[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/23/soldiers.jpg caption="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?
Bill from Mexico says:
I just saw your question about taxing the rich to pay for the additional troops in Afghanistan. That's fine with me. But I would prefer to tax those who are in favor of sending more troops.
Nancy says:
Is this the new catch phrase for 2009, tax the wealthy? I'm not wealthy and I'm beginning to get scared for this group of people. If we tax them for everything they have suggested, they will no longer be in the higher income bracket. We are not trying to spread the wealth around – we're spreading poverty.
Kevin from Chicago says:
Sure? Why not? I would fall into the tax bracket which would be exposed to the so-called "war tax"... and I don’t have an issue with ensuring the security of our nation.
Hansen from Canada says:
If each decision to go to war included a tax increase to pay for it, there would be a lot less wars.
Jeff from Hawaii says:
Jack, No, the rich should not be taxed for the war in Afghanistan. All of us as Americans should do our fair share, from the poorest to the wealthiest. Why doesn't the government try selling war bonds or placing a value added tax on all goods and services? Our troops deserve the best from all of us, not just from the elite.
Brad from Memphis, Tennessee says:
Jack, It's two separate questions: Yes, the wealthy should pay more taxes. No, we don't need any more useless deaths in Afghanistan.
Jack says:
No way. If you keep taxing the people, rich or poor, you will have another Boston Tea Party and believe me, it’s coming!
Adrienne says:
A resounding "yes”! The rich run this country, and if there's a sacrifice from them, the war will come to a screeching halt! About time!