New Millionaire tax
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_funding
Democrats propose taxes to fund veterans' benefits
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
Tue May 13, 7:59 PM ET
WASHINGTON - House Democrats are proposing a tax surcharge on millionaires to pay for a big increase in education benefits for veterans of the war in Iraq, lawmakers said Tuesday.
The plan, if accepted by rank-and-file Democrats, would clear the way for a vote Thursday on a long-stalled war funding bill that would pay for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring.
Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats blocked a vote last week over Democratic leaders' attempts to add an additional $51.8 billion over the next decade for veterans education to the $183.8 billion war funding tab. They insisted on finding a way to pay for the new benefit without simply adding to the deficit.
"What we're talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Blue Dog group. "So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it."
The $1 million income level would apply to couples. Individuals would pay the surcharge on income exceeding $500,000.
The idea earned support from House leaders at a late afternoon meeting of top Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.
The new GI Bill would essentially guarantee a full-ride scholarship to any in-state public university, along with a monthly housing stipend, for individuals who serve the military for at least three years.
It's not at all clear that the tax surcharge could survive the Senate and it would likely prompt a veto from President Bush if it were to be presented to him. Still, the development allows House Democrats to keep promises to adhere to pay-as-you-go budget rules that were a top campaign plank in 2006.
The war funding bill still faces a troubled path to enactment and Democrats appear likely to miss their goal of passing the bill by Memorial Day.
Overall, the measure provides $96.6 billion of the $100 billion Bush requested to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of September. The $3.4 billion left over would be used to pay for military base and hospital construction, additional food aid and cover shortfalls identified by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Prisons.
Another $66 billion for the Pentagon for the 2009 budget year beginning Oct. 1 would keep troops funded until the next administration can set war policy.
Democrats also plan to add a two-year, $15.6 billion plan to give 13 more weeks of unemployment checks to people whose benefits have run out and 13 weeks beyond that in states with especially high unemployment rates. That provision would not comply with the budget rules requiring deficit neutrality.
Democrats also plan to use the war funding bill to carry legislation to block new Bush administration regulations that would cut federal spending on Medicaid health care for the poor by $13 billion over the next five years. The House last month passed that measure by a veto-proof 349-62 margin.
Democrats will try — as they have unsuccessfully in the past — to force the troops home. The bill would require that troops start leaving Iraq within 30 days of its enactment and set a nonbinding goal of withdrawing combat troops by the end of December 2009. It also would require that any troops deployed into a combat zone exceed the Pentagon's peacetime standards for being fully trained and equipped.
However, both of these provisions are expected to fail in the Senate and be stripped from a final bill the House is to approve this spring.
The legislation also includes another $5.8 billion, as requested by Bush, to build flood protection levees around New Orleans.
Typical democrats. While I have no problem helping the troops how about transferring that needed money from other wasteful programs like welfare? Don't get me wrong there are people who need it but there are probably millions that don't because they are too lazy to get a job. So instead of telling these people to "do the jobs Americans won't do" we are going to again add more taxes to the people who work for their money.
And don't sit and tell me they aren't going to need the $5k, it isn't your business or right to make the determination. It isn't even a millionaire tax like he claims, single people get raped after half of that.
Democrats propose taxes to fund veterans' benefits
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
Tue May 13, 7:59 PM ET
WASHINGTON - House Democrats are proposing a tax surcharge on millionaires to pay for a big increase in education benefits for veterans of the war in Iraq, lawmakers said Tuesday.
The plan, if accepted by rank-and-file Democrats, would clear the way for a vote Thursday on a long-stalled war funding bill that would pay for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring.
Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats blocked a vote last week over Democratic leaders' attempts to add an additional $51.8 billion over the next decade for veterans education to the $183.8 billion war funding tab. They insisted on finding a way to pay for the new benefit without simply adding to the deficit.
"What we're talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Blue Dog group. "So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it."
The $1 million income level would apply to couples. Individuals would pay the surcharge on income exceeding $500,000.
The idea earned support from House leaders at a late afternoon meeting of top Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.
