The tax would be intended to raise roughly $150 billion for the war. It would be a surtax of 2 to 15 percent of income tax. A 2 percent surtax means that a person who would otherwise pay $100 in taxes would pay $102.The percentage paid would be based on income.
That story phrases the concept rather badly; it should say, “The tax would be intended to raise roughly $150 billion to offset the cost of the war.”
The war in Iraq has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and we’ve done nothing to pay for it. It’s gone on longer than our involvement in WWII and has cost more than Vietnam (even adjusted for inflation). This isn’t a quick in-and-out operation that doesn’t greatly affect spending.
If you’re going to hold a war, you need to raise money –lots of it. It’s time we paid the bill rather than passing it on to future generations. This gives everyone a stake in the war. A draft would do the same thing but that’s not going to happen. This tax proposal isn’t either but it’s still the right idea.
And Atrios also reminds us of this:
…literally ever [news] story about legislation or proposed legislation contains an aside about how the person "plans to pay for it" or an aside saying that they didn't say how they were going to pay for it. Every policy except war, of course.I think it’s time that change.
Update: CNN finally has the story here. But what the hell is this?
The Republican leadership was quick to condemn the proposal.
"Raiding every taxpayer's wallet for the purposes of playing politics with our national security amounts to one of the most irresponsible proposals I've seen in a long, long time," House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement.“Raiding the taxpayers wallet”? Give me a fucking break. Yeah, I sure hate it when I go to the store and at the end the cashier “raids” my wallet. Paying for what you are buying isn’t “raiding” asswipe.
Bottom line though is this proposal is going nowhere. Our grandchildren will thank us someday
1 comment:
Great post, and a good idea!
JP
Post a Comment