Calls for Military Draft, War Tax

[Shotgunner51]

Rep. Charles Rangel Again Calls for Military Draft, War Tax

Rep. Charles Rangel Again Calls for Military Draft, War Tax

Friday, 20 Mar 2015 01:28 PM
By Sandy Fitzgerald

Rep. Charles Rangel once again wants to reinstate the military draft and impose a war tax so Americans will share the burdens of the nation's ongoing military fights against Islamic militants.

"Armed conflict is unpredictable, chaotic, and costly," the 84-year-old New York Democrat, a Korean War veteran, said in a statement Thursday, reports The Hill.

"When I served, the entire nation shared the sacrifices through the draft and increased taxes, but today, only a fraction of America shoulders the burden. If war is truly necessary, we must all come together to support and defend our nation."

Rangel has been introducing draft legislation during every Congress since 2003, when the United States began its military operations in Iraq. He has been in the House of Representatives since 1971.

His new Draft Act opens the draft to women and requires all people between the ages of 18 to 25 to register for the Selective Service System. Further, the act calls for the reinstatement of the draft lottery, to be used whenever there is an Authorization for the Use of Military Force or a declaration of war is in effect.

He is also calling for a war tax act that will require revenue increases to pay for current and war funding. This time around, Rangel's bills come while the Obama administration is trying to sell its use of force authorization against the Islamic State, a measure that appears to be on hold.

"I have long called for reinstating the military draft, simply because I believe strongly that a national decision to go to war must also include a broad commitment to share its burdens," said Rangel, an Army veteran. "I feel the same about paying for wars. Those making the decision to fight need to feel the burden — not just our future generations as we've done with Iraq and Afghanistan."

Conflicts over the years in the Middle East have cost between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, a bill that Rangel said should make all Americans wary.

"The current attitude of 'fight now, pay later (or never)' should make us all wary of decisions to commit to wars undertaken by those who won't experience their consequences," he said.

"Whenever Congress decides to fund a war or other U.S. combat activities, it must provide a means to pay for it — then and there — not later."

This may be the last year for Rangel to present his Draft Act legislation. The one-time chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is aiming to retire at 86 at the end of the 114th session of Congress, leaving the seat he has held for years open in the upcoming 2016 elections.

 

[Shotgunner51]

Will Congress Pass a War Tax in 2015? | The Economic Populist

Will Congress Pass a War Tax in 2015?
Submitted by Bud Meyers on February 23, 2015 - 2:33pm


With all the heated debates about our skyrocketing debt and ballooning deficit — not to mention, all the rampant fraud in our government social programs — how can the U.S. afford another war? Will we use PAYGO — and pay as we go into war?

With some people complaining that America is going broke, while at the same time, those very same people are saying large corporations and the very wealthy are being taxed to death — how will another war in the Middle East be paid for if Congress wants to send ground troops to fight ISIS?

If not by raising taxes on those who are the most able to pay, will Congress want offsetting cuts elsewhere in the budget? Would they cut funding of federal disaster relief to Red States — or drastically reduce farm and oil subsidies? Or maybe our political leaders will repatriate trillions of untaxed corporate profits overseas to fund a new war. If not, how can America afford another war?

Before Democratic President Jimmy Carter cut taxes for the rich, the capital gains tax was near 40%. But under Bush (after already going to war in the Middle East) the capital gains tax rate was reduced to 15%, which had never been that low since the Great Depression.

During President George W. Bush's tenor in office, it was the first time ever (in all of U.S. history) did America engage in a major war without ever raising taxes. Just the opposite was true — instead, taxes were drastically reduced.

Wealthy patriots such as Robert Morris help fund the American Revolution. According to U.S. History.Org: "In late 1776, with the Continental Army in a state of severe deprivation because of a shortage of capital and the failure of several of the colonies in paying for the war, Morris loaned $10,000 of his own money to the government [over $270,000 in today's dollars]. Morris completed his office as Senator and then retired from public service. He never recovered the wealth that he enjoyed before the revolution. He died in 1806 in relative poverty at the age of 73."

The War of 1812 was financed mainly through the use of borrowed funds. But faced with declining revenues and the massive cost of the War, Secretary of the Treasury Gallatin was forced to reintroduce the Federalist taxes he had previously denounced. By funding the war deficit with bond issues, he helped defray the costs.

