In the annals of terrible American militarist policy proposals, few are sillier and less punk than self-identified Fugazi fan Beto O’Rourke’s de facto patriotism tax.

Before roasting him, let me first say a few words in praise of the former Texas congressman and Democratic presidential hopeful. As a three-term member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, O’Rourke led on a few issues of real import to the vet community—particularly in securing emergency mental health services for vets with “bad paper,” i.e. those with less-than-honorable discharges often stemming from health issues that were undiagnosed or stigmatized in the service. It’s a good start, in terms of returning what’s due to those who have served in an unprecedented stretch of overseas wars and transitioned to civilian life in a deeply iniquitous, divided society.

But campaign season is now upon us, and the policies are getting punchier. Among his otherwise anodyne presidential proposals for veteran care—including an end to the Afghanistan war, expansions of “innovation” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and restoration of more benefits to other-than-honorable dischargees—O’Rourke’s campaign on Monday announced a “war tax” on non-military households.

The notion that people will care more about opposing war when they pay more for it is both empirically wrong and deeply cynical.

“At the start of any newly authorized war,” O’Rourke’s campaign site promises, “a new trust fund will be established within the General Fund of the Treasury for future veterans of that war.” That kitty will be filled with the proceeds of a new tax, which, he says, “would serve as a reminder of the incredible sacrifice made by those who serve and their families.” To do that, the tax would be “levied on households without current members of the Armed Forces or veterans of the Armed Forces.”

This tax would be imposed according to a tiered schedule, per CNN: