They're starting with a new progressivity to the income tax. Just wait for the next move to lift the caps on SS/medicare tax. They say you won't miss it.

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

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.

Democrats propose taxes to fund veterans' benefits.

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.


-- Modified on 5/14/2008 5:38:31 PM

The soc sec tax is a very regressive tax. Generally, the people of the US support progressive income taxes (we can fight over how progressive, but the general consensus, except for outright libertarians who want to abolish it altogether, is for some degree of progressivity). Meanwhile, soc sec tax is regressive. Its even more regressive when you consider its a tax strictly on wages, not income, and the poor have all their income through wages whereas the wealthy generate income through non-wages which are not taxed for soc sec at all. So the working poor pay a higher percent of their total income in soc sec tax than the wealthy do.

There has never been a more harmful program developed for the working poor than soc sec. Thank you once again, FDR. At least with normal income tax there is a minimum threshhold before it kicks in. Not so with soc sec -- you start paying from dollar one. If it can't be scrapped altogether, then raise the caps and lower the percentage.

Social Security wage cap already increases every year. For 2006, the cap was $94,200. For 2007, the cap of $97,500 was taxed at .06% for employee, and employer paid in the same for a .12% tax rate. Medicare has no cap. You pay into the medicare tax on your full income, regardless of how much it is. I agree entirely with your FDR comments. BTW, if your annual income from all sources is over $32,500 and you are collecting Social Security, your SS income is reduced by $1.00 for every $3.00 over the $32,500. There is also a higher dollar amount, which I can't recall right now, at which you pay income taxes on your Social Security benefits. A tax on a tax, so to speak.

I stand corrected on the Medicare cap. I knew that but forgot. The point is that the income tax is going up, up and up, especially if McCain loses.

BTW, even though you never see the “employer contributed” SS portion, your employer does not pay it, you do. You pay the whole thing. You do get a tax break on the "employer" portion.

If you’re looking for taxes on taxes, take another look at taxing dividend income. Corporations already paid taxes on their profits and where does dividend capital come from”. . . the already taxed profits.

how much the wage-earner pays depends on elasticity. Unless the supply of workers is perfectly inelastic (which it is not) the employer still pays a portion of it. Wages are reduced upfront to compensate, but not by the entire amount.

But yes, the workers do pay the bulk of it (just not 100%).

Obambi the messiah will fix all our problems. Believe democrats have lost it.

Nanci Pelosi and Harry Reid, what fucking waste.

You, Zisk, Bizaro, are so far right wing that you simply can't ever see through your partsian idealogy...For once, put down the Ann Coulter book & stop watching FAUX News so much...

Republicans have been the ones in power from 1/20/01 until 1/3/07 (Democrats didn't control anything until after the 2006 midterms), so its pretty hard to blame it all on Nancy & Harry...

We are doomed.  Like the academic institutions cannot foot the bill for the privalege of existing in a free country... by providing an education for the folk who defend their right to exist... sorry - this is just too frickin much...

Academic institutions should be forced to be good citizens and contribute to those who defend them....  Let them partake of the statement
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"  If ya teach it.... ya gotta practice it.


Yea, let's tax the rich.... but let's be sure that we get ALL the rich taxed.


-- Modified on 5/15/2008 8:12:41 AM

-- Modified on 5/15/2008 9:05:27 AM

don't have responsibility or interest in the issues, but like to beat on their chests.

A lot of politics is a chest-beating exercise.  It's just a matter of who can retain credibility.  Different people laugh at different things, depending.

Personally, I'm so fucking fed up that I will support anything that gets us farthest from the status quo.    If the French wanted to try Bush for war crimes, my view is, get in line, not until we've tried him and his administration for fucking DOMESTIC crimes.  Fucking CHAVEZ couldn't be worse.  Maybe we could petition the Chinese, or even the Somalis, for some reasonable government.

