Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Tax the Rich, End the War

By Nicholas von Hoffman, The Nation. Posted January 12, 2007.


Congress should levy a 'Victory Over Terror' tax on the superrich which would expire once our troops are safely home.
Advertisement

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more," cries George W. Bush, the downmarket, twangy version of Shakespeare's Henry V. But that king, on stage and off, was a war leader who actually fought in the battles he asked other men to die in. Regardless, the President is moving to commit more of our soldiers and more of our money to try one more time to win the war in Iraq.

This latest "surge" against the unseen enemy, the umpteenth of its kind, is to be called A New Way Forward. New Way Forward is not to be confused with the February 2006 Operation Together Forward.

It demands some concentration to keep straight the names of our various operations, strikes, offensives, surges and initiatives in Iraq. Among others, we have had over the long weary years Operation Southern Focus, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Ivy Needle, Operation Longstreet, Operation Chamberlain (what was that about?), Operation Sweeney (who was Sweeney?), Operation OK Corral, Operation Eagle Curtain, Operation All American Tiger, Operation Ivy Cyclone, Operation Boothill, Operation Bulldog Mammoth, Operation Panther Squeeze, Operation Red Dawn, Operation Arrowhead Blizzard, Operation Rifles Fury, Operation Rock Slide, Operation Tomahawk, Operation Rocket Man, Operation Rocketman III (no record of a Rocketman II), Operation Warhorse Whirlwind, Operation Centaur Rodeo, Operation Lancer Lightning, Operation Wolfpack Crunch, Operation Rapier Thrust, Operation Spring Clean Up, Operation Phantom Fury, Operation Steel Curtain, Operation Swarmer and Operation Giuliani.

There has been more than one "sweep" operation, as in Operation Tiger Clean Sweep, Operation Industrial Sweep, Operation Market Sweep, Operation Rifle Sweep and Operation Ripper Sweep. Also favored have been the "iron" operations, as in Operation Iron Hammer, Operation Iron Promise, Operation Iron Grip, Operation Iron Force, Operation Iron Resolve, Operation Iron Saber, Operation Iron Bullet and Operation Iron Justice.

Why there should be an Operation Giuliani but not one named after other noncombatant, civilian heroes is a puzzle. Perhaps with the new, contemplated "surge" there may be an Operation Iron Rumsfeld, Operation Rifle Rice or an Operation Cheney Sweep.

The President has not been talking about how Operation New Way Forward is to be paid for. Some of it will be paid for in our young people's lives, of course, but as for the money... Congress is to appropriate it, the Treasury Department is to borrow it from China and Mr. Bush will spend it.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic hero of the hour, says that she will resist sending more troops to Iraq. But, though the new House Speaker has a lot going for her, she will not be able to block this escalation of the war effort. There are not enough votes in Congress for something so drastic.

For the same reason, yet more drastic measures are yet more out of reach, so those who, like Cindy Sheehan, hope that the much-spoken-of power of the purse will be used to force the President to end the war are going to be disappointed. The Democrats, scared that the Republicans will attack them as national-defense weenies, twinkies and cupcakes, will make sure nobody can say they failed to support the troops by failing to send more troops.

In this case the power of the purse turns out to be useless. Or does it? Another, indirect way is there for the taking. It is a way that shelters the Democrats from being called soft on the war on terror, closet pacifists and defeatists.

The Democrats can tax our way out of the war. This would be a Victory Over Terror tax to be levied on incomes of $5 million a year or more. It should be a surcharge of 20 percent over and above what people in that rarified income bracket are already paying. It should be levied on all income, regardless of what form it takes, so it would include stock options, jet plane rides, company-paid-for health and life insurance, retirement programs, golden parachutes, the use of apartments in Paris, cars and drivers.

The people in this stratospheric income category have enjoyed the big tax cuts that have gone into effect while the nation has been attacked and been at war. Individuals making $1.25 million a year have gotten tax cuts of almost 20 percent, but many of these would be spared paying the Victory Over Terror tax, which only cuts in at the $5 million level.

