(Reuters) - 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.
Good, they can start with the war on drugs. Anyone that doesnt have a family member who died from an overdose or other drug situation, can pony up. OF course at the numbers of deaths that have accrued since that war started, not many left to pay the small tax…
Personally I think it’s a very reasonable proposal though in the initial release I didn’t notice the bit about “each new war.” The original text I saw was basically just a new tax on non-military families/individuals that didn’t have a stipulation regarding war. Reasonable either way IMO.
Personally I wouldn’t mind being taxed more to help with veterans. As someone who did not serve, I think it’s crazy the amount of homeless veterans.
I am not sure how much it is based on the type of people who answer the calling, serve because it’s the best option, experiences of serving or what not. But the shear number of vets without a safety net is seems high to me.
Good, they can start with the war on drugs. Anyone that doesnt have a family member who died from an overdose or other drug situation, can pony up. OF course at the numbers of deaths that have accrued since that war started, not many left to pay the small tax…
Not sure I am following your logic here … So, if my spouse was in the DEA, lost a leg while on a drug raid in Central America, but I don’t have anyone in my family who died from an overdose, my family pays to tax to … whom? Why?
He needed to gain traction. He is the first on the block with this plan. He gained the JSA team donkey slowtwitch traction. As good an indicator as any. Sounds more reasonable than drafting all into service. Kudo’s to Beto. Should be interesting and as such --fun too! Well timed to insert into first debate.
Congress decides whether or not you go to war, correct?
How about hitting the pockets of every congress person who decides to send others in to harms way?
I do actually like the idea of non-military citizens having skin on the game when it comes to engaging in new wars/interventions/regime changes.
Personally I think it’s a very reasonable proposal though in the initial release I didn’t notice the bit about “each new war.” The original text I saw was basically just a new tax on non-military families/individuals that didn’t have a stipulation regarding war. Reasonable either way IMO.
Congress decides whether or not you go to war, correct?
How about hitting the pockets of every congress person who decides to send others in to harms way?
I do actually like the idea of non-military citizens having skin on the game when it comes to engaging in new wars/interventions/regime changes.
Great idea, but, this “tax” would only apply to families making $200k or more. That means … oh … about 7% of the US population would “have skin in the game.”
Congress decides whether or not you go to war, correct?
How about hitting the pockets of every congress person who decides to send others in to harms way?
I do actually like the idea of non-military citizens having skin on the game when it comes to engaging in new wars/interventions/regime changes.
Great idea, but, this “tax” would only apply to families making $200k or more. That means … oh … about 7% of the US population would “have skin in the game.”
Seems legit …
You’d have to pay the tax… how’s that sit with you?
Personally I wouldn’t mind being taxed more to help with veterans. As someone who did not serve, I think it’s crazy the amount of homeless veterans.
I am not sure how much it is based on the type of people who answer the calling, serve because it’s the best option, experiences of serving or what not. But the shear number of vets without a safety net is seems high to me.
Great! You can make monthly contributions. You can sign up for auto-pay via credit card or automatic bank withdrawal. This org has been heavily vetted and has one of the highest pass-through rates of all vet organizations. All donations are tax deductible.
Congress decides whether or not you go to war, correct?
How about hitting the pockets of every congress person who decides to send others in to harms way?
I do actually like the idea of non-military citizens having skin on the game when it comes to engaging in new wars/interventions/regime changes.
Great idea, but, this “tax” would only apply to families making $200k or more. That means … oh … about 7% of the US population would “have skin in the game.”
Seems legit …
You’d have to pay the tax… how’s that sit with you?
Congress decides whether or not you go to war, correct?
How about hitting the pockets of every congress person who decides to send others in to harms way?
I do actually like the idea of non-military citizens having skin on the game when it comes to engaging in new wars/interventions/regime changes.
Great idea, but, this “tax” would only apply to families making $200k or more. That means … oh … about 7% of the US population would “have skin in the game.”
Seems legit …
You’d have to pay the tax… how’s that sit with you?
How do you figure? I’m a vet.
You still have a reserve commission? If not you’re not serving anymore.
Congress decides whether or not you go to war, correct?
How about hitting the pockets of every congress person who decides to send others in to harms way?
I do actually like the idea of non-military citizens having skin on the game when it comes to engaging in new wars/interventions/regime changes.
Great idea, but, this “tax” would only apply to families making $200k or more. That means … oh … about 7% of the US population would “have skin in the game.”
Seems legit …
You’d have to pay the tax… how’s that sit with you?
How do you figure? I’m a vet.
You still have a reserve commission? If not you’re not serving anymore.
From Beto’s website:
The tax would be levied on households without current members of the Armed Forces or veterans of the Armed Forces.
Uh, tell that to all the families who lost service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who’s the idiot here?
I think that’s kind of the point ~ It’s too easy to commit military forces without the full support of a congressional declaration, especially for those who are sending other (mostly poorer) people’s kids