Even though it’s only been seven years (12 actually), I have to agree that the damage done exceeds what one would have expected.  Since 1994, too many Republicans turned into people pleasing, overspending, power grabbing whiners. But then they had excellent role models created by the previous SIXTY years of Democrat rule.

But don’t fool yourself; the majority of the country is still conservative. They just are fed up with the present faux form of it presented by many Republicans. Just wait for BHO to give us a repeat the Carter years (but hopefully not the Neville Chamberlain years as well). Maybe a new Reagan will emerge.

I don’t think the cost of any other individual or category of goods or service has inflated nearly as much as education costs, particularly college costs. Actually, almost everything else has gone DOWN in price (adjusted for inflation). You might think that maybe health care costs equal or exceed tuition costs, but I’d bet on a per unit basis, health care remains a lot cheaper. Yes, health care costs are requiring a bigger and bigger percentage of everyone’s budget (individual, corporate and government), but we are also consuming more and more healthcare. So the per unit cost of health care is lower than you’d think. I haven’t taken the time to gather references, as I’m just speculating.

Now look at college costs. Per capita or per person enrolled, however you look at it, college costs have been sky rocketing. Are we really consuming all that much more? Maybe we’re soaking all those foreign students (j/k)? I wonder how many are on free rides. Someone’s gotta be getting rich from those increases in money flowing into universities. Come to think of it, the sky rocketing costs at institutions of “higher education” are probably responsible (at least indirectly) for a big chuck of the increases in health care costs.

This author linked here blames low interest government loans for the hyperinflation, but there aren’t that many people available to create that type of demand. Is the extra demand coming from international students? They aren’t getting U.S. government loans, cheap. . .are they?


-- Modified on 5/15/2008 6:07:34 PM

and said caps on soc sec should be raised, and bemoaned soc sec for being highly regressive?

Do you even pay attention to what gets posted?

JackO called me a liberal once before (I can't recall offhand which particular childish alias he used at the time), now you call me a rightwing partisan. Would the two of you numbskulls get together and figure out once and for all which type of partisan I am supposed to be?

against your probably worthless ass.

he brays less often than you do, and is far more intelligent than you

do you really think that you're ever going to get a non-people pleasing politician?   Lucky if you get one with just a shit-eating grin, and not committed to an outrageous line of self-contradictory shit.

I really don't see why you are complaining about Bush.  Like Reagan, he's running up record deficits.  I thought that's what Republicans were all about.

Maybe it's about hallucinations about the good old days.

than a quarter of the total average University budget...  So!  where does most of the rest come from????  why your tax dollars.... state and federal covers about 60%  and endowment, gifts and assorted alumni count for the rest....

which is why I am opposed to the closed books that universities exhibit...  they should ALL be under investigation.

The Dems ran up the bill in the 80's. The original deal was $2 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax cuts. Guess who never made good on their promise. Reagan tried to stop them on occasion, but the Dem's majorities were greater than those today.

Recently, it's been the Republicans spending like crazy and Bush has done nothing to stop them.

-- Modified on 5/15/2008 9:58:37 PM

they looked so cool in WWII movies.

but don't ever call me French!! LOL

since Napolean to have any balls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

IOW, you're full of it.  Trying to re-write history, just like the usual RepubliCon.

so don't pay attention!

jack0uzzi, only your dimwitted take on my post would interpret “Reagan tried to stop them ON OCCASION” into “Reagan did everything he could including vetoing every budget busting bill written by the Democrats.”

I never even used the word veto. I never said he was virulent in opposing THEIR spending *remember that nasty little facts that ALL spending originates in the House of Representatives.

Reagan WAS too timid at times in confronting the dems, but he DID do it from time to time, unlike Bush, who has been milk toast compared to Reagan. That was my point. That is my point.

For the record Reagan vetoed 78 bills, Bush so far - - 8

Him must be Republican.

How do you feel about that?

it might be smart for you to remember that Napoleon got his ass kicked - twice.