CNN

Should the wealthiest Americans pay more taxes to send more troops to Afghanistan?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Some top Democrats think the wealthy should have to pony up more taxes in order to pay for a troop increase in Afghanistan.

Democrat Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, says people earning more than $200,000 or $250,000 a year should pay an "additional income tax."

Levin says richer Americans have done "incredibly well,” and that it's important to pay for a troop surge instead of increasing the federal debt.

Democratic Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, also says
he favors a so-called "war surtax."

Obey says that people making $400,000 or $500,000 per year should be asked to pay as much as 5 percent of their incomes, while lower earners might pay a smaller amount - down to 1 percent.

Obey says if we don't increase taxes, the war in Afghanistan will "bleed every dollar in the budget away from any other initiative." Unless of course the government cut spending elsewhere. Hah!

First they wanted to tax the rich to pay for health care reform. Now they want to do it to pay for more troops for war. This administration also plans to increase the top income tax rate. Pretty soon the rich won't be.

The White House suggests it could cost as much as 40 billion dollars per year to send 40,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. President Obama is expected to announce his decision in the next few weeks. He will meet with his national security team tonight - again.

Here’s my question to you: Should additional taxes be levied against wealthy Americans to pay for more troops in Afghanistan?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Read the rest of this entry »

Should the government raise taxes to deal with the deficit?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

With a $9 trillion deficit facing this country over the next 10 years, it is almost inevitable that taxes will have to go up at some point. The questions are: When and by how much? The answers are probably soon and a lot.

As the government continues to spend more than it takes in, it keeps borrowing more – especially from overseas. These countries, like China and Japan, pretty much own us and can demand higher interest rates or decide to put their money somewhere else.

Experts say if that happened, taxes would shoot sky high in the U.S. and the government would only be able to provide the most basic public services while the social safety net would "evaporate."

The problem with raising taxes now is we're still fighting our way out of a recession, and most economists think that's the wrong time to make people shell out more.

For his part, President Obama is promising to keep taxes low for most people. The president's plan to raise taxes on only the wealthiest is estimated to raise about $600 billion over the next 10 years – but that's only a drop in the bucket when you consider a $9 trillion deficit during that same time.

Tax experts suggest Congress will eventually have to take pretty drastic measures, like making the entire tax system less complicated. Also, income tax revenue alone likely won't be enough to raise the money we'll need, which is why some suggest a value-added tax on all goods and services.

Here’s my question to you: Should the government raise taxes to deal with the deficit?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The Obama administration is not ruling out tax increases on the middle class. And this could be a very big deal.

During the campaign - candidate Obama repeatedly promised the middle class wouldn't see their taxes increase "one single dime." In fact, he said he would cut taxes for "95-percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."

Fast forward a year... After bank bailouts, auto bailouts and the economic stimulus package - the president is trying to figure out a way to pay for all this plus health care reform while also reducing deficits. There aren't many choices: either raise taxes or cut spending. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today insisted the president wouldn't break his campaign promise.

But Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions over the weekend about raising taxes on the middle class. Geithner said they're not ready to rule out a tax increase to lower the deficit, while Summers pointed out that health care overhaul needs money from somewhere, saying "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."

But the problem is, the president is the one who ruled it out. We all remember how former president George H. W. Bush's famously promised: "Read my lips... no new taxes." A couple years later, he raised taxes and that was the end of his presidency. He lost his bid for re-election to Bill Clinton after one term.

Here’s my question to you: Would breaking his word on tax hikes for the middle class make Barack Obama a one-term president?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Slapping a tax on fattening foods could help pay for health care reform while also combating the nation's growing obesity epidemic. A new study by the non-partisan Urban Institute says a 10-percent tax on fatty foods could raise more than $500-billion over the next 10-years.

They liken it to the steep taxes on tobacco, which helped dramatically reduce the number of smokers in this country.

However, taxes alone won't do the job when it comes to battling obesity. The study also recommends banning advertising of fattening foods to children and better labeling these products.