The United States went to war with Mexico in 1846 over the annexation of Texas and California. Congress authorized the issuing of additional debt to meet these obligations. It is this concept that would later become the basis for the Savings Bond program.

Just prior to the Gilded Age, the Revenue Act of 1862 was passed by Congress to help fund the Civil War. The Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, introducing the first progressive income tax rate to the country.

The entry of the United States into World War I greatly increased the need for revenue. The Revenue Act of 1916 and War Revenue Act of 1917 increased the top bracket on income above $2 million — and the tax rate was raised from 15% to 67%. The Act also instituted the federal estate tax (that the Republicans now call a "death tax") and an excess profits tax.

In 1917 and 1918, the United States government also issued Liberty Bonds to raise money, which contributed $21.5 billion for the war effort. The majority of sales were not to individuals, but to banks and financial groups that ignored the patriotic appeal and bought the bonds principally as an investment opportunity. The majority of Americans were simply uncomfortable converting a significant portion of their savings into what was, for them, a new and uncertain form of investment.

The Revenue Act of 1918 hiked the top rate to 77% on income above $1,000,000. Even then, only 5% of the population paid federal income taxes (up from 1% in 1913); but yet the income tax funded one-third of the cost of World War I. But these taxes had never impeded the top one percent's accumulation of vast wealth during the first Gilded Age — or during the Roaring Twenties.

During the Nazi reign in 1940, the U.S. Treasury proposed marketing the previously successful baby bonds as "defense bonds". For those that found it difficult to purchase an entire bond at once, 10 cent savings stamps could be purchased and collected in Treasury-approved stamp albums, until the recipient had accumulated enough stamps for a bond purchase. The name of the bonds was eventually changed to War Bonds after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

The crisis of World War II also led Congress and FDR to pass four excess profits tax statutes between 1940 and 1943. Eventually the excess profits tax was replaced with a flat 90% tax rate. And all told, 85 million Americans also purchased war bonds over the course of the war, raising approximately $185.7 billion. But even then, there was still war profiteering. (GM actually got repatriated by the taxpayers for their factories lost in Nazi Germany — which was their first government bailout.)

Several years later the Korean War induced Congress to re-impose an excess profits tax, effective from July 1950 to December 1953. The tax rate was 30% of excess profits, with the top corporate tax rate rising to 47%.

In 1968, a 10% surtax was imposed to pay for the Vietnam War. As Bruce Bartlett wrote at Forbes: "And there was conscription ... which can be viewed as a kind of tax that was largely paid by the poor and middle-class [while] young men from wealthy families largely escaped its effects through college deferments." One presidential candidate went on a religious deferment to France while protesting FOR that war — while other well-know politicians (who were against the war) had also received deferments during that period.

Then there was Bush and Iraq and Afghanistan. Now there is Obama and Iraq (again) and Syria, Libya, Pakistan and Yemen — and who knows where else.

But if the Republicans and Fox News want another war to fight ISIS, is it going to be paid for by raising taxes on low-income working-class Americans; and by cutting the bare essentials that the very poor rely on — such as food stamps, TANF and Social Security?

Or will Congress pass a war tax (or an excessive profits tax) on those with incomes above $1 million a year to help pay for another war? (They can call it The 2015 War Revenue Tax Act). Or will the top one-percent put down their American Express cards and pick up an M-16 rifle to fly half-way around the world to die and/or kill our enemies?

And how will our returning wounded warriors later be cared for? By taxing the poor and cutting food stamps again? Will the very rich be patriotic, or will only the poor and working-class (again) be the only patriotic Americans in the next war?

Ironic, isn't it? Our Vets and their families (part of Mitt Romney's 47%) are taxed so that they can sacrifice, suffer and fight — and/or become disabled or die in our wars. But the one's who escape paying for the wars can always profit from them — and without sacrificing anything at all.

The poor and lower-class (and what's left of the middle-class) can't afford any more wars. As it is already, they can't afford the class-war that's already being waged against them today, right here at home. And maybe that's why some Americans are now joining ISIS — because we're also losing the war on poverty.

 

[C130]

do more with less. it would be cheaper to fund the Kurds,Sunni and Shia tribes to fight takfiri terrorists.

