Democrat O'Rourke proposes 'war tax' on affluent U.S. families without military members - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15014090
I absolutely love O'Rourke's plan! Don't you know wealthy families aren't going to like that! ha ha ha! "Shared sacrafice!" they would say. "We can't do that! We can't be sharing in the sacrifices of war with the working and middle classes!" Here is a quote from the article:

Tim Reid of Reuters wrote:Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke on Monday proposed taxing affluent American families who do not have members in the U.S. military as a way to fund healthcare for veterans.

The former congressman from Texas unveiled a plan for military veterans that includes a "war tax," in which taxpayers who earn over $200,000 a year would pay $1,000 in a new tax for each war embarked on by the United States.

O'Rourke, who did not serve in the military but sat on the House of Representatives Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs committees, said the tax would be levied on households without current members of the U.S. military or military veterans. He did not specify what types of war, or the scale and origins of the wars, on which the tax would be levied.

The money raised from the war tax would be deposited into a newly created Veterans Health Care Trust Fund, which would be created at the start of each new war and be used to support veterans' healthcare, disability and other medical needs when they return from conflict, O'Rourke said.



https://news.yahoo.com/democrat-orourke ... 24428.html
#15014128
@SolarCross

SolarCross wrote:I think this is a reasonable plan. I doubt anyone would complain too much either as it is not that onerous.


Ohh I think the wealthy would complain and fight this tax though it is reasonable.
#15014129
Politics_Observer wrote:@SolarCross

Ohh I think the wealthy would complain and fight this tax though it is reasonable.


Well no one likes paying more tax but when you are on over $200k then you are already being bled like a pig for a third of it, something like $60k!!! $1k on top is barely noticeable.
#15014160
This is not meant to avoid war or make political change.

It is a well thought out campaign trick for a POTUS hopeful. It should work with most Democrat voters, and even some Republican voters. As for his Republican critics, he only needs to worry about that if he gets the nomination, and he can always use the veterans card to deflect them.
#15014205
I really hate how easily Americans are fooled. Taxing based on 'income' is horsecrap.

Here's what politicians do:

Politician: Everyone who makes more than $200,000 is year is wealthy!
Constituents: Yeah!! GET THEM!!

Person in New York making $200,000/year

"What the hell? $200,000/year on long island is like earning $80,000 in Kansas City! I am already taxed-the-hell-out-of. STOP IT!"

What foolish constituents do not understand - because they are knee deep in class and identity politics:

Take probably the highest bill people face: Rent. Rent Prices in Long Island, NY are 98.90% higher than in Kansas City, MO.

The only fair tax is a flat tax. No deductions. No IRS. especially no O'Rourke with ANY sort of decision-making power. :)
#15014233
The all volunteer army is more efficient and more professional than a conscripted army. However, in the recent wars, only 1% of the population fought in those wars, so while just 1% of the population fought in those recent wars, back in America there was a sense as if there were not wars going on at all. So, the dark side of having an all volunteer army is that the sacrafices are disproportionately shouldered by just 1% of the population. For example a guy in my unit was going on his 7th combat tour. In another case an army ranger was on his 15th combat tour before he was finally killed in action. He started his 1st combat tour in 2001 shortly after 9/11.

On the other hand, some of the cool things I saw were guys with missing limbs that they lost on one combat tour and they would recover, get a prosethitic limb and then volunteer for another combat deployment and go on a combat deployment with one leg and a fake limb. They got mad respect even from the Afghans. We had a few cases like that. We even had a double amputee go back to war. For us, it was about defending the homeland from another 9/11 terrorist attack. Here is an article that discusses this phenomon with my country's army:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39356718/ns/w ... ghanistan/

https://taskandpurpose.com/boston-green ... e-injuries

The Afghans even gave a nickname to one of our one legged soldiers "The One-Legged Warrior of Ashaque."

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... 1478247770

So the advantage of the all volunteer army is that you have soldiers who want to be there and who fight with heart and are more professional. The disadvantage though is that sacrifice is not shared by the nation so the effects and sacrifice of the war is not felt by the entire nation aside from those taxpayers who pay for the war, they will feel the financial cost but not the full brunt of the true sacrifice.

In the past with conscripted armies, they were not as efficient or professional, plus soldiers did not always fight with heart because they didn't want to be there, but the cost of these conscripted armies might have been lower though I can't say for sure because I don't have data to back that up. I would imagine that all volunteer armies could be more expensive. There is trade offs to everything. With conscripted armies you have more shared sacrifice and more of the nation is feeling the full brunt of the sacrafice like they did in World War II for example.

The conscripted army gives the entire nation a greater respect and appreciation for the horrors of war and makes it more likely that the population will question the need to go to war given that it has developed a great respect and appreciation for the horrors of war plus the astronomical financial cost involved in going to war too. Governments will be less likely to quickly rush into war when the population asks more questions and demands good reasons for going to war when they know it's going to be their neck and life on the line.
#15014257
Beto rides a skateboard and wears his hat backwards. Envision Beto across the table from the the North Koreans or Iranians. This is no real idea, just another wealthy person who is pandering and pretending to attack the wealthy.

Lightning strikes have better odds than boy Beto being president.
Last edited by Finfinder on 25 Jun 2019 18:53, edited 1 time in total.
Election 2020

It is fascinating to see how Obese Donald plays h[…]

Liberalism Is Corrupt

You're all filthy liberals including you @SSDR , […]

I wonder if there'll be a smoked kipper cult with […]

Trump and Russiagate

Trump's playbook: The broad masses of a populati[…]