The new GI Bill would essentially guarantee a full-ride scholarship to any in-state public university, along with a monthly housing stipend, for individuals who serve the military for at least three years.
It's not at all clear that the tax surcharge could survive the Senate and it would likely prompt a veto from President Bush if it were to be presented to him. Still, the development allows House Democrats to keep promises to adhere to pay-as-you-go budget rules that were a top campaign plank in 2006.
The war funding bill still faces a troubled path to enactment and Democrats appear likely to miss their goal of passing the bill by Memorial Day.
Overall, the measure provides $96.6 billion of the $100 billion Bush requested to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of September. The $3.4 billion left over would be used to pay for military base and hospital construction, additional food aid and cover shortfalls identified by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Prisons.
Another $66 billion for the Pentagon for the 2009 budget year beginning Oct. 1 would keep troops funded until the next administration can set war policy.
Democrats also plan to add a two-year, $15.6 billion plan to give 13 more weeks of unemployment checks to people whose benefits have run out and 13 weeks beyond that in states with especially high unemployment rates. That provision would not comply with the budget rules requiring deficit neutrality.
Democrats also plan to use the war funding bill to carry legislation to block new Bush administration regulations that would cut federal spending on Medicaid health care for the poor by $13 billion over the next five years. The House last month passed that measure by a veto-proof 349-62 margin.
Democrats will try — as they have unsuccessfully in the past — to force the troops home. The bill would require that troops start leaving Iraq within 30 days of its enactment and set a nonbinding goal of withdrawing combat troops by the end of December 2009. It also would require that any troops deployed into a combat zone exceed the Pentagon's peacetime standards for being fully trained and equipped.
However, both of these provisions are expected to fail in the Senate and be stripped from a final bill the House is to approve this spring.
The legislation also includes another $5.8 billion, as requested by Bush, to build flood protection levees around New Orleans.
Typical democrats. While I have no problem helping the troops how about transferring that needed money from other wasteful programs like welfare? Don't get me wrong there are people who need it but there are probably millions that don't because they are too lazy to get a job. So instead of telling these people to "do the jobs Americans won't do" we are going to again add more taxes to the people who work for their money.
And don't sit and tell me they aren't going to need the $5k, it isn't your business or right to make the determination. It isn't even a millionaire tax like he claims, single people get raped after half of that.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I'm sure you are also against Corporate Welfare, too...
also, how would you go about separating the poor who "really need welfare" and those millions who are too lazy to get a job...?
and guess what... many of those people you hate... the assholes on welfare... Viet Nam Veterans.
...
Support Our Troops... my ass.
Hail, Hail!!!
Where did I say I didn't support vets? I also said there are people that need welfare, but many that don't.
Seriously can you not read?
So does it absolutely kill you inside that a liberal democrat made the largest reforms to welfare? I mean, since he has a mental disorder and all...
To respond to your article, I think it's a great idea. Anyone who doesn't is anti-american and anti-troops and they're probably an illegal immigrant or something.
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
This goes for both sides of the isle, however I have to get pissy with the Dems as they are in charge now and have been for 2 years.
www.seanbrady.net
Whoa, this brought out the doucheiness in you, didn't it?
What about the Viet Nam veterans that are ON welfare? Don't they count as War Veterans? Many of them are not working... they are not doing jobs Americans won't do.
...
Also, because some people cheat the Welfare system, how about going after the cheaters, instead of painting all recipients with the same brush? Why not go after those massive Defense contracts whose cost overruns dwarf Welfare spending?
Here is an example from a conservative group, The Heritiage Foundation, concerning Welfare:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/tst071906a.cfm
...
Welfare is just an easy target to numbskulls to go after. How about finding where your tax dollars are being spent and going after them?
Hail, Hail!!!
For the last time, I'll type s-l-o-w-l-y.
There are people that are on welfare that need it. There are millions of able bodied people who are on it who refuse to work. If these people actually got jobs and the welfare given to them was eliminated that money could go to worthy programs such as helping the troops.
Now did that compute somewhere in that gray matter between the ears?