 

[HRM YANG]

Cut taxes is the best way to comfort middle class

 

[Shotgunner51]

War Tax: More Than 10% of Every American's Tax Payment Is Spent on War

War Tax: More Than 10% of Every American’s Tax Payment Is Spent on War

By: Jason Easley
Monday, April, 15th, 2013, 12:27 p

The White House released a tax receipt calculator so that the American people can see how their tax dollars are being spent. Not only does nearly 25% of your taxes go to the military, 10.26% pays for war.

Republicans hate big government, but what they never want to discuss is the fact that national defense is the biggest taxpayer expense. 24.64% of every American’s total income tax payment goes to the military. Within that nearly 25%, 5.62% goes to salaries and benefits, 10.26% goes to ongoing operations, equipment, and supplies, 7.62% goes goes to research, development, and weapons construction, 0.70% atomic energy defense activities, 0.44% defense related FBI activities and other national defense.

The United States spends more on weapons and war than we do on Medicaid and CHIP (9.44%), and Medicare (9.84%). The unemployment benefits that Republicans claim we can’t afford take up 0.99% of your total income tax payment. The food assistance that House Republicans target for cuts on regular basis takes up 3.89% of your total tax payment. As a nation we spend roughly 1/3 as much on food assistance for our own people as we do on weapons and war.

Whether we realize or not, every single American in this country is paying a war tax of 10.26%. When Republicans claim that Medicare is too expensive and must be privatized, our first response should be that war is what is too expensive. Democrats should start demanding dollar for dollar cuts in war spending for every dollar Republicans want to cut in food and health care. If Republicans are so serious spending being offset by cuts, they should pay for it with the hide of their most sacred cow.

The extremist argument is that any cuts in military spending would jeopardize national security, but no one is saying that the country close down the military and send everybody home. In the 21st century, a civilian militia isn’t going to cut it.

All I am suggesting is that the nation could do with a few less wars.

These are still tough economic times, and if Republicans believe that government is too big and spending is out of control, they could show it by thinking twice the next time they try to take the country to war.

What do they really care? We’re the ones footing bill.

 

[Galad]

War Tax: More Than 10% of Every American’s Tax Payment Is Spent on War

Well as you can see USA MIC thinks this is not enough and wants more .I wont be surprised if such tax is actually implemented in near future -well of course in the name and "security" and " fight terrorists" (the same ones controlled by USA). And usual suspects will go to greater extent to defend and explain how "war tax" (understand more money in the pockets of USA MIC) is good.

 

[SQ8]

do more with less. it would be cheaper to fund the Kurds,Sunni and Shia tribes to fight takfiri terrorists.

Wont work unless there are proper trainers on the ground with SF embedded to ensure that the battle goes the friendlies way. Like we did in Afg and not like Iraq today where their Army seems to only know the reverse gear.

Although in all honesty, the tactics used by IS are nothing short of devastating either. Kamikaze Technicals lead the attach before being followed by their main push with captured humvees and APCs. Air support is negligible and many a times ineffective as there is no present ISAR in the area to provide targeting.

You know what IS totally reminds me of?

This , if you ever played it.

Goddamn Westwood game studios knew the future!!

 

[Shotgunner51]

Ninth Circuit Rules Against War Tax Resister

Taxes 3/23/2015 @ 8:43AM
Peter J Reilly
Ninth Circuit Rules Against War Tax Resister

Elizabeth Boardman wants the IRS to stop calling her frivolous. Ms. Boardman is a Quaker and a member of the Administrative Committee of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee. The Ninth Circuit turned down her appeal earlier this month. I wrote about the original district court decision over two years ago and have been following the war tax resistance movement for nearly four years, but it has been some time since I have noted a development, so a little background might be in order.

On What War Tax Resistance Is Not

There are a lot reasons for not paying taxes and a lot of different ways of going about it. There is kind of a motto in the tax compliance/planning industry that comes from a decision written by Learned Hand.

Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.

There is a sense in the business community that overpaying taxes is irresponsible. Mitt Romney embodied this ideal with his “not a penny more” comment. This attitude can slide into techniques that end up being illegal as we saw with the turn of the millennium raid on the treasury engineered by the Big 4 accounting firms that is documented in the book Confidence Games: Lawyers, Accountants, and the Tax Shelter Industry.

