It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

High-Income Tax May Be Needed for Afgan War Cost, Levin says

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

High-Income Tax May Be Needed for Afgan War Cost, Levin says


www.bloomberg.com

Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for additional troops sent to Afghanistan and that NATO should provide half of the new soldiers.

That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
This is fantastic. Now it is being proposed that less than 10% of the country fund a war. This is an incredibly slippery slope. If the nation wants to fight a war, the nation should fight a war. The income tax is progressive as it is, with 50% of American's paying no income tax.

You need to think about what this means. Who's army is it? Who is accountable? If the generals or the president formulate bad policy should a select few American's pay more? How does the public react when policy failure has no impact on them? Do they care if we are bogged down in an unwinnable war?

If this were to pass, who can blame the rich for working to juice the military industrial complex? You can really see a situation where the rich stand more to gain then they currently do by war. They'll pay the income tax. They'll make more money in investment income taxed at capital gains rates and support politicians who are supportive of continuing the war (those are the same dudes who get spiffed by the military industrial complex, BTW).


This is a road we should not even think about going down. time to let the Afgans be Afgans and live in the lawless wasteland they have lived in from the beginning of time.

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
This is a road we should not even think about going down. time to let the Afgans be Afgans and live in the lawless wasteland they have lived in from the beginning of time.

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Correction, Afghanistan has not always been a wasteland. It had a very rich traditional past where actual cities, progressive cities and towns were built. It had a very rich growing trading business. But the progressive cities and towns turned into "lands" when the Soviets invaded. This land was further turned into "wasteland" when US invaded.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


My appologies you are correct. From the 6th through 10th century Afganistan had a decent culture. This was largely due to the Greek influence after the territory was conqured by Alexander the Great. Since the 10th century however, the Afgans have not been able to pull their heads out of their keisters and the place has been a dung heap



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


High-Income Tax May Be Needed for Afgan War Cost, Levin says

Tax all the Owners, Investors and the Companies of the...

INDUSTRIAL MILITARY COMPLEX





posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by December_Rain
 


My appologies you are correct. From the 6th through 10th century Afganistan had a decent culture. This was largely due to the Greek influence after the territory was conqured by Alexander the Great. Since the 10th century however, the Afgans have not been able to pull their heads out of their keisters and the place has been a dung heap


Well there are alot of reasons for this. I think the main reason is because of the constant occupation and extremist influences. However, since Jesus has been hiding in Afghanistan, there isn't much we can do to stop this.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The problem with that is that they are largely owned by average folks in their pensions, i.e mutual funds. Sure there are big individual players, but they represent but a fraction. It is the big institutional traders who trade on behalf of the little guy who makes all of the dough. Try to hurt him and you hurt the little guy down stream. Tough problem to solve



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


OK then...

Let's try

Trickle down Taxation.
They always give the wealthy tax breaks and credit in the hopes that THEY will help the little guy. Lets do that in reverse Tax them heavier and give the little guy a break and see what those 305 million average Joe Tax payers can do with their extra income. I bet most would either pay down their personal debt or go shopping. Either way it would be great for the economy.




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The issue in my mind is not about tax policy. The issue is that by making a small minority of people pay for a war the majority of people have less interest in the outcome of the war. I would rather see a "War Tax" paid by every American, regardless of income, even if it is a tiny amount for those of low income. That way the war is top of mind for everyone and we all have a vested stake in the proper execution of the war. Thats my issue. It is not about the tax per se, it is about how they are suggesting that the war be paid for.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I have an idea. How 'bout we just GET THE HELL OUT!!!



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
How about not going to war if you cannot afford it?

Not everyone agrees with the war, why should they have to pay?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Why should my tax dollars be going to fund crimes against humanity?
I thought it was a crime if I were to give financial assistance to a criminal.
Should some of us start refusing to pay taxes or what?


[edit on 21-11-2009 by Happyfeet]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Right on happyfeet!



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I'm all about taxing the rich but this is ridiculous. Why are we even there? What are our mission goals? This is bull# that this country is even in Afghanistan and now you want to impose new taxes for it? Ridiculous


I hope these new proposed taxes are fought tooth and nail because it's just not right.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


you missed the big middle part where the taliban came to power and took out anything that could be called 'progressive.'



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


the wealthy already help the little guy without any help from the government. people always fall into the trap of thinking that taxation is the only way to pay your debt to society. if a wealthy man gives a poor man a job at this place of business, offers benefits to his workers, invests in new technologies, gives to charity, etc (all of which the wealthy do in the united states) that should be taken into account when we have discussions about 'paying your fair share.' offering direct employment s something only wealthiest are capable of doing.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join