that needs to be paid for as well. If the people want it, then they have to want it badly enough to pay for it.

How about a border fence tax?

It's time to cancel the federal Visa Card, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express. They aren't a good credit risk.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Isn't that what President Obama just did? After all, didn't he "cut taxes for 95% of Americans"? And spending sure has not gone down.

He certainly did manage to put The Fear O' God into a few 1%ers!!!!!



How odd Lil' Dumbya wasn't questioned about HIS spending-skills!!​

"Much of the costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been funded through regular appropriations bills, but through emergency supplemental appropriations bills. As such, most of these expenses were not included in the budget deficit calculation prior to FY2010. Some budget experts argue that emergency supplemental appropriations bills do not receive the same level of legislative care as regular appropriations bills. In addition, emergency supplemental appropriations are not subject to the same budget enforcement mechanisms imposed on regular appropriations."

 

[GenSeneca]

The whole premise is flawed... So many of you seem to be under the delusion that increasing taxes results in an increase of revenue to the government when history tells that such results are the exception and not the rule.

Over a 60 year period, taxes have fluctuated wildly, from 90% down, but revenue to the government has remained steady around 18% of GDP. When the taxes were the highest, there was less economic activity, resulting in a lower GDP and therefore less revenue to the government. When the taxes were lower, it resulted in higher economic activity and an increase of revenue to the government.

Since history tells us that, regardless of tax rates, we still collect 18% of the GDP, the focus needs to be on increasing economic activity in the private sector to maximize GDP and in the process we will maximize revenue.

Obama understands that higher taxes result in less revenue but, as he said in the presidential debates, his interest in raising taxes has nothing to do with increasing revenue to the government, its about "fairness".

Rather than cutting off our nose to spite our face in the name of "fairness", tax policy should be strictly used for the purpose of maximizing revenue.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The whole premise is flawed... So many of you seem to be under the delusion that increasing taxes results in an increase of revenue to the government when history tells that such results are the exception and not the rule.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......


​

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

 

[BigRob]

He certainly did manage to put The Fear O' God into a few 1%ers!!!!!



How odd Lil' Dumbya wasn't questioned about HIS spending-skills!!​

As I already pointed out numerous times, the supplemental spending bills give a much better picture of the true cost than just claiming a number up front. You will notice that Obama has had to do the same thing with funding bills now.

But I have to ask again... why do you hate successful people?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Yeah....but, you're not a BUSH!!!!!

​

Be Fair, Bush H W , did raise taxes, and paid alot for that choice.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Isn't that what President Obama just did? After all, didn't he "cut taxes for 95% of Americans"? And spending sure has not gone down.

and did I say I was in favor of that? Nope.