Needless to say, those paying this tax do not represent the Democrats' voter base. As these things go, this is politically pain-free. The tax is aimed at war profiteers, overpaid CEOs and grossly fat cats in general, most of whom carry a lot of weight at the White House. If there is any group of people in the world whom George Bush listens to, it is this bunch of billionaires. Call this a backdoor use of the power of the purse. And since the surcharge expires when the war on terror is won or declared over, those taxed will have a powerful incentive to tell the President it is time to get a move on.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, taxes, escalation

Nicholas Von Hoffman is a columnist for the New York Observer and is the author, most recently, of "Hoax" (Nation Books, 2004).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
U.S. tax code is license to steal -- if you're rich
Posted by: Moonray on Jan 12, 2007 2:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Talk about adding insult to injury: Republicans are holding out for tax breaks for small business owners being forced to pay their employees decent wages -- and the Repubs will get them.

Think about it: In effect, American workers are being forced to pay for their own wage increase -- by assuming even more public debt on top of the $9 trillion already owed.

Not only should we levy a special War Tax on the rich, we should completely rewrite the tax code to make it more fair. Let's levy a modest flat tax -- no exemptions or deductions -- on everyone making under $100,000 a year, and much heavier tax loads on those making more.

The Republicans will whine that such a policy would be "bad for business," but screw them and screw business. Our economy now produces too much anyway. It's time the rich paid their fair share for a change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A post you can't resist! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: A post you can't resist! Posted by: JSquercia
» WHO BENEFITS FROM WAR? Posted by: poppop_schell
» So how much more... Posted by: mirimac
» RE: A post you can't resist! Posted by: JSquercia
2006 The Nation Score: "Congress Should..." (345,659); "Congress Does" (.3)
Posted by: notabilia on Jan 12, 2007 2:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Nation, to which I subscribe, seems to specialize in little lobbying memos to Congress. Congress should do this, Congress should do that, a tidal wave of blue in Congess, yay for our system! Yet all this instructivism and ameliorate the supersystem bullet-pointing should be directed back at these insider Names: why do you persist in taking this shambles of a political system seriously? How more irrelevant to the working of great and destructive power can these secretly nihilistic "Nation" authors be? Tally up all the earnest condensed advice these still-faithful good-government types of columnists have thrown up into the media slipstream over the years - can you show me where any of it stuck? Congress should get us out of Gadblastistan; Congress should stop mountain-top orgies; Congress should ask for better tipping from its super-rich masters... Nicholas and brethren, stop writing as if you are an intern. This is the United States Congress we are talking about: Harry Reid and Sam Brownback, flag amendments and imprison the poor bills. Do not write one more "Congress should" toilet-paper wrapping until Congress does one damn thing that shows the slightest democratic intent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Operation Never Gonna Happen
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 12, 2007 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But while we're in La La Land, I'd suggest that any congressperson who votes for the war should have:

* Their office moved to the war zone, so they can monitor it effectively and be close to the troops they "support".

* A special tax on their salary to support the war, to show that their money is where their mouth is.

P.S. I like the term "closet pacifist". It says it all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Operation Never Gonna Happen Posted by: poppop_schell
» No Posted by: kepstein7777
» no Posted by: poppop_schell
Apologies to Donald Duck
Posted by: DanYHKim on Jan 12, 2007 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmmm . . . what kind of catchy name to use for the new tax? "Victory Over Terror tax" doesn't seem to cut it. Not punchy. How about "Taxes to Beat the Axis"? Yeah!

Note: I'm not actually old enough to remember this, I just like old movies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huh?
Posted by: davcrock on Jan 12, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do the rich bear any more responsibility than you and I for the war? Do they vote for Bush or for the war in any greater numbers than us 'common' folk? Should we enact a tax on all poor people since they are the largest user of social services?