It's way too obvious and way too logical to just cut spending. But I feel like there is no chance in hell that they'll cut spending. So taxing the rich isn't that bad of an idea. I'd support it. Even if I were rich. But then again I may or may not be a socialist...
How about we stop funding a trillion dollar war? That might free up some cash to help our troops after they get home and become suicidal and mentally ill and fucked up for the rest of their lives and many of them homeless.... How about that?
As for the other question I'm sure there are people who decide to give checks to recipients. Maybe it is time they put their feet to the pavement and starting auditing them like the IRS.
Also all welfare recipients should have to take a drug test and be willing to submit to randoms. There should be a limit on how much they can collect, say six months. Now for those that can't read the limit would not exist for those who had a real reason that they could not work.
Who gets to decide who is 'able bodied' and who isn't?
Tell you what... since you claim to be the brains in this debate... why don't you supply us with some facts and figures... such as how much is spent on Welfare Fraud per year and then we can see how much will go towards helping our troops.... so our millionaires can keep their 5,000 bucks.
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.cagw.org
Citizens Against Government Waste
www.seanbrady.net
How is the use of illegal drugs someone's civil liberty?
It is the same thing as certain jobs that will not employ you if you do not submit to testing. You want the job or not? You want the check or not?
I have an anecdotal example of taxpayer waste from my work.
We had some big corporate executive move into our building a few years ago. He had just made the jump to Vice President and head of the military operations of our division.
He had the top floor (of a leased building) renovated to the point where the place looks like a fucking Ritz Carlton. The lobby also got a granite/marble facelift. This included flat screen monitors... back when flat screen plasma units were in the 10,000 dollar range. These screens pretty much show our commercials on a never ending loop. All of this was done on the taxpayer's dime. It was all written off as a business expense.
As taxpayers... we were pissed. And as employees... we were pissed. This fucking asshole was spending our taxes on making his fucking office a luxury suite. And this was a time when we were laying off design engineers and other workers. I'm still pissed.
My cubicle is nice... typical of your typical cubicle. But, the Executive Floor... much, much nicer.
But, this goes on all over corporate America... cut these fucking ridiculous expenses.
Hail, Hail!!!
Well first off if you read the article it applies to those that make $500k a year as an individual. So the sponsor is wrong in calling it the millionaire tax, I thought I made that clear with the first post.
According to this... http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/tanf_factsheet.html
Funding
— In FY 2007, $16.5 billion is available for TANF.
That is for Temp Assistance to Needy Families, note the temporary part.
Now for the whole picture
http://polecolaw.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/08/1212663-how-much-does-welfare-cost
According to The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Historical Tables, total outlays for Means Tested Entitlements in 2006 were $354.3 billion. This was 2.7% of GDP
Ok, of that how much is fraud?
http://osgoode.yorku.ca/osgmedia.nsf/0/ ... Report.pdf
In that it states there were over 75,000 cases where benefits were reduced or eliminated because of fraud in a recent five year period. I'm sure that could fund some services for our returning troops.
That is a perfect example of wasteful spending. I feel the same way about paying for social services to those that don't earn or deserve them.
again...
I'm sure you are also against Corporate Welfare, too...
also, how would you go about separating the poor who "really need welfare" and those millions who are too lazy to get a job...?
Well, Clinton signed the legislation (after fighting it for some time), but the reform was driven by the Gingrich-led Congress and the "Contract With America."
Based on my math if taking $5,000 from a millionaire wouldn't be noticed, we should just take $5,000,000,000 from the federal government. The hillarity is that they probably wouldn't notice either.
You feel that the Vice President of a company spending $100,000's of tax payer dollars renovating his office is equal to poor people receiving a couple of hundred dollars a week for food (even if some are able bodied, most have children). I really don't know what to say to that other then I think you must be doing quite well for yourself financially if you feel that way.
Besides I barely made $30K last year and I still owed $600 in taxes. It doesn't seem that far off to me for someone making $500K to pay $5K.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
True. I like that we hold the President solely responsible for ills, but when something good happens we show how he was barely responsible (happens on both sides, not a jab at you).
I like your "what white people like" responses more. You've gotta have one for this!
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy