PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues War surtax: 'Pay as you fight'


talastan
11-24-2009, 04:07 PM
Will Obama keep his promise of no new taxes from anyone under $250,000?

War surtax: 'Pay as you fight'


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29851.html

Call it “pay as you fight.”
After months of listening to conservatives caterwaul over deficits and health care, senior House Democrats want a graduated surtax on individuals and corporations to pay for another big drain on the treasury: the Afghanistan war.
Three full committee chairmen — including the House’s top tax writer, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) — are backing the initiative together with the chair of the party caucus, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), and close allies of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The speaker has been silent thus far, and many dismiss the idea as more rhetoric than real legislation. But with President Barack Obama due to make a final decision soon on adding more U.S. troops, the initiative testifies to the growing restlessness among Democrats over the costs of the American commitment in Afghanistan.
Today’s jobless rate — far worse than during the height of the Vietnam War in the '60s — adds to this angst. And Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who oversees the Pentagon’s budget and supports the surtax, went so far as to send Obama last month a copy of Yale historian Paul Kennedy’s “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.”
U.S. military spending in Afghanistan had reached $3.6 billion a month this summer — or more than $43 billion a year, according to estimates by the Congressional Research Service. And in the course of meeting with lawmakers, Obama has used a rough measuring stick that every 1,000 troops added will add another $1 billion to this annual basis.
“We’re not trying to insult anybody. We’re just trying to keep in the forefront what the financial costs are,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) told POLITICO. “We felt conscience bound to speak up”
“It’s conditional, but if we’re going to add 40,000 troops, people ought to know what the costs are,” said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “It’s important for people to understand how these wars are adding to our deficits.”
Dubbed the “Share the Sacrifice Act,” the six-page bill exempts anyone who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan since the 2001 terrorist attacks as well as families who have lost an immediate relative in the fighting. But middle-class households earning between $30,000 and $150,000 would be asked to pay 1% on top of their tax liability today — a more sweeping approach than many Democrats have been willing to embrace. By comparison, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has spoken only of an added tax on the wealthy. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) remains hesitant about any surtax to cover the war: “Someone has to demonstrate how it can be done,” he told POLITICO in a statement Monday.
The White House is largely mum. “I'm not going to get into how one funds a decision that's yet to be made,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday when questioned by reporters on the surtax idea. Yes, Gibbs said there had been White House conversations on how to pay for the war; no about taxing Americans.
“No, that is not a specific proposal that has been talked about in a meeting that I've been at,” he said.
As proposed, the tax won’t go into effect until 2011, and Obama is given the discretion to delay for another year if he judges that the economy is still too weak to absorb the burden. But the numbers are dramatic as seen in an illustration of what will be needed to cover what could be a war costing $68 billion next year.
The basic structure of the surtax is to create three brackets based on the current tax liability for joint or single returns.
The first bracket, which covers joint returns with a liability of up to $22,600, roughly corresponds with households earning up to $150,000. In this case a 1 percent surtax is levied so the maximum additional cost would be $226.
The second bracket applied to tax liability between $22,600 and $36,400 or roughly equivalent to joint returns for couples earning between $150,000 to $250,000, The third bracket applies to those earning over $250,000 with a tax liability of $36,400 or higher.
The rates in the second and third brackets would vary depending on how much needs to be raised to cover the prior year’s war expenditures. But as a rule, the added surtax above $250,000 would be twice the percentage added onto taxes incurred between $150,000 and $250,000.
If the costs were $68 billion, a preliminary rough breakdown provided by Obey’s office indicates that about $8.8 billion in surtax revenues would come from the first bracket, $9.7 billion from the second, and then $28.2 billion from the third.
That amounts to an added 10 percent for the high-end income enjoyed by the very rich, and corporations would pay about $19 billion more altogether toward the surtax. That guarantees substantial resistance then, but Obey argued that the numbers are a warning of the long term economic consequences.
“I went through the Vietnam years when the cost of that damn war drained away the ability to do anything else,” he told POLITICO. “I chair the committee that has to say no to effort after effort to rebuild economy.”
“I’m not president," he said, "but I can certainly try to influence policy any way I can.”

mlyonsd
11-24-2009, 05:05 PM
No way does this come close to sniffing passage.

But, it really shows how F'd up liberal thinking is.

