Should Congress pass a law that requires every war waged by the United States should be paid for by

[TheCoxwain]

a separate war tax?


I heard this on Bill Mahr .. and I think this is a fantastic Idea.

A progressive War Tax.

That will teach those Republicans a lesson

[KansDem]

1. Yeah! And include a "trigger" option...

That after x number of months/years after the invasion if the objective hasn't been met, then withdraw all troops and materials and pass the costs of the war on to the ones who advocated for it...

[Vincardog]

2. Shift the Repukes and RW "base" about 2 X further to the right

[TheKentuckian]

3. I've called for just that in the past. I'm talking at least 15% extra to the top brackets

I'd also reinstate the draft and tie the whole lot up not just in legislation but a Constitutional Amendment.

[indepat]

5. But no matter how many new wars, the top rate should never again top 93%: 93% should

quell a lot of blood-lust. :P

Edited to change many to matter

[CrispyQ]

4. A better option would be that every Congress person who votes for the war

has to enlist someone from their immediate family. That person has to serve for the duration of the war & in the country the war is being waged in.

[rfranklin]

9. They would end up in heavily fortified bunkers...

impregnable to any of the enemy weapons. The average joe would be standing guard outside the six-inch steel door.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

6. IT IS THE NATURAL WAY

GOOGLE ENGLISH WAR TAX STAMPS

[truedelphi]

7. With 70% of all Americans believing that they are inside the top

Five Percent of all wager earners, I think that it is unlikely the tax would fall on the rich.

So like every other tax, it would end up once again on the backs of the poor.

[diane in sf]

8. arms dealers, upper 1%ers, benefitting industries and congress critters should pay

[HowHasItComeToThis]

10. HOW ABOUT A STOCK TRANSFER TAX

[joeycola]

11. well, congress just 600 Billion plus for wars but whine about health

care cause it is pay as you go. the military budget gets a free pass but health care does not.

[uponit7771]

12. There has been no office declaration of war by congress if there were they can issue war bonds

..and people could fund the war via them

I think your idea of appropriation conflicts is easiest though

[damntexdem]

13. Oh, darn: I thought maybe the end of your subject-line question was going to be:

"bake sales?"

;-)

[Soylent Brice]

14. i think it's brilliant!

[Vinca]

15. That's a great idea. And wars cannot add to the deficit.

[ShadowLiberal]

16. Not just wars, but all spending needs to be paid for

This is something we've needed for decades, a balanced budget amendment, most states have one, why not the federal government to?

While there can be times that it's necessary to overspend some in a bad year, like during a really bad recession, the government could bank extra money in taxes from previous years to pay for it.

Imagine how much of Bush's horrible self destructive agenda would never have gotten off the ground in the first place with a balanced budget amendment. Those Bush tax cuts for the rich? Nope, maybe the first tax cuts he passed he passed would still get through because of Clinton's surplus, but no more after that. The war in Iraq, nope, not unless the GOP is willing to commit the ultimate sin to rightwingers by voting to raise taxes to pay for the war. The war on drugs, it might have been canceled by now out of fiscal necessity, and lack of results, and because taxes on stuff like marijuana are potential source of revenue for the government, just like they tax cigarettes.

[Clio the Leo]

17. So Congress passes a budget ....

..... that taxes the American people to the degree to which they believe is politically feasable and THEN you expect the American people would favor ever supporting a tax after that? It's not like they leave room in the tax code for surplus.

They'd get it another way and call it something else. Or we'd take an already lowered troop level and spend even less money on body armor and supplies.

Time and again, Bill proves why he's a talk show host and not the President of the United States.

Boys are going to fight wars ... that's a fact of life .... the least we can do is make sure the foot soldiers and their families are provided for in the process.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. I think that we also need a new "War Powers" law

requiring more Congressional involvement in determining when to use military force, at least in situations that clearly are NOT emergencies so as to prevent more "wars/occupations of choice" like Iraq. Any such law should also include a prohibition on "blank check" resolutions that basically hand over discretion to POTUS. My feeling is that if Congress and, by extension, the public cannot come together and agree on the need to use our military forces against another country, then it probably shouldn't occur, particularly if we're talking about invading another country. And, despite all of the RW blather about not requiring a "permission slip" from other countries to use our military forces against our enemies, I do think that some attention and consideration needs to be paid to the opinions of other countries, particularly those closest to whomever we're thinking about attacking, and that if we can't get a lot of countries to agree that we need to do something, then that's another good indication that we'd probably be making a mistake to commit military forces- as we would need to be prepared to largely go it alone not to mention the fact that we leave huge "footprints" wherever we go- which, in turn, ends up affecting everybody, including those countries whom do not wish to participate.