War Tax???

ME - posted on 11/24/2009 ( 17 moms have responded )

2,978

18

190

Should the Obama Administration enact a war tax to help cover the costs of the wars? The W. Admin. didn't pay for anything they were doing and that, of course, was the start of our recessions/depression...By addressing this issue honestly, and beginning to pay for it up front would Obama gain support? Or...would the American people take away their support for the wars when they find out that they ALL have to sacrifice something (rather than only our military sacrificing something)?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

?? - posted on 11/24/2009

4,974

0

171

Quoting Traci:

But you should have enough money put to the side to cover a pregnancy should you lose your insurance.




How much is that exactly? What's the going cost for a pregnancy, possible emergency c-section & NCIU stay? Cause if its anything like up here - you're tellin me you have an extra $100,000 sittin around 'just in case'? Forget pregnancy - what's the going rate for any type of life threatening surgery or if someone NEEDS treatment for cancer, or any other life threatening disease? What happens if your insurance goes away and your child has a headache, you take her to the doctor for some migraine pills and you find out she has a tumor on her brain...? Do you have enough to cover that? Cause these are the kinds of things that demolish families at the base. What's the clause on your insurance for your children, 21 they're no longer covered unless enrolled in college? Okay what happens if they're in school - something happens - no longer in school cause she has to be in the hospital. Who's paying those bills? These ARE situations that destroy families. I wouldn't wish any of this on anyone - but if it were to happen to a family - I would have to say a Canadian has a better chance of it than an American.



A public option, would go towards the health care of everyone paying into it - much the same way that premiums, go towards insurance company's expenses covering everyone who uses their services. I don't really understand how this is beyond so many people... what is so hard to understand about that concept, is beyond me.



Welfare, bums, are already leeching off the system - having the public option really will benefit and affect people who are already working their asses off and still can't afford coverage. My guess is, honestly, dead serious here - there are plenty of people out there that are sitting on welfare and leeching off the system because at least this way, they know their family will get health care and it's covered by the system - so those people will now have an affordable venue, get off their asses, work, and be more productive. (There will still be people who leech off the system but that goes for anywhere in the world - if there's a fool to be had there's a trixster to take them.)



So you staying home Traci, to raise your children, it doesn't 'help' anyone... now, or later... in fact your attitude has an opposite affect to the people who are really needing that OPTION and working their asses off just to be told it's not good enough by people like you.





As for a war tax. No.

Sara - posted on 11/25/2009

9,313

50

584

I agree, no war tax. We should cut spending, which would happen if we stopped with all these B.S. wars.



My real problem is that no one in this country has any foresight. We can all sit around for days talking about what should have happened, what needs to happen...but no one wants to enact any kind of change that will be best for us in the long term. In my mind, that's exactly what Obama is trying to accomplish with healthcare reform. Will it immediately help? No. But so many people bitch about how what we're doing is going to affect their children and grandchildren, they put their foot down about this whole healthcare reform thing that will, IN THE LONG TERM, help their children and grandchildren. It seems that most of the time our lawmakers do what is best for them at the moment, that will get them re-elected. No one looks beyond their own term...I think Obama is trying to, and look at how much resistance it's all getting...doesn't make sense to me.

Dana - posted on 11/24/2009

11,264

35

489

Well, I made good choices but, I still feel lucky enough to have my man to depend on. I depend on him, he depends on me. So, your reasoning is that you made a good choice in marrying a man who will work while you stay at home and raise kids. If you made a poor choice in partners you are doomed, no help from anyone? Do you go to church, do you give money, does your church help the needy? Just wondering.

Btw, my son was born 6 wks early. For the first day, his bill , was $68,000. That's just the first day. That doesn't include my bill. So really, people should just have that saved up? If that were the case hardly anyone would be having children.

Traci - posted on 11/24/2009

2,158

2

102

What is so significant about the past couple of days that would make me change my mind???

You guys are misrepresenting my position here. I am not harsh on a family who gets laid off and needs assistance for a SHORT time. I am not harsh on a woman who gets left by her husband and needs assistance for a SHORT time. What I am harsh on is people who think that people should live off of others for periods of time. People who think they are ENTITLED to be cared for just because they happen to be born in America. I am harsh on those who think it is a FEDERAL problem and something they need to address. This should be addressed as locally as possible so as not to make room for the waste, fraud and abuse that ALWAYS burrows its way into anything the gov't touches. Local, local, local is the way to go.

Yes, my husband is the one who works at this point in time because we feel my children need me more than the work force does. I am staying home so that my children are raised to have values and morals and a strong work ethic so that you all don't have to support them through your tax dollars via the welfare or prison system one day. Uh....your welcome!!! lol

I take a bit of offense that you said "I'm lucky enough to have a man I can depend on"

I'm not lucky, it's called making good decisions. I didn't sleep around and get knocked up in high school. I was a good girl who happened to meet a great guy and we got married young. None of it was an accident. I could have ended up differently, but it's called good judgement. And I don't depend on him, either. I could take care of myself if need be.

And Laura...actually, my husband and I went for a time without health insurance. After we got out of the military we thought we were automatically covered...turns out we weren't. We had a newborn and had to pay out of pocket for all her well baby appointments and immunizations. We paid for a major medical plan that would cover accidents and such while waiting for my husband to find a good job. So I have been there and I have done that. But we also have money put aside for such an event anyway. It's called saving for a rainy day. I know there are some people who blow through their savings due to a medical accident....I'm not talking about that. But you should have enough money put to the side to cover a pregnancy should you lose your insurance.


I feel like a broken record here....yes people do need help, insurance reform needs to change. But expecting the taxpayers to just start covering everyone is not the answer. None of it addresses the real problem and will probably make it worse.


And now that we are so off topic it isn't even funny....back to business...

Dana - posted on 11/24/2009

11,264

35

489

Laura actually brings up a good point here, Traci and made me wonder about others. You have harsh comments about anyone who needs assistance from the government but, do you work or do you depend on your husband? What makes you any different from some woman who was unlucky enough to not have a man she can depend on? I'm just curious as to your reasoning on this subject.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

17 Comments

View replies by

Amie - posted on 11/24/2009

6,596

20

408

I just want to say I agree 100% with everything Jo asked and said. Bravo Jo! I couldn't have said it better myself. =)

Funny thing, my mom managed to teach me good morals and values, and a lot of other moms have done the same thing while working. Being there does not automatically equal a well adjusted contributing member of society. SAHM's do not hold any more power over how their child will turn out than working mom's. It is the quality of the mother not whether or not they work or stay home.

As for the war tax. Pfftt... Raise taxes to pay off debt, not for a war. Raise taxes to ensure good coverage for all Americans, not for a war. There are a lot of reasons I will agree on to raise taxes for but not for war.

Jenny - posted on 11/24/2009

4,426

16

126

My mom made a good choice in who to marry too, then he died at 26 years of age ( I was 6 years, my brother was 10 months) in a car accident. I'm glad we had fantastic programs in place that kept my family off the streets. It took years for her to recover and be able to contribute again on a nominal basis. And then one Sunday evening while watching TV her brain blew up at 42 years old.



So how do you make good choices to plan ahead for that?



Taxes can be used for good instead of evil. No to a war tax. Yes to health care.

Isobel - posted on 11/24/2009

9,849

0

282

I notice Traci, that you didn't address the fact that you already ARE paying a "war tax"...from WWII

Isobel - posted on 11/24/2009

9,849

0

282

Traci, I find it difficult to believe that the past couple of days hasn't made you even think about the fairness of the state of health care in America. I certainly hope that your husband NEVER gets laid off while you are either caring for a special needs child, or pregnant.

Dana - posted on 11/24/2009

11,264

35

489

Quoting Mary:

I have a problem saying that we already pay taxes to support this war...Bush cut taxes, and then started the war...we have NEVER had the funds to pay for it. We pay taxes that don't include the idea of this war, let alone the actual 8 year price tag. I find it fascintaing that so many people are demanding that Obama prove he can pay for health insurance which will save lives...but NOT demanding that he prove how is paying for something that costs 1 million/per soldier/year deployed while it's taking lives and destroying families. I DON'T support this war, but I would be willing to pay a war tax to help keep our soldiers safe until we all wake up and bring them home safe for good! I would also support the idea of that tax money going to better psychological, social, and emotional care/support for the soldiers and familes of those deployed



I have no problem with them raising taxes on those that can afford it the, "top 1%" .  I also think we can better manage our money, which would help.  I also don't think anyone wants to see our soldiers go without, in ANY area. 

Isobel - posted on 11/24/2009

9,849

0

282

It wouldn't be the first time...

http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/hi...

Prior to World War II, no one outside the government paid income tax; the people were, and understood themselves to be, immune from that tax. During WWII, Congress passed the Victory Tax (56 Stat. 884) to impose an income tax on every individual in The United States of America, something which had not been done by any previous income tax act. Excepted from that tax were those already paying income taxes per I.R.C. 211(a) - nonresident alien individuals with no United States business or office but living in a "contiguous country" and having income from United States sources.

Because the Victory Tax, a wartime measure, was imposed on individuals in the states of the union (and not countries such as Canada or Mexico), those already taxed by section 211(a) had to be excepted from the Victory Tax or they would be taxed twice. This suggests that the nonresident alien individuals living in "contiguous countries" were in fact living in states such as Virginia and Maryland - being outside the United States (District of Columbia).

