One of the military’s biggest problems of the past five years is the political shell game Washington has played with defense spending and the Pentagon budget.
So, as Congress is now trying to rewrite the federal tax law for the first time in more than a decade, here’s an idea: A dedicated military tax.
Lawmakers could set a military tax to a specific rate. It would be clearly labeled on everyone’s pay stub. And the money would go directly to the Defense Department.
It’s not that bizarre of an idea. Your pay stub today has a line labeled “FICA” that is a dedicated tax earmarked by law to fund the Social Security trust fund that pays retirement checks to elderly citizens. And many states have dedicated taxes earmarked for schools and other specific government operations.
Why can’t Congress write a tax code that is clear and transparent about what the military gets? One that ensures the military gets a reliable funding stream? One that would be naturally adjusted for inflation every year?
That’s not the way it works right now.
Ultimately, about a quarter of all federal tax dollars goes to the Defense Department. But that money must first be collected through a general income tax, then put into some theoretical pool of all federal tax dollars so Congress can argue about it every year.
It becomes an endless cycle of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Defense Department gets whatever comes out of that annual, unpredictable circus.
At the crux of the disaster known as “sequestration” was lawmakers’ inability to agree on precisely how much money would go to the Defense Department and how much would go to everything else.
Lawmakers should just declare a military tax, and set it as a percentage of income. Rich people would pay more, as they always have. So, for example, instead of having millions of Americans in a 25 percent tax bracket and requiring them to pay a general purpose 25 percent tax, the tax law could instead have those same Americans pay 15 percent in general purpose, non-military taxes and 10 percent in military taxes. By law, that money would go straight to the Defense Department. No debate about it.
So, as Congress is now trying to rewrite the federal tax law for the first time in more than a decade, here’s an idea: A dedicated military tax.
Lawmakers could set a military tax to a specific rate. It would be clearly labeled on everyone’s pay stub. And the money would go directly to the Defense Department.It’s not that bizarre of an idea. Your pay stub today has a line labeled “FICA” that is a dedicated tax earmarked by law to fund the Social Security trust fund that pays retirement checks to elderly citizens. And many states have dedicated taxes earmarked for schools and other specific government operations.
Why can’t Congress write a tax code that is clear and transparent about what the military gets? One that ensures the military gets a reliable funding stream? One that would be naturally adjusted for inflation every year?
That’s not the way it works right now.
Ultimately, about a quarter of all federal tax dollars goes to the Defense Department. But that money must first be collected through a general income tax, then put into some theoretical pool of all federal tax dollars so Congress can argue about it every year.
It becomes an endless cycle of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Defense Department gets whatever comes out of that annual, unpredictable circus.
At the crux of the disaster known as “sequestration” was lawmakers’ inability to agree on precisely how much money would go to the Defense Department and how much would go to everything else.
Lawmakers should just declare a military tax, and set it as a percentage of income. Rich people would pay more, as they always have. So, for example, instead of having millions of Americans in a 25 percent tax bracket and requiring them to pay a general purpose 25 percent tax, the tax law could instead have those same Americans pay 15 percent in general purpose, non-military taxes and 10 percent in military taxes. By law, that money would go straight to the Defense Department. No debate about it.
by The Editors, Military Times | Read more:
Image: via
