War Tax Coming? Afghanistan: pay for it or charge it?

Over the last 8 years, the cost of the "military's efforts" in Iraq and Afghanistan has reached almost $1 trillion dollars. That cost has not been paid; it's essentially been "charged". How is the proposed troop surge going to be funded? More debt or new tax?

There's some chance lawmakers may opt to pay the bill as it comes due, rather than letting the balance and interest accrue. It's not the first time the idea has come up, but it may be the first time the idea is given serious consideration.

The White House estimates a troop increase will cost $1 billion a year for every 1,000 troops. So if Obama chooses to increase troops by as much as 40,000, that's $40 billion a year. That would be on top of the costs incurred for the troops and operations already on the ground, including the costs of any draw down in Iraq.

Novel idea, paying a bill as it occurs... just how does the White House expect to do this? War Tax? The proposal is 1%-5% surcharge on taxable income based on income level.

David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and other leading Democratic congressmen who have proposed a graduated war surtax beginning in 2011 to pay for U.S. military efforts going forward. The amount of tax collected would have to be sufficient to cover the full war costs of the previous year.

"Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for," Obey said in a statement. "The only people who've paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families."

Obey believes that:

if the cost of the Afghan war isn't paid for it will "wipe out every other initiative that we have to try to rebuild our own economy."

There is no official statement from the White House.

Clearly, continuing to "charge" the wars is a bad idea, but is raising (or adding a new) tax to fund the draw down in Iraq and the troop surge in Afghanistan, the answer?

Afghanistan: pay for it or charge it? - CNN

Pelosi may support war tax - Digital Journal


[edit on 28-11-2009 by LadySkadi]

reply to post by LadySkadi


ther eis a simple way to finance all this debt, and the war and all other debts in short order.. the immediate revolkation of any tax protections on church and religious services. once we start getting these essentially deadbeat churches to stop filling their coffers with out money tax free, the quicker we can get back on our feet.

Dem. Rep. Obey Proposes Tax To Fund War - ABC News Video

abcnews.go.com...

On the merits I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement. But if we are going to do that then at least we ought to pay for it because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, then the the costs of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to have to rebuild our economy. That's what happened with the Vietnam War which wiped out the Great Society. That's what happened with the Korea War that wiped out Harry Truman's Square Deal. That's what happened to the progressive movement back before the 20s when we went into World War I. In each case costs of those wars shut off the ability to afford anything else.

A war surtax would be ridiculous!
I mean yes it would pay off the debt from the war but still. I don't think that the US should even be there and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that.
If they are thinking about taxing the citizens to fund a war that is obviously going nowhere, they should have a vote for it...either vote yes to continue to war and get taxed or no to bring the troops home.
Why should the citizens have to pay for a war that has taken 8 year, they didn't plan it, they didn't approve 40,000 more troops to be sent. Thats like if I bought a car and made someone else pay for it cause I couldn't afford the car I chose.

Why not grab the drug &oil money before the politicians??

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

ther eis a simple way to finance all this debt, and the war and all other debts in short order.. the immediate revolkation of any tax protections on church and religious services. once we start getting these essentially deadbeat churches to stop filling their coffers with out money tax free, the quicker we can get back on our feet.

If this happens then I guess you wouldn't mind Preachers "telling" their congregation how to vote. You probably wouldn't mind churches donating money to their favorite political party either. Think of how big of a special interest the churches could become!

Really wouldn't be much money from this to make a difference anyway.

The church paying for the messed up as the citizens paying for it.... Im all for seperation of church and state.