Restaurants and beverage groups have already waged a multimillion-dollar media campaign against any new taxes on food or drinks. They say it's no time to add taxes on "the simple pleasures we all enjoy" and argue this tax would be unfair since it soaks the poor.

But the authors of the study say that as much as $180 billion of revenue raised could be used to subsidize poor families' purchase of fruits and vegetables; and to help make healthier foods available to them.

There's no question something has to be done. At the rate we're going, this study says 40-percent of adults will be obese by 2015. And it's costing us a fortune. Obesity-related issues like diabetes and high blood pressure cost more than $200 billion a year - half of which is paid by taxpayers, whether they're fat or not.

Here’s my question to you: Should fattening foods be taxed like tobacco?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Patrons at a restaurant across from the Belasco Theater peer out of the windows at the theater where the President and First Lady attended a show Saturday in Manhattan. (PHOTO CREDIT: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama made good on a campaign promise Saturday night... by taking his wife on a date to New York City.

The president says he promised his wife he would "take her to a Broadway show after it was all finished."

Mr. Obama and the First Lady flew from Washington to New York on a Gulfstream jet, then took a helicopter from the Marine One fleet from JFK airport into Manhattan. The first couple dined in the Village and then headed to Times Square, where they saw "Joe Turner's Come and Gone" - a show about a man coming to terms with the history of slavery.

New Yorkers seemed to love it all, with crowds eight-deep in places, but critics are accusing the president of insensitivity. The Republican National Committee says as the president prepared to "wing into Manhattan's theater district," GM prepared to file bankruptcy and families across America continue to struggle to pay their bills. They added that if President Obama wanted to go to the theater... why wasn't the presidential box at the Kennedy Center good enough?

The president paid for dinner and the show tickets, but the rest of the bill will land on the taxpayers; and The White House hasn't said yet how much that is. They cited fuel efficiency - saying instead of taking the larger Air Force One, the president and first lady took a smaller plane. There were two other planes carrying media and staff.

Here’s my question to you: Should taxpayers pick up the bill for the Obamas' date night in New York?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Health care reform won't come cheap, and that's why lawmakers are considering higher taxes on everything from alcohol and cigarettes to junk food and soda as a way to pay for it. The Senate Finance Committee is looking into how to pay for this massive overhaul, which could cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

So-called sin taxes may raise $600 billion over the next decade.

Several experts are suggesting taxes on bad behavior, including a $2 dollar tax on a pack of cigarettes and a higher excise tax on alcohol.

Politico reports that the ranking Republican on the committee, Senator Chuck Grassley is nixing the idea of taxing soda and sugary drinks. But it's easy to see why so-called sin taxes are appealing - taxing cigarettes, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.

A recent poll found support among Americans for imposing such taxes to help pay for health care reform. The Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows 61 percent of those polled say they would be in favor of raising taxes on items that are thought to be unhealthy - like cigarettes, alcohol, junk food and soda. 37 percent are opposed.

When asked about specific items, there's more support for taxing cigarettes and alcohol than snack foods and soda.

But before you start hoarding your beer and chips, Congress is also looking at other ways to pay for reform - like eliminating the tax-free status of company health benefits along with non-health related options like capping the deduction on charitable donations.

Here’s my question to you: Is taxing cigarettes, alcohol and junk food a good way to pay for health care reform?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

As states try to deal with their own massive deficits, many are turning to higher taxes on the rich as the answer. A proposal here in New York would follow in the steps of California and Maryland in pushing the wealthiest into higher tax brackets - several percentage points above most workers.

New Jersey is considering raising its highest bracket to more that 10 percent from the current five-plus percent. And Wisconsin and Delaware are also considering higher tax brackets.

The head of one political group that supports the higher taxes tells the Wall Street Journal, "Most people are treading water. Others are drowning. That gave politicians the courage to say the rich have to pay their fair share."

