Adam Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 I have heard a lot of people say that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush Administration are the first wars in history that were funded completely without raising taxes to pay for them. Is there actual fact to back this up or is it just propaganda against an extremely unpopular president. I hope there is some serious fact in this thread and not a ton of flaming, hijacking it. The statement covers an enormous span of time and a ton of countries and wars. I can't begin to think of how to research it.
davefan66 Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 I have heard a lot of people say that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush Administration are the first wars in history that were funded completely without raising taxes to pay for them. Is there actual fact to back this up or is it just propaganda against an extremely unpopular president. I hope there is some serious fact in this thread and not a ton of flaming, hijacking it. The statement covers an enormous span of time and a ton of countries and wars. I can't begin to think of how to research it. You can cook the books however you want to. It has to paid for somehow. No matter if it a traceable increase in taxes labeled "War tax", or just another generic tax without any specific destination, we are paying for it. The Gov. can also introduce spending cuts, such as social programs, that could help fund the war. But these programs would likely be picked up by State, or local Gov. with an increase in those taxes. Oh, and there is another thing called the National Debt. It's been spiraling out of control as of late, and to pay it off, yep, raise in taxes. Now, if only the Gov could somehow profit off the oil business....
finknottle Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Off the top of my head, I would argue that much of the routine fighting in the Middle Ages should be considered 'tax free.' That is, it was already budgeted for in the peace-time army. Under Feudalism, a vassal was granted his position in an agreement which called for a set amount of military service, basically some number of knights and supplies to be made available when needed. He in turn could count on his lords assistance when attacked. The key thing was that these were ready forces and obligations. If war came to the land, the designated people (think reservists) were called to duty. There were no broad mobilizations, drafts, or war taxes.
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Off the top of my head, I would argue that much of the routine fighting in the Middle Ages should be considered 'tax free.' That is, it was already budgeted for in the peace-time army. Under Feudalism, a vassal was granted his position in an agreement which called for a set amount of military service, basically some number of knights and supplies to be made available when needed. He in turn could count on his lords assistance when attacked. The key thing was that these were ready forces and obligations. If war came to the land, the designated people (think reservists) were called to duty. There were no broad mobilizations, drafts, or war taxes. Very debatable. I'd argue that the demense was in itself a war tax in large part, as it went towards freeing up the nobility from working their own lands and not only allowed them the time to train but the cash to equip themselves. Really, though, it's comparing apples and...I dunno, something antithetical to apples. Direct comparisons between a modern market economy and an eight hundred year old feudal economy are largely impossible, I think. Only fighting I'd argue was tax-free was the early Mongol invasions of...everyone. They had no tax base as pastoral nomads, and Genghis Khan basically financed everything needing financing through plunder.
TheMadCap Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 That happens to me quite a bit! Very debatable. I'd argue that the demense was in itself a war tax in large part, as it went towards freeing up the nobility from working their own lands and not only allowed them the time to train but the cash to equip themselves. Really, though, it's comparing apples and...I dunno, something antithetical to apples. Direct comparisons between a modern market economy and an eight hundred year old feudal economy are largely impossible, I think. Only fighting I'd argue was tax-free was the early Mongol invasions of...everyone. They had no tax base as pastoral nomads, and Genghis Khan basically financed everything needing financing through plunder. This is a key point, they could loot the hell out of whoever they conquered...
finknottle Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Very debatable. I'd argue that the demense was in itself a war tax in large part, as it went towards freeing up the nobility from working their own lands and not only allowed them the time to train but the cash to equip themselves. Really, though, it's comparing apples and...I dunno, something antithetical to apples. Direct comparisons between a modern market economy and an eight hundred year old feudal economy are largely impossible, I think. Only fighting I'd argue was tax-free was the early Mongol invasions of...everyone. They had no tax base as pastoral nomads, and Genghis Khan basically financed everything needing financing through plunder. Yes, but it's a permanent tax, for the continuous maintainance of an army, or more analogously, a national guard. The obligation was the same in peace and in war. In the context of the posters question, it shouldn't count.
Recommended Posts