And yes, the rich usually pay their fair share of taxes. While it is true that they have geater access to tax planning services, they also have the highest marginal tax bracket, and congress closed most of the glaring loopholes with passive activity loss rules in 1986.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes they do ... so Tax us All Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Everyone must pay the piper Posted by: radnar
» RE: Huh? Posted by: oldguy
» RE: Huh? Posted by: DaBear
» But who pays til it hurts? Posted by: Jeanne
» RE: But who pays til it hurts? Posted by: billfaster
» RE: Huh? Posted by: tom baker
» RE: Huh? Posted by: EagleMB
windfall tax
Posted by: hennep on Jan 12, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the UK when companies have gained exceptional profits they have been forced to pay a windfall tax on thier gains. In America's case most of the excessive profits have come from goverment in one form or another, so re-claim them and make a stand for decency, it would give provide a far greater sum than any Victory Tax, which is also reasonable.
However GW(anker)B would never sign such a bill, we all know it, so empeach the SoB and vice SoB to make sure it happens, there is enough evidence to send them down, get some political balls and do it now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taxation Is National Policy By Any Name
Posted by: pelle_in_goal on Jan 12, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the moment the Federal Government's power to tax income became constitutional law (in 1913), it had only come about after decades of the Robber Barons of rail, oil and coal, steel, banking and international trade setting national policy by the sheer size of their empires. Buying off Congressmen and Presidents -- even then -- was the way things got done in America.

But with the power (at long last) to tax mega-incomes, the opportunities for working people to organize, and the ability of Congress to set national policy and priorities could be accomplished by means of a progressive income tax. Even if this meant many forms of "carrot and stick" taxation -- the most common form being the taxation of capital gains and dividends -- to get wealthy Americans to re-invest their money instead of sitting on it. In addition, tax policy over most of the 20th Century came in the form of 40-50% of total revenues coming from corporations. Corporatons producing large profits also enjoyed the benefit of most Federal programs most often. And Corporate America had the most impact on the "ears" of Congress. They established and maintained large lobbying firms to work the Halls of US Capitol.

As America eventually chucked progressive and coporate taxation overboard came misery for masses of Americans as the US Congress turned away from investments in education, care for impoverished children, public health and a common health care system, and even protection from terrorism. No matter what Bush and the neo-cons say -- if taxation is evil -- then their idea is that the least off should be made to suffer for it.

But all this is just gas on my part. Neo-con economics is based in good measure on Keynesian economics of running surpluses in good times and deficits in bad times to stimulate economic activity. The only problem with this approach is that neo-con philosophy is to just run deficit cycles.

Know the best reason the super-rich and megacorps. should pay heavier personal and corporate income taxes? Because the wars being fought in the Middle East for our sakes aren't just for oil. It's so the few in this country that will be very, very, very well off in the short and long term will have at their disposal an army of highly-trained mercenaries with years of experience fighting insurgents -- and anyone else they're told to kill or disappear. And they'll be most definitely be needed to control a well-armed but impoverished nation here at home.

Cheers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ABSOLUTE GENIUS!!!
Posted by: xbj on Jan 12, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Absolute genius. I would only add a couple of provisions.

I would decrease the tax to 10% for the rich across the board as specified above, and increase it to 60% for ANYONE of ANY INCOME that owns offense contractor stock and ANYONE that earns the above amount WORKING FOR an offense contractor or ANY SUBSIDIARY of an offense contractor. And establish a new division of the I.R.S. specifically concerned with these new sources of internal tax revenue.

Just watch how fast American Nazism would dissolve before the worlds' astonished eyes.

