Misleading word of the day: 'Surcharges'

Ed Lasky
From Politico's The Huddle:

Surtax on the rich? On the table. Taxes on existing medical benefits? Off the table.


Senate negotiators had been eyeing a tax on some employer-provided health benefits but shifted course this week after the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and other top Democrats voiced opposition. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, said Thursday that the House bill would not tax those benefits. Instead, the House Ways and Means Committee was said to be nearing agreement on an income tax surcharge of 2 percent or more on Americans with the highest incomes - those earning more than $250,000. The surtax would rise for those earning $500,000 and rise again for those earning more than $1 million.'

This is cowardly and nonsensical. As a person who works for himself, I strongly oppose the disparate (and beneficial) treatment employees who are provided company-paid medical care receive compared to self-employed people or people who work for companies that do not provide those benefits. Ever wonder why big companies are the beneficiaries of bailout money and favorable tax treatment, despite the fact that most jobs continue to be generated by small businesses? Big companies tend to be unionized and the Democrats do union leaders' bidding (sometimes more the leaders' bidding than that of the workers';

I just finished Linda Chavez's superb book "Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics about this dynamic). Therefore they favor big corporations over the little guy trying to run his own business who often embody core American values of free enterprise, are not unionized, and tend to support Republicans.

Why will surcharges become a word we will hear much of in the future? It sounds politically palatable and has the air of being temporary. Of course, this surcharge will not be temporary and will expand. They will also be permanent - at least until some reasonable politicians return to Washington.

Anecdote:  I just met with an insurance man to discuss my family's security should something happen to me and he predicted far higher taxes to come - on income, wealth, estate, goods and services. He actually  said they will be couched as "surcharges".

Welcome to 1984 and the reign of Barack Obama, who repeatedly uses euphemism to disguise his true intentions.

From Politico's The Huddle:

Surtax on the rich? On the table. Taxes on existing medical benefits? Off the table.


Senate negotiators had been eyeing a tax on some employer-provided health benefits but shifted course this week after the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and other top Democrats voiced opposition. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, said Thursday that the House bill would not tax those benefits. Instead, the House Ways and Means Committee was said to be nearing agreement on an income tax surcharge of 2 percent or more on Americans with the highest incomes - those earning more than $250,000. The surtax would rise for those earning $500,000 and rise again for those earning more than $1 million.'

This is cowardly and nonsensical. As a person who works for himself, I strongly oppose the disparate (and beneficial) treatment employees who are provided company-paid medical care receive compared to self-employed people or people who work for companies that do not provide those benefits. Ever wonder why big companies are the beneficiaries of bailout money and favorable tax treatment, despite the fact that most jobs continue to be generated by small businesses? Big companies tend to be unionized and the Democrats do union leaders' bidding (sometimes more the leaders' bidding than that of the workers';

I just finished Linda Chavez's superb book "Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics about this dynamic). Therefore they favor big corporations over the little guy trying to run his own business who often embody core American values of free enterprise, are not unionized, and tend to support Republicans.

Why will surcharges become a word we will hear much of in the future? It sounds politically palatable and has the air of being temporary. Of course, this surcharge will not be temporary and will expand. They will also be permanent - at least until some reasonable politicians return to Washington.

Anecdote:  I just met with an insurance man to discuss my family's security should something happen to me and he predicted far higher taxes to come - on income, wealth, estate, goods and services. He actually  said they will be couched as "surcharges".

Welcome to 1984 and the reign of Barack Obama, who repeatedly uses euphemism to disguise his true intentions.