Iraq War Surtax

Godwynn

March to the Sea
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
20,502
The measure -- sponsored by Obey, Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, and Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts -- would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill, while higher-income taxpayers would add 12 to 15 percent, Obey said.

CNN

Obey estimated the surtax would annually generate between $140 and $150 billion dollars which is equivalent to the annual cost of the war in Iraq.

I cannot tell if the Democrats are serious or not. Either way, this is ammunition for the Republicans next year.
 
A 12% tax hike on the highest-income bracket would only increase revenues by $72 billion (at most), which leaves $78 billion to the middle and lower classes...

Well, if they raise taxes to fund the war, they can't use the money for universal health insurance, right? If the hike is inevitable, what is the best use of the increased revenues?

Certainly a bad move to announce this before the election...

Wait, weren't these guys elected to get us out of Iraq? Yet now they want to increase taxes to fund the war...
 
Now I understand the difference between the American parties: they both want war, but one wants to fight it with free market mercenaries, and the other through public funding...

ABORTIONS FOR SOME, MINATURE AMERICAN FLAGS FOR ALL!
 
Why are they penalizing "rich folk", I mean besides being demoncrats.


This would be very bad for the dems., I hope it gets played against them. I'd play the tax tax tax angle. This on top of socialized health care and what ever other hair brained scheme they come up with would make excellent attack points.

Don't like cash in your pocket? Vote demoncrat.
 
I said it before yanks need to tax the Iraqis in order for them to pay the cost of liberation, occupation and fighting the insurgency. Freedom aint free!
 
It's actually brilliant.

I doubt this is supposed to pass; just get noticed.

Show people just how much needs to be spent to maintain a combat military presence around the world, and perhaps people will start opposing it.

And if it backfires, hey, making a show of opposing the war didn't work the conventional way, and they need to try more options, lest people forget they like to make a show about being "anti-war."
 
This isn't equivalent to WWII, just a misadventure against 3rd world dead enders. No need for shared sacrifice. Just pass the buck on to the spawn of those who choose to breed.

As for the rate differential if this was enacted, I think we should count up how many sons and daughters of those in the top brackets are serving before we start talking about unfairness.
 
It's actually brilliant.

I doubt this is supposed to pass; just get noticed.

Show people just how much needs to be spent to maintain a combat military presence around the world, and perhaps people will start opposing it.

And if it backfires, hey, making a show of opposing the war didn't work the conventional way, and they need to try more options, lest people forget they like to make a show about being "anti-war."

I agree. This isn't really about funding the war, its about getting people to make sacrfices, to make the war come home. We went to war, and all it cost us were a few thousand soldiers, and turmoil "somewhere else". In all of our other prolonged conflicts, the american people had to sacrifice.

If we had to do that, any remaining support for the war dries up.
 
^some of his other texts are used as suplimental readings at both universities I've been to. He's popular on the speaking circuit for the DC colleges, since I think he lives in Bethesda.

You can disagree with the man all you want (I do sometimes), but I think he's certainlly qualified to have his opinions...he's not some talking head on MSNBC spouting off crap.
 
I think we should count up how many sons and daughters of those in the top brackets are serving before we start talking about unfairness.

That really does not mean much when talking about an all volunteer force. Your about almost fourty years behind in that angle with the draft days of vietnam. Ironicly, the facts present a very diffrent picture about the military that fought in vietnam and the one Oliver Stone shows you. Go figure.
 
This is the money you are already spending on Iraq.

The point is clearly not to raise these taxes but to give joe bloggs an idea of how much of their cash is being spent.

I rather wirded out you fellas didnt take it that way in the first place.
 
would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill, while higher-income taxpayers would add 12 to 15 percent, Obey said.

Looks pretty simple to me.
 
Democrats seem determined to send our country into a recession apparently.

But if what they are accounting for in the tax is a reasonable assessment of the cost of keeping troops in Iraq, that money will still have to come from somewhere.....

Unless I'm missing something...
 
Unless I'm missing something...

The fact that all Americans with legit jobs are already paying for and will be paying for the nations Military until this nation closes up shop? It's one of the main reasons we have a tax, to pay for a " standing army "
 
The fact that all Americans with legit jobs are already paying for and will be paying for the nations Military until this nation closes up shop? It's one of the main reasons we have a tax, to pay for a " standing army "

Ok, but if that's what it costs, then that's what people should pay, right? It's a tax bill.

Unless there's a better way to fund it?
 
They are already paying for it. This is just politics at work with Democrats trying to undermine the war rather than work towards " victory " imho. Murtha in particular stands out as a real scumbag imho. In 2004 he was calling for an increase in Iraq when I saw him speak in San Diego, a few years later, to make himself look good he is calling for cutting the funding! Trying to take the MRE out of my mouth, the rounds out of my weapon and the fuel out of my veichle. Bastard.

Then again, that is imho and his voting record and own words.
 
If we're already paying for it, why was it that
the article said:
the Bush administration requested an additional $190 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan
? Did the BA simply want the money diverted from other areas?
 
If we're already paying for it, why was it that ? Did the BA simply want the money diverted from other areas?

Surge in troops, fact is this war is an expensive one and it does cost money. We have something like 30K in additional boots on the ground and the cost is adding up.
 
Matching rising costs with rising taxes would be the fiscally responsible thing to do, wouldn’t it?
I thought Bush's party was the "fiscally responsible" one - perhaps that's just when it is playing the part of the opposition!

Well, that’s politics, nice to see it’s the same everywhere.
 
Top Bottom