We might call the above tax avoidance that sometimes slides into tax evasion. There might be something of an ideological rationale, but the basis is generally that you would rather keep the money for yourself.

Then there is outright tax evasion which taken to its extreme can mean entirely living off the grid. My favorite fictional example of this is Repairman Jack. Jack embodies the libertarian dreams of his creator F Paul Wilson. Most outright tax evasion probably has little in the way of ideology behind it.

Then there are, for lack of a better term, the tax protesters. Although he denies that he is a tax protester, while saying he admires them, Kent Hovind is a good example, but the best example, perhaps the grandfather of the movement is Irwin Schiff. Irwin Schiff has an elaborate theory that indicates that the federal income tax is extremely narrow in its scope and that most of us are tricked by the IRS, which Kent Hovind believes is a Puerto Rican collection company, into paying.

Both Irwin Schiff and Kent Hovind are in federal prison. Here is Kent Hovind, the non tax protester, explaining the theories in some detail including a reference to Irwin Schiff.

The tax protester movement, which is admittedly quite diverse, tends toward an extreme right wing ideology. The odd thing is that the movement tends not to be anti-military. In the world view of many tax protesters the military is one of the very few legitimate functions of the federal government. It is rather odd, because while the military takes up 18% of the federal budget, when you kick out social security and medicare, which are separately funded, it is over half.

As you might imagine from the name it is opposition to military expenditures that motivates the war tax resistance movement.

War Tax Resistance

It is reasonable to suspect that a certain percentage of those in the tax protester movement are sociopathic free riders who are using an ideology to rationalize their refusal to contribute to the common good. Not so war tax resisters. Although there is some variation in practice what war tax resisters generally do is fill out an accurate return. They then send the return into the IRS withholding some or all of their payment along with a letter explaining in some detail what they are doing. They then contribute the balance to charity. Since they can expect that frequently the IRS will levy them for the amount of the tax, they end up paying more.

War tax resisters tend to be scrupulous and totally transparent in what they are doing, while tax protesters often engage in behavior, like hiding assets, that makes it difficult to distinguish them from tax evaders. This distinction probably accounts for the extreme rarity of prosecution of war tax resisters for tax crimes.

Peter Goldberger is an attorney familiar with representing those with alternative views on taxation. He represented the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (a/k/a Quakers) when they refused to comply with a levy on some of their war tax resisting employees (Peter tells me that most war tax resisters are Quaker, Mennonite or Catholic). He also assisted the attorneys representing Irwin Schiff in his last appeal, which I covered. He told me a story to illustrate how meticulous war tax resisters can be. I call the fellow Henry in honor of America’s most famous war tax resister Henry David Thoreau.

UNITED STATES – JANUARY 16: Portrait of Henry David Thoreau (Concord, 1817-1862), philosopher and writer, engraving from a photograph taken in 1861. United States of America, 19th century. (Photo by DeAgostini/Getty Images)

Henry stopped voluntarily paying income taxes in 1958 in reaction to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Since he continued filing the IRS would collect by levying his bank account. Then one year he got audited. He had a very large medical deduction, which he substantiated. The agent had gone further though and looked at the rest of Henry’s transactions. The agent noted that there were quite a few charitable contributions that did not show up on the return and asked Henry about that.

Henry explained that those were the charitable contributions that he made in lieu of paying his taxes. Since other taxpayers did not get to deduct their taxes, he did not think it would be fair to deduct those payments as charitable contributions. The agent indicated that fair has nothing to do with it (See Reilly’s First Law of Tax Planning) and adjusted Henry’s tax downward. Henry continues his tax resisting ways with the IRS occasionally levying his bank account and scooping up 15% of his social security check.

The Decision

Ms. Boardman’s attorney, Robert Kovsky provided me with a link to a copy of the his brief. Ms. Boardman is seeking to prevent the IRS from labeling her practice of war tax resistance as frivolous and attempting to suppress the practice by unauthorized acts. She is relying on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Just to be clear, because this can get a bit confusing, Ms. Boardman recognizes that the IRS can legally come and grab her money. Her legal objection is to the practice of identifying war tax resisters as frivolous and attempting to suppress them. In 2013, there was a field attorney advice issued that indicated that a proper return that is accompanied by a protest letter will not be subject to the $5,000 frivolous return penalty, but the frivolous position label still remains. As best I can understand it, if the IRS just treated war tax resister returns the same way they treat any other return that comes in without full payment, there would not be an objection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Ninth Circuit was not buying it.