Brock
11-24-2009, 05:13 PM
These people are cocksuckers.

ClevelandBronco
11-24-2009, 05:18 PM
YOU CANNOT TAX A CORPORATION, YOU FREAKING IDIOTS.

jjjayb
11-24-2009, 05:18 PM
Nothing will stop them short of a revolt. Break out the pitchforks.

Norman Einstein
11-24-2009, 05:21 PM
Nothing will stop them short of a revolt. Break out the pitchforks.

I heard some talk today speculating if the U.S. went bankrupt there would be a revolt, possibly a military takeover. Things could get nasty if that happens.

memyselfI
11-24-2009, 05:39 PM
I'm a conscientious objector to this war and have been from the beginning. No way I will pay this tax without being forced to do so.

KCTitus
11-24-2009, 05:44 PM
After spending more in the last 12 months and creating more debt than all past presidents in the history of this country, NOW they're suddenly concerned about deficit spending?

Norman Einstein
11-24-2009, 05:47 PM
I'm a conscientious objector to this war and have been from the beginning. No way I will pay this tax without being forced to do so.

Talk to your president, he is the one pushing the tax. Lotsa luck with that one.

mlyonsd
11-24-2009, 06:04 PM
After spending more in the last 12 months and creating more debt than all past presidents in the history of this country, NOW they're suddenly concerned about deficit spending?

It's not just that.

Coming up with a specific tax to pay for war, a specific legitimate expenditure while not doing the same for the pathetic earmark laden stimulus pork crap spending points to how the liberal mind works.

Pay for something necessary....but put pie in the sky spending on future generations. Spending that is more than not going back to districts of congressmen in charge.

Mind boggling to me.

BigRedChief
11-24-2009, 07:12 PM
Talk to your president, he is the one pushing the tax. Lotsa luck with that one.Yeah well, if its true he supports a "war surtax", he is wrong. We need to cut spending to pay for thwe war. Raising taxes in a recession to pay for a war is a really bad idea.

KCTitus
11-24-2009, 07:15 PM
Yeah well, if its true he supports a "war surtax", he is wrong. We need to cut spending to pay for thwe war. Raising taxes in a recession to pay for a war is a really bad idea.

Hey...lookee there and no name calling. :thumb:

mlyonsd
11-24-2009, 07:18 PM
Yeah well, if its true he supports a "war surtax", he is wrong. We need to cut spending to pay for thwe war. Raising taxes in a recession to pay for a war is a really bad idea.

I have no problem with a flat war surtax as long as the rest of our domestic spending falls in the same lines.

KCTitus
11-24-2009, 07:20 PM
I have no problem with a flat war surtax as long as the rest of our domestic spending falls in the same lines.

Start with welfare, food stamps and school lunch programs first...cut them all, Im sure we'd have enough to actually win in Afghanistan

BigRedChief
11-24-2009, 07:24 PM
Start with welfare, food stamps and school lunch programs first...cut them all, Im sure we'd have enough to actually win in AfghanistanYeah cut funds to the poor. Typical place to start for Republicans. How about we cut where the real money is going and where we can cut billions in tax money? Entitlements.

Its where the growth is coming from, the curve is killing us. But the politicans are never going to touch that 3rd rail.

KCTitus
11-24-2009, 07:28 PM
Yeah cut funds to the poor. Typical place to start for Republicans. How about we cut where the real money is going and where we can cut billions in tax money? Entitlements.

Its where the growth is coming from, the curve is killing us. But the politicans are never going to touch that 3rd rail.

Feh...cut everything. For the 'poor', the rich, everything. You dont seem to understand, EVERYTHING MUST GO!

I really dont give a good damn where we start, just actually start doing it. When it comes to cutting, you get no argument from me.

mlyonsd
11-24-2009, 07:31 PM
Start with welfare, food stamps and school lunch programs first...cut them all, Im sure we'd have enough to actually win in Afghanistan

It worked once before. My mom and dad can tell you about it.

KCTitus
11-24-2009, 07:36 PM
It worked once before. My mom and dad can tell you about it.

Im sure...Ive found if someone gets a kick in the pants, in this country, it motivates them to get out there and make it. Coddling adults, like children, is only a prescription for failure.

Norman Einstein
11-24-2009, 10:03 PM
Yeah well, if its true he supports a "war surtax", he is wrong. We need to cut spending to pay for thwe war. Raising taxes in a recession to pay for a war is a really bad idea.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Did not your president say he would not raise taxes on those below $250,000 or $200,000 or was it $150,000, no I think he lowered it to $100,000.

The way to fix the war expenditure is to fullfill his promise to bring all of our troops home and become the isolationalist nation he wants.

BucEyedPea
11-24-2009, 10:18 PM
I'm a conscientious objector to this war and have been from the beginning. No way I will pay this tax without being forced to do so.

Count me in....and I will have my daughter be one too.

Congress can simply stop funding this war and they won't.

Norman Einstein
11-24-2009, 10:32 PM
Count me in....and I will have my daughter be one too.

Congress can simply stop funding this war and they won't.

the bad news is that obama will be forcing all of us to pay it if congress and the senate doesn't have the nuts to stop him from getting it made into a new law.

BigRedChief
11-25-2009, 06:32 AM
the bad news is that obama will be forcing all of us to pay it if congress and the senate doesn't have the nuts to stop him from getting it made into a new law.
Do you support the war? The additional troops?

Norman Einstein
11-25-2009, 10:52 AM
Do you support the war? The additional troops?

No I don't and no I don't.

The war is virtually the same as the Vietnam war, we are participating in a civil war between two factions, neither of which can be trusted with anything.

The only reason Obama is balking at bring everyone home is that he knows there is money to be made during times of war. The common catch phrase has always been "War is big business".

What's worse Obama has coerced the democrats in the house to sponsor the bill. Pelosi has drank the koolaid and is in full agreement with obama.

Remember no taxes for those below a certain level of income? Most likely the only people not affected will be wellfare recepients and the illegal aliens.

HerculesRockefell
11-25-2009, 10:57 AM
If this even had a snowball's chance in hell of passing, how long would it take them to repeal it? Isn't there still a phone tax out there that was put in place to pay for the Spanish-American War?

patteeu
11-26-2009, 10:49 AM
This (some kind of across the board tax to fund the war) is something that GWBush should have done early when the war was popular. People would have been willing to contribute to the war cause and it wouldn't have dampened economic activity. Now, with the war far less popular and with our economy in significantly greater distress, it's a really bad idea unless your goal is to drive a stake in the heart of the remaining support for the war while damaging the economy at the same time. Bush made a mistake, but as usual, Obama is trying to top him.

patteeu
11-26-2009, 10:56 AM
If this even had a snowball's chance in hell of passing, how long would it take them to repeal it? Isn't there still a phone tax out there that was put in place to pay for the Spanish-American War?

That would definitely be a big concern. The best approach, if your goal was to guard against this, would be to make the war tax highly visible and tie it directly to the war effort with appropriate labeling. Of course, I doubt that anyone in this administration is really interested in guarding against it.

The Obama administration has been spending at titanic levels without acknowledging any need to "pay for it" up front and NOW they want to start doing so with the war effort? No, this seems pretty clearly just an excuse for a tax and, as you seem to suggest, I doubt that they have any intention of making it temporary.

patteeu
11-26-2009, 10:57 AM
Talk to your president, he is the one pushing the tax. Lotsa luck with that one.

How can you call Obama memyselfi's president? :spock:

patteeu
11-26-2009, 10:59 AM
Yeah well, if its true he supports a "war surtax", he is wrong. We need to cut spending to pay for thwe war. Raising taxes in a recession to pay for a war is a really bad idea.

It depends on how popular the war is. If it's popular, people will sacrifice without reducing their own productivity. If it's not and they see the tax as an unwarranted burden, they'll be less inclined to work that extra bit.

ROYC75
11-26-2009, 11:11 AM
Yeah well, if its true he supports a "war surtax", he is wrong. We need to cut spending to pay for thwe war. Raising taxes in a recession to pay for a war is a really bad idea.

It's not often we agree, but here's one.:doh!:

Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 12:35 PM
How can you call Obama memyselfi's president? :spock:

Figure of speech, not all of us voted for him but he is the president of the country.

RNR
11-26-2009, 12:46 PM
It's not often we agree, but here's one.:doh!:

BRC is left but is reasonable IMO

BigRedChief
11-26-2009, 12:48 PM
It's not often we agree, but here's one.:doh!:I bet more often than you think. See this thread.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=218798