Another tax from the Democraps

[macjoe53]

WASHINGTON - Three senior House Democrats proposed an income tax surcharge Tuesday to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war onto future generations.

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.

The plan's sponsors acknowledged the tax measure is unlikely to pass, and admitted they lacked support from top Democrats, a fact immediately reinforced by the No. 2 Democrat in the House.

"This is not a policy which the Speaker or I have signed off on," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Mass.

But Democrats have been seeking in recent weeks to contrast the approximately $190 billion cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with the $23 billion increase that Democrats want in domestic programs.

President Bush has threatened to veto most of those domestic spending bills as too expensive. Those bills were largely written by the House Appropriations Committee that Obey chairs. Murtha chairs the panel's subcommittee that writes Pentagon and war spending bills.

"The war will cost future generations billions of dollars in taxes that we're shoving off on them and it is devouring money that could be used to expand their educational opportunities, expand their job training possibilities, attack our long-term energy problems and build stronger communities," Obey said.

At the same time, a group of Democratic allies, including unions and liberal advocacy groups such as MoveOn.org and Americans United for Change, announced a grassroots and an advertising campaign urging Republicans to override Bush's promised veto of a bill expanding a popular children's health insurance program known as SCHIP.

The $3 million to $5 million campaign will be broadened to upcoming battles over domestic spending, including a measure boosting spending on education, health research and job training programs.

Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin unveiled polling suggesting voters side with Democrats in the upcoming budget battles.

"This is a fight that Democrats ought to welcome, that Republicans ought to fear," Garin said.

"SCHIP and the battle over spending priorities is the most important fight since the showdown over privatizing Social Security," said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "I don't think we need to remind Bush who won that battle."

But Republicans pounced on the tax surcharge idea.

"Americans will reject Democrat plans to take away their hard-earned dollars and will penalize the party that demonstrates an inability to win the War on Terror," said Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz.

Obey also announced that Democrats will not pass a supplemental spending bill for the Iraq war until next year, when Democrats hope public pressure could force Bush to change the course of the war.

Democrats hope their chances of winning a battle with Bush on the war will be better next year as the election season heats up.

"The showdown is going to be in January or February," McGovern said.

The lawmakers said the tax surcharge was similar to policies put in place to pay for the Vietnam War and World War II.

"By putting together this bill we hope people will stop ignoring what this war is costing American taxpayers and call the president's bluff on fiscal responsibility," Obey said.

[Bigwaved]

So, where should we find the money to pay for this, just out of curiosity? As far as I know, we are primarily borrowing to fund this.

[Da Klugs]

The concept is good.

How about a 10% flat surcharge for everyone?

I don't mind paying 50+ % of my income in taxes but enough is enough!

[glking]

It's not about taxes.

It is simply liberal democrats trying to keep their base happy.

They know it doesn't have any chance of passing, but it lets them claim they are doing something in their continuing effort to defeat the US in Iraq.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by Da Klugs

The concept is good.

How about a 10% flat surcharge for everyone?

I don't mind paying 50+ % of my income in taxes but enough is enough!

I with you. This is one of those hard to answer questions. I think that is why not much has been done to address it. It seems like everyone on the hill is more worried about reeelection and not offending any potential votes than making tough choices.

[hova45]

Thats why when you have money you use the tax shelters to avoid paying any taxes. We didn't delcare war Bush and congress did let them pay

[Da Klugs]

Originally Posted by hova45

Thats why when you have money you use the tax shelters to avoid paying any taxes. We didn't delcare war Bush and congress did let them pay

A fair but inaccurate stereotype. The "working well off" pay the lions share of taxes in this country. The super rich might find ways to avoid most taxes but 9999/10000 do not.

[glking]

How true.

[SIZE=3]The top 50% of wage earners in the US pay 96.03% of income taxes[/SIZE]

[Corona Gigante]

The Democrats implemented a "pay-as-you-go" budget policy back in March. It basically means that the government will not introduce any new spending without a way to pay for it. Apparently, they are applying this policy retroactively onto the war spending. I think this is fair. If people who support the war have to pay for it out of their own pockets instead of passing the debt down to their grandchildren they might think differently about an indefinite occupation.

Just my $0.02.

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by glking

How true.

[SIZE=3]The top 50% of wage earners in the US pay 96.03% of income taxes[/SIZE]

That's why I growing fond of the idea of the flat-tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income with no deductions and no tax shelters. Of course, it will never happen.

[Da Klugs]

Originally Posted by macjoe53

That's why I growing fond of the idea of the flat-tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income with no deductions and no tax shelters. Of course, it will never happen.

Study these statistics..

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The problem with a flat tax is that it would represent a huge increase for the lowest 50% of taxpayers and a perceived huge decrease for the top current payers. Maybe a 2 or three step flat tax... but then we are pretty much back to where we started.

The misnomer and unfair characterization that "rich people" don't pay enough taxes is born of lack of awareness of what is actually paid by whom today. The definition of "rich" with 20 years of inflation behind us becomes an interesting study in "tax bracket creep". Couple that with the ever increasing cap on SS wages and the change to unlimited for medicade medicare tax and there are many "hidden increases".

Check out the instructions on your tax forms. The typical "rich person" (Not super rich) ends up losing an ever increasing percent of their itemized deductions, effectively paying even higher rates than the schedule. In the past 20 years this has swept most of the middle/upper middle class into much higher tax brackets which has not been fully compensated by categorical reductions in the rates.

No easy solutions to our problems except maybe a bit higher economic growth rate and some rationalization of public spending.

[muziq]

Originally Posted by Da Klugs

No easy solutions to our problems except maybe a bit higher economic growth rate and some rationalization of public spending.

Bingo.

Slandering one party over the other *isn't* going to do any good--they're both culpable.

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by muziq

Bingo.

Slandering one party over the other *isn't* going to do any good--they're both culpable.

Sir, you are correct.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by muziq

Bingo.

Slandering one party over the other *isn't* going to do any good--they're both culpable.

Originally Posted by macjoe53

Sir, you are correct.

What? Are you saying the title of this thread doesn't make everyone warm and fuzzy?

[mosesbotbol]

Originally Posted by Corona Gigante

The Democrats implemented a "pay-as-you-go" budget policy back in March. It basically means that the government will not introduce any new spending without a way to pay for it. Apparently, they are applying this policy retroactively onto the war spending. I think this is fair. If people who support the war have to pay for it out of their own pockets instead of passing the debt down to their grandchildren they might think differently about an indefinite occupation.

Just my $0.02.

We should not have to borrow any money for this, and expecting the future generations to pay for it is not fair either. Maybe this will decide how important the war is.

Is it worth spending out of pocket for it? Like the addage, "If you don't have the cash to buy it, you do not need it."