Accordingly, the Anti-Injunction Act precludes federal jurisdiction here unless Appellant can satisfy the judicially created exception to the Act by demonstrating (1) irreparable injury if her case is not heard, and (2) certainty of success on the merits. Appellant fails to satisfy either requirement. Appellant has a legal remedy in the form of a suit for refund and thus will suffer no irreparable injury. Appellant also has not shown that she is certain to succeed on the merits of her claim that the government’s listing of war tax resistance as a “frivolous” legal position for purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 6702 connotes discouragement of religion or otherwise violates her free exercise rights.

Peter Goldberger told me that this is the outcome that he had predicted. He does think that a war tax resister might succeed on a suit to recover penalties based on the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the Hobby Lobby decision, which allowed a conscience exception to a company from the requirement to provide employees with birth control.

Attorney Kovsky has not given up.

We are disappointed with the Panel Decision. There is a further proceeding in the Ninth Circuit, a petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc (larger body of judges). I am preparing such a petition that will respond to the Panel Decision, something in the nature of commentary.

Other Comments

I asked my friend Tom Cahill, a long time peace activist, for his thoughts on the issue.

As I see it, it is a contempt of conscience to call “frivolous” (as in “silly, trivial,” etc) a person’s refusal to pay for mass killing and destruction. War has always been good business for a select few who then use some of their ill-gotten gains to manipulate The Law to their own criminally-insane purposes. Humankind and The Law need to evolve out of the darkness of the jungle and into the light. And this is happening. Elizabeth Boardman isn’t the first war tax resister and she won’t be the last.

Although they did not run into one another, both Tom and Ms. Boardman served as human shields in Iraq. Tom is, as far as I know, the only veteran of the United States Air Force to engage in that activity.

Michael Mello covered the most recent decision for Law360. Other than that, I could not find any other coverage.

 

[LordTyrannus]

US police is killing in racial hatred and this republican clown thinks people will accept war tax in todays american society.

 

[Echo_419]

Rep. Charles Rangel Again Calls for Military Draft, War Tax

Rep. Charles Rangel Again Calls for Military Draft, War Tax

Friday, 20 Mar 2015 01:28 PM
By Sandy Fitzgerald

Rep. Charles Rangel once again wants to reinstate the military draft and impose a war tax so Americans will share the burdens of the nation's ongoing military fights against Islamic militants.

"Armed conflict is unpredictable, chaotic, and costly," the 84-year-old New York Democrat, a Korean War veteran, said in a statement Thursday, reports The Hill.

"When I served, the entire nation shared the sacrifices through the draft and increased taxes, but today, only a fraction of America shoulders the burden. If war is truly necessary, we must all come together to support and defend our nation."

Rangel has been introducing draft legislation during every Congress since 2003, when the United States began its military operations in Iraq. He has been in the House of Representatives since 1971.

His new Draft Act opens the draft to women and requires all people between the ages of 18 to 25 to register for the Selective Service System. Further, the act calls for the reinstatement of the draft lottery, to be used whenever there is an Authorization for the Use of Military Force or a declaration of war is in effect.

He is also calling for a war tax act that will require revenue increases to pay for current and war funding. This time around, Rangel's bills come while the Obama administration is trying to sell its use of force authorization against the Islamic State, a measure that appears to be on hold.

"I have long called for reinstating the military draft, simply because I believe strongly that a national decision to go to war must also include a broad commitment to share its burdens," said Rangel, an Army veteran. "I feel the same about paying for wars. Those making the decision to fight need to feel the burden — not just our future generations as we've done with Iraq and Afghanistan."

Conflicts over the years in the Middle East have cost between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, a bill that Rangel said should make all Americans wary.

"The current attitude of 'fight now, pay later (or never)' should make us all wary of decisions to commit to wars undertaken by those who won't experience their consequences," he said.

"Whenever Congress decides to fund a war or other U.S. combat activities, it must provide a means to pay for it — then and there — not later."

This may be the last year for Rangel to present his Draft Act legislation. The one-time chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is aiming to retire at 86 at the end of the 114th session of Congress, leaving the seat he has held for years open in the upcoming 2016 elections.

Ridiculous Idea