The Victory Tax was repealed by section 6 of Income Tax Act of 1944, which in amending the I.R.C. includes the states of the union in the terms "certain foreign countries" (section 6 (b)(3)) and "foreign countries and possessions of the United States" (section 6 (b)(4)). This restored the scope of income taxation to what it had been prior to the Victory Tax, as not including individuals in the states of the union.

The states of the union are then seen to be included in the terms "contiguous countries", "certain foreign countries" and "foreign countries and possessions of the United States". This shows that every state of the union is foreign to the United States. Those taxed under I.R.C. 211(a) must then be those living in a state of the union and working for government or one of its agencies - drawing income from "sources within the United States".

But because Congress failed to make it generally known that the Victory Tax was no longer in effect, people did not know to discontinue the withholding begun for the Victory Tax. One was then considered as being a volunteer in paying income tax.

The scope of the I.R.C. never targeted all individuals in the union. Only for a brief period, and under war powers, were all individuals made subject to taxation of income. The repeal of the Victory Tax means the scope of what is taxed was restored to its original intent, and individuals in the states of the union do not have to pay taxes on their incomes. And as the Victory Tax was the only act to have levied any such tax, the scope of taxation has never again expanded to include the whole of The United States of America.

I don't know about another draft...we already have enough Canadians ;P

Traci - posted on 11/24/2009

2,158

2

102

Maybe if the gov't quit spending money on things that PEOPLE CAN AND SHOULD BE PAYING FOR THEMSELVES like food, shelter, and clothing, we wouldn't have to levy extra taxes for wars. It is not the business of the federal gov't to be feeding and sheltering its citizens. It's bull.

I don't know about you girls...but I don't have a bunch of extra money laying around to pay for healthcare for others, wars, etc. You pay for yours, and I'll pay for mine, thanks. I'm paying enough.

ME - posted on 11/24/2009

2,978

18

190

I have a problem saying that we already pay taxes to support this war...Bush cut taxes, and then started the war...we have NEVER had the funds to pay for it. We pay taxes that don't include the idea of this war, let alone the actual 8 year price tag. I find it fascintaing that so many people are demanding that Obama prove he can pay for health insurance which will save lives...but NOT demanding that he prove how is paying for something that costs 1 million/per soldier/year deployed while it's taking lives and destroying families. I DON'T support this war, but I would be willing to pay a war tax to help keep our soldiers safe until we all wake up and bring them home safe for good! I would also support the idea of that tax money going to better psychological, social, and emotional care/support for the soldiers and familes of those deployed

JL - posted on 11/24/2009

3,635

48

105

I am not for it but then again a part of me says YES, go on do it then maybe more Americans who are so far from the realities of what it is really like for us military families will start actively paying attention and demanding some significant action be taken so our soldiers don't have to keep deploying in wars that they do not even wholeheartedly support.



As a military wife I have to say that part of me wants the whole nation to sacrifice along side because so often I feel like all the supporting the soldiers rhetoric does not mean crap when our soldiers have to keep deploying and wondering when will all this stop when will we be able to just breathe and not have to face another holiday apart.



My husband has been home out of the 10 years we have been married for only 3 Christmases because he has been in either Afghanistan, Iraq, or now Korea. It has now become a tradition for daddy to be missing from all the holidays and important events.



We don't complain much andrarely do we bitch about the burdens placed upon us as a family...we just do what is neccessary, but within the last year it has started to weigh heavy on my kids and which has brought us to really question how many more years must we go through this before we are a so completely disconnected as a family unit.



I don't know at this point in our lives my husband and I are both exaperated and tired of feeling lonely because we are so far apart from eachother more often then not and at this point I am tired of being a single mom to two kids who cry for their daddy whenever they get a boo boo.

Jenny - posted on 11/24/2009

4,426

16

126

I think Bush should have tried that to pay for the wars. Of course then we wouldn't be in this mess =) As far as donig it now, a million times no. It's time to come home.



I do overall like the idea of an entire country sacrificing to help out, I think it did a lot for women's rights back in the day too. Plus many communities in my country were founded by draft dodgers such as beautiful Nelson, BC. The way it is now, it's very easy to distance yourself from what is happening in the world and not think it's affecting you so it's just keeps going on. Although maybe that's the purpose?

Dana - posted on 11/24/2009

11,264

35

489

I think a war tax would be absolutely insane, we already pay taxes that are supposed to cover that. I get your point of, would Americans still support a war if everyone had to sacrifice but, I'd rather bring back the draft that no one is exempt from.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms