cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Advisor

war surtax

I was talking to my bANker yesterday about balancing the federal budget. He is a moderate republican and i a somewhat moderate(but fiscally conservative) dem. One suggestion he had was a surtax to help pay for the trillions spent on the iraq and afghanistan wars. We both agreed that neither one of us had directly sacrificed anything for either war effort , but we both acknowledge, respect and honor those that did. The talk was how to not pass the cost of these U.S. ventures to our offspring. Neither of us see how we can possibly grow the economy enough to pay for these dubious( arguably) ventures. How would you feel about a 1% income tax to be levied on all income above the first , say $20,000? No brackets, no  limits to the top of mine , yours, lebron james, warren buffet and even successful farming's coporate income. Everyone shares the burden. How 'bout it???

15 Replies
Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: war surtax

Hey Ida, weren`t we suposed to get Iraq oil to pay for the war, whatever happened to that?  I always said that since it was a "war for the free flow of oil" that a $1 tax on gasoline should have been implemented...I doubt public support would have lasted beyond 1 year, it`s funny how people`s spending habits change when you take away their credit cards. 

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: war surtax

Speaking of support, how many would have supported it BEFORE you went to war if they knew only the supporters would be assesed the surtax?

Highlighted

Re: war surtax

Sure.

 

But it should have been done at the inception and the Shrub Admin should have bourne the burden of the impact.

 

If Americans had to pay for the war rather than being home basking in a deficit stimulated faux economy and feeling warm and fuzzy about our brave  Rambos protecting our freedom, it would long since be over.

 

Dealing with reality is always better than not.

 

Likewise for conscription- if everybody's kid has an equal cahnce of being asked to bear the burden, caution would return with remarkable speed.

 

 

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: war surtax

Yes, it was a easy war to support...go to the mall and go shopping.  During WWII it was donate scrap metal, buy war bonds, ration gasoline, plant a victory garden.  The Iraq deal had no vocal opposition in the political sphere, those very few that did vote "no "  did so very quitely.

Highlighted
Advisor

retroactive tax

Since the government has been using FICA to fund day to day operations for 40 or so years, they need to go back and fund the government adequately for those years. The amount needed is basically the size of the iou in the ss trust fund. Cover it with a one time wealth tax on anyone a year older than me.
Highlighted
Advisor

a fan of the k man

Should know that deficits don't matter.
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: war surtax

Those that opposed the war had their patriotism questioned. The drums of war were beating rather loudly and the hawks  ridiculed anyone that was questioning the administrations march to war.

 

Remember Joe Wilson and his article " What i found in Africa?" Valerie Plames outing etc.

 

Yes there should be a surtax every time we vote to go to war and Dr. Paul is right that every war should require a congressional declaration. Thus those that are for conflict actually have to take responsibility for it.

Highlighted

Re: a fan of the k man

That isn't about deficits per se but using up our young people for economic stimulus purposes is heinous.

 

The thing about Krugman is that he's been right- Schiff et al have been screeming about hyperinflation and Krugman correctly asserted that deficits are not going to create inflation in a liquidity trap.

 

Also a less provable counter factual case but he was also right that doing a half stimulus wasn't a lot better than doing none.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: a fan of the k man

And right now there has been a veritable wolf-pack of rightist pundits who have been shown to be collectively wrong...wrong not just in their reporting but finding out that the very systems that originally made them important as apologists for failed policies and  crime and greed are coming undone and they simply don't like someone else pointing it all out.

 

Krugman has become the lightning rod for their anger based upon their sudden collective awareness of their uselessness and irrelevance.   I would think that he is probably living in fear for his life, as it won't be long before some quack does the math the winger way and decides that since PK is reporting on the crisis that he most likely, then, also is responsible for it.   HIs name has become a swear word in the right wing blogosphere.  None of the sheep or parrots read anything he writes.  They just get informed that he has written again.   Won't be long before some useful tool tries to stop him.

 

And he always backs up pointing out of falacies being spread with data, or historical references,  and corrects himself and apologizes when he's been proven wrong.

 

A perfect example of the backed-up thing, regarding the miserable lying..flat a$$ed lying  (Newt is definitely right when he makes the accusation that Mitt is a bald-faced liar)) Romney campaign.  For righties....hold your nose and read just one entry:

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/romney-on-jobs/