3 ms·
If not for taxes, how would you fund prisons, police, the army, etc? Not to mention other things.
by ogogmad 9mo ago
If not for taxes, how would you fund prisons, police, the army, etc? Not to mention other things.
- carlosjobim 9mo ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 9mo ago> President Roosevelt rejected funding the war with taxes, and went instead with war bonds. War bonds covered about half the costs. Roosevelt was not shy about taxation, before or during the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1935 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1935 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1937 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1937 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Income_Tax_Act_of_1944 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Income_Tax_Act_of_1... "A 5% Victory tax on all individual incomes over $624 was created, with postwar credit."
- carlosjobim 9mo agoHe wasn't but in the decision between more taxes and war bonds, he chose bonds, against his advisors' wishes. And the population proved that they are willing to make massive contributions to important causes, without having to be forced at gun-point with taxation.
- ceejayoz 9mo agoI’ve well illustrated that he picked both.
- carlosjobim 8mo agoI'm aware of that, so I don't understand what you're arguing about. The comment asked for an alternative to taxes for funding the army, and war bonds is the answer. It's really amazing how successful war bonds have been in the 20th century. Before that, kings who wanted to wage war either taxed their population or borrowed money from people like Epstein for funding.