I have no problem with defense or offense being paid for by the American taxpayer, but it should be paid by the American Taxpayers who are profiting from it, AND NO ONE ELSE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ABSOLUTE GENIUS!!! Posted by: xbj
» RE: ABSOLUTE GENIUS!!! Posted by: billfaster
Tax the poor and end the war
Posted by: South42 on Jan 12, 2007 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can tax the rich all you want and it wouldn't change anything. All they would do is find a way to hide the income or just raise the prices to the government. So in the end all it would do is increase the cost of government, increase inflation and make the poor even poorer. Instead pass a victory tax on the poor. When one of the US's 2.3 million, millionares has to pay an extra few bucks it only has a small effect. If you were to take that same amount of money from the almost 300 million people who are not millionares you will see riots in the streets. The question comes down to effectiveness. Taxing the rich to end the war will make you feel good, but have no effect. Taxing the rest of the people would end the war tomorrow. The problem with this war is that it has no real effect on the majority of people. The army goes to war and the people go to the mall!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A good Idea
Posted by: dkm on Jan 12, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like many of the ideas that have appeared in the pages of The Nation, this is a good one, but will be difficult to implement. That doesn't mean, however, that talking about it isn't a good thing. Ideas like this, e.g. single payer medical care, are nonstarters except that after introducing them and talking about them and building up support as their necessity becomes more and more obvious, all of a sudden they start going somewhere and move from ludicrous to under serious consideration. Let's try this one in some shape or form. After all, it's about time that the war profiteers showed some support for the poor schmucks who are sacrificing themselves so that the rest of us don't have to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... and, should we wind up with a new draft ...
Posted by: just john on Jan 12, 2007 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Draft the families of war profiteers first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Simple Way To Stop ALL Wars!
Posted by: TarryFaster on Jan 12, 2007 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simply levy a 99% tax on all profits made by war profiteers/contractors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No profit in peace
Posted by: Jeanne on Jan 12, 2007 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has long been my lament. If only humanity could figure out how to make peace profitable, it would break out all over the place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No profit in peace Posted by: xbj
Block the "emergency funding"
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Jan 12, 2007 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Pentagon already has the money. Let them Raytheon's multi-billion dollar contract to develop a weapon the Israeli Army already has. Stop buying $600 toilet seats, and billion dollar submarines that keep running into surface vessels.

They get 500 Billion a year, let them tighten their belts elsewhere and foot the bill for Iraq like men instead of going wining back to Congress to beg for more money, Please!

Congress should shut down the "emergency funding" as this is no emergency - this the mighty Bush's war of choice and it was planned before he even got into the White House. Emergency? I tell you what the whole Bush Administration is an emergency we need to get over and move on. Can you say impeachment?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Delllllllllllicious ...
Posted by: TheMatrix on Jan 12, 2007 7:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a great idea! These fat cats have been getting rich partly beCAUse of the war. So they should pay the due tax. It just makes sense. Since bringing back the draft, althought would also give a good incentive to think at least twice about starting a war and sending our men and women into harm's way, it is obvious that sooner or later (rather sooner I would speculate) these rich and influential people will find ways to BUY their way (and their kid's way) out of the draft. So we'll be back to square one. Where as taxing these people will get them where it hurts long enough to end the war. Excellent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» THE DRAFT MAKES WAR MUCH MORE LIKELY Posted by: poppop_schell
Tax the rich
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jan 14, 2007 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Between 2000 and 2006 the combined real annual earnings of 93 million American workers rose by $15.4 billion. That rise is "less than half of the combined bonuses awarded by the five Wall Street firms for just one year."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Once More, von Hoffman...
Posted by: AndreaN on Jan 14, 2007 10:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once more, von Hoffmann has named the elephant in the room. I've been reading that guy for decades, and as always, he's right on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'Tax the rich,Feed the Poor'
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 16, 2007 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was a good idea back in the 60's. It's a better idea today!
Bring back the 91% tax bracket, bring back the 50% inheritance tax. A 'War Tax' on the wealthy is a fantastic idea. As long as the poor are doing the dying,the rich had aught to pay the price! Or is it that the money is much less red when you only supply the bombs as opposed to actually using them?
Right now people are getting tremendously wealthy off of the killing of people,no matter the side, over in Iraq. Down in Columbia, Afganistan, east Africa, everywhere there is suffering caused by humans against other humans,some asshole is making a buck off of it. The rich cause wars,aide famines and make the most from Natural Disasters by owning and controling the distribution of aide,aide of all kinds.
It's not tha Taliban,or the Communists or the Americans that are the Enemy of the People, It's the RICH Taliban,Communists and Americans that are the Enemy of All People. It's time we made being rich as loathsome and degrading as being a baby rapist and thoughts of conquest by killing as rare as pinfeathers on an elephant

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]