But critics say the higher taxes wouldn't only affect those in the financial industry. They say small-business owners are concerned, since a lot of them report their business earnings on their personal income-tax returns.

And the libertarian Cato Institute found that higher taxes hurt economic growth, and the places that imposed an income tax to generate revenue ended up with poorer growth rates than places that used other kinds of taxes.

Meanwhile - where is the talk in these states of cutting spending, firing government workers, consolidating services, etc.? It's practically nowhere to be seen. The plans seem to be mostly tax wealthy people more and more and leave the government bureaucracy as it is. Morons.

Here’s my question to you: Is raising taxes on the highest earners the best way for states to deal with their deficits?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Americans are currently preparing for next month’s income tax filing deadline whether using tax software, filing on paper forms or using a tax preparer. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

With this year's tax deadline quickly approaching, President Obama is tackling tax reform. He's creating a task force to propose ways to simplify the tax code, reduce evasion, close loopholes and make changes in corporate tax breaks. But, their main goal is to raise revenue.

The task force, headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, has only a couple of constraints: President Obama says they can't propose tax increases for 2009 and 2010; and after 2010, they can't propose tax increases on families making less than $250,000.

It's estimated there's a $300 billion a year tax gap - which is the difference between what taxpayers owe and what they actually pay. The biggest reason for this gap is under reporting of income. This isn't always intentional; sometimes it comes from honest mistakes by filers who are confused by a very complex tax code. The group is also expected to suggest ways to simplify different kinds of tax credits.

The tax task force will present its proposals to the president in early December. Then it will be a question of getting Congress to sign off on any changes.

Here’s my question to you: What changes would you make to the income tax laws?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

People protest against corporate bailouts in front of AIG's Los Angeles office.(PHOTO CREDIT: GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There seems to be plenty of opposition to the House of Representatives' bonus tax plan - including perhaps President Obama himself.

In a move that many saw as "grandstanding," the House rushed through that 90 percent tax on bonuses of big earners at bailed-out financial institutions last week. The measure came in response to news that AIG paid out at least $165 million in bonuses - after getting $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money.

But in an interview with "60 Minutes," the president questioned the legality and constitutionality of the tax; and said that he wouldn't "govern out of anger." Nonetheless, Mr. Obama vowed to make Wall Street understand it must do away with "the old way of doing business."

He said the Senate would produce a very different and more acceptable version of the the bonus tax bill; maybe one he could sign.

Also coming out against the tax were other top administration officials - the vice president's top economic adviser, Jared Bernstein, said it "may be a dangerous way to go." And the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, said the president favors creating a federal "resolution authority" over bailed-out financial institutions which would allow a judge to void the kind of contracts that let AIG pay out the bonuses.

Meanwhile the American public clearly wants that money back. A new Gallup poll shows 76 percent of those surveyed want the government to intervene to block or recover the AIG bonuses.

Here's my question to you: Is it a good idea to tax bonuses?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

From CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin owes back taxes on almost $17,000 she received from the state in per diem funds while living at her Wasilla home.

Palin's office won't say how much she owes, saying it is a personal matter.

The state decided this week that the payments were not legitimate business expenses and that employees must treat them as income subject to taxes.

You may remember the revelation of these payments became an issue in last year's campaign. It didn't exactly jive with Palin's so-called image as a government reformer. At the time, her office insisted she was entitled to the per diem payments.

Palin collected most of these payments before being named to the GOP ticket as John McCain's running mate. The expenses were paid when she stayed at her Wasilla home and commuted to her Anchorage office instead of staying in the governor's mansion in Juneau. The AP found that Palin continued to charge the state for meals and other incidentals after losing the general election in November.

Palin's office says they don't know if she's still collecting a per diem or will continue to do so. They claim her taxes are a personal matter and won't say how much she owes.

The Alaska Governor had also previously charged the state more than $21,000 for having her kids travel with her, saying they were acting on state business.

Here’s my question to you: Should Governor Sarah Palin have to disclose how much money she owes in back taxes?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »