Hah! And people think Dean should renege on his tax plan

Percentage of Americans who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of this year's tax cut : 88

Average amount these Americans will save : $4


http://www.harpers.org/harpers-index/listing.php3


Eloriel

Please post that in my thread in P and C. I have a thread entitled why should people making 20k

I'm going to bed.

Nitey night.

Eloriel

Whether he is right or wrong on this stuff, I'd like to see Dean more comfortable with the numbers when challenged about his tax policy. One section of the debate by him would be boring, but he would gain in credibility. He doesn't need to be polished or slick, just truthful.

Otherwise the tax-hiker charge is going to stick, and that's bad for all Democrats.

... who pulls out that "The average taxpayer will get a tax cut of $1000" nonsense...

Let's see assuming that the $1000 figure is true:

0.88*4 + 0.12*X = 1000 => x=8304

So that lucky 12% is on average saving over 8 grand, while we get stuck with chump change...

should get kicked squarely in the nuts....

everyone knows you should use the median amount, as the mean (average) is subject to the influence of outliers (i.e. Bill Gates' tax return gets figured in with mine...)

don't expect too much response on this one E!!! The truth tends to keep the Dean bashers away....

A blind albino plumber who was born with one kidney and has 3 crippled children and makes over 75k a year will have his taxes raised 50 times over! We can't attack the middle class like that!!!

Eloriel? Does that not perhaps suggest that rescinding those paltry, measly cuts won't have much effect on the deficit? And that rescinding them will just take that money out of circulation in communities, where it is largely spent on essentials like food, a pair of socks, maybe a phone bill? Telling people who are strapped that you are taking away a few extra $ to pay the deficit when they are running their own deficits is not the way to win elections. Nor is it fair. Look at a pie chart of income and wealth in this country, then tell me that we should take $ away from average working people. Not only that, but it supports the fantasy that the rich are just like us, they just earn more from their labor, ROFL. A Democrat, in my book, supports progressive taxation, and understands the difference between taxing wealth and taxing income from wages.

edited to add "from wages"

so they are getting ripped off to a far greater degree (even if only in the future) than they are benefitting now.

280 million x $40 = $11.2 billion
3 million x $10,000 = $30 billion

total = 41.2 billion.....pretty good piece of change....


we have a strategy of the repugs calling everyone over $20k middle class and the dems calling everyone under $200k working people...in order for this country to have a fair tax system, we need to stop coddling the middle class, who are the biggest users of most of the federal programs but refuse to pay for them....(this does not however rule out the nonsense the rich get away with)....

Also, don't forget we are at war and everyone...EVERYONE... will have to make sacrifices until we end this....and only a dem will get us to that point...stop buying into the consumerism of America....Americans are willing to make sacrifices, pay taxes, if they can be assured that the programs will be run properly and the benefits outweigh the costs...this is a matter of getting out the message...and the repugs can't claim fiscal responsibility now...

and therefore there's no problem in rescinding them (implication of thread starting post); on the other, they are a pretty fair chunk of change, and everyone should be happy to pay their fair share. This must be a Deanite thread.

The other guy has it right: such a small amount of money shouldn't be missed, and the political fallout and risk is potentially far more expensive than nickle and diming a tax cut -- and make no mistake, this money is nickle and dime stuff compared to the federal budget. It's something along the lines of 9/10 of a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

But The Howard is under fire, and black must become white, while grey must disappear entirely, for The Howard is not, has never been, and cannot be perceived to be, wrong in the slightest. Why he should bother running for such a trivial office as president is beyond me, as he should simply kick God out of His office (using his manly forearms) and take that over -- it's obvious that's where The Howard belongs.

because you think it might hurt him in the General Election, then wait until he has the nomination and start pushing your case. What reason would other candidates supporters have for pushing Dean to change now other than to nail him on a flip flop.

It was hilarious reading about "MWO for Clark" starting an email campaign to Howard Dean.

it would hurt his chances in the primary. Of course, flip-flopping in a general, in the face of the torrent of Republican ads, would be absolutely devastating, so Dean must now cling to a position that is a political time bomb, to protect his image. What a candidate. Whatever happened to Howard Dean, the proud flip-flopper? I thought he 'evolved,' and didn't flip-flop anyway -- and his 'evolving' was s sign of how superior he is to the rest of the candidates, who merely flip-flop when they change their minds? Has that one been discarded now, in favor of some other example of Dean superiority?

What's his slogan? 'Howard Dean: For America?' If political campaigns were subject to truth in advertising laws, it would be 'Howard Dean: For Howard Dean.'

that's pushing for him to change his position. So, why are Clark supporters starting email campaigns to Dean and why now? You should be disagreeing with him if that's how you feel, you wouldn't be offering advice that is going to help him in the primaries in anyway.

When Dean gets the nod, in the spring if you still feel the same way, then make your suggestions at that time because he'll be your candidate too. I still don't think he'll change his position, but if there are enough of his supporters that truly believe that it would cost us the General Election, then he'd be a fool not to consider it.

First, there's a lot of room between now and the primaries, so your comment about 'when Dean gets the nod' is simply typical Deanite propaganda. You should have added the Deanite drone about Clark being his VP -- you have to try to diminish your opponents and promote Dean at the same time. Weren't you properly programmed by headquarters?

Second, I don't care if Dean changes his position or not: his position is politicially stupid, would be a liability in a general election, and is an example of Dean's stubbornness and bad judgment, and that's what I'm pointing out. Dean is supposed to be experienced, but his inexperience, his knowledge of governing being limited to one tiny state where he was able to bully and manipulate a small number of part-time legislators, shows as soon as he starts making actual proposals. Some experience.

Third, Dean will certainly not be my candidate, no matter if the Democratic Party holds its nose (very tightly) and nominates him or not. He's a liar, and I despise liars to a degree that is almost pathological.

I hope that's clear to you.

Third, Dean will certainly not be my candidate, no matter if the Democratic Party holds its nose (very tightly) and nominates him or not.

Thanks for admitting it. Now, why was that again that any Dean supporter should give a rats ass about anything that you have to say?

You said it yourself: the truth shall set you free. In actual fact, there isn't much anyone can say that will have an impact on the Deanites, just as there wasn't much one could say to the Jim Jones people. :shrug:

Why is pointing out the fact that Dean is a liar an 'admission' by the way? Is this some kind of Deanite thing?

BillyBunter said: Third, Dean will certainly not be my candidate, no matter if the Democratic Party holds its nose (very tightly) and nominates him or not. He's a liar, and I despise liars to a degree that is almost pathological.

So then who gives a fuck what a Clarkie thinks if you'll help elect Bush* if your guy doesn't get the nomination?

Pathological? I'd say...

edit: spelling

isn't that a condescending term?

I had a post locked for "Clark Bars"

Anyhow, these stats reflect the great bottom of Americans not that "sweetspot" of the middle-class that Kerry generalizes about.

so damn the torpedos and full speed ahead...... into electoral defeat!

for a Clarkite (a simple backatcha dear).

See, it's like a two step thought, we'll take it slow....

It's a small amount that would come from the "middle class".

The total, including what comes back from the wealthiest Americans, is a large amount.

Not that you seem really interested in discussion as your slam indicates.

Whatever will you do Billy Bunter if Dean wins the nom? Your hatred for him and his supporters is palpable. How very, very sad.

Julie

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's $4 per person, not $40 per person. Reduce the 11.2bil to 1.1bil and you've got the answer.

...it means that in order to return revenue to a point at which we can accomplish the things we want to accomplish, it will be far easier to just do away with the Bush economic plan, than try and Frankenstein it for four dollars...

12% can determine the fiscal policy for the US by wailing and convincing the less informed. That's an amazing stat. Here's the source that Harpers used:

Citizens for Tax Justice (Washington, D.C.)

We are retired. We get our taxes done. We thought we would get a wee little tax cut, but year before last we paid $100 more. This year it was still a little more.

We are in a fairly good bracket, definitely middle class, but we got no tax cut.

I'm a single professional. I got $7.50/week I don't need. I'd trade it for universal health care in a hot second, and I think most would given the choice.

provided the source material for that Harper's blurb:

Married couples with children are the only household type whose typical tax cut will (temporarily) approach Bush's $1,000 figure. Their median tax cut will be $958 this year and next, mostly from the short-term boost in the child credit. But couples with children represent only 22 percent of all taxpayers. Couples without kids, a slightly larger group, will typically get $332. The 42 percent of taxpayers who are single without children will get $50. As for single parents, most earn so little that they won't even benefit from the temporary child-credit increase; their typical tax cut will be $5.

Overall, almost half of America's taxpayers will get less than $100 a year in tax cuts this year and next, and three-quarters will get less than $100 in 2005. After that, when only the tax breaks for capital gains and dividends remain in effect, nine out of 10 taxpayers will get less than $100.

Thus, contrary to Bush's falsely advertised $1,000, the typical tax cut from this year's tax bill is actually only $120, and it drops to zero after 2004. The best-off 1 percent, however, will do just fine: Their tax cuts will total almost $100,000 each over the next four years, and continue thereafter.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/7/mcintyre-r.html



Notice the political implications: married people with kids will lose out on almost 1k a year. This is electoral gold for Bush -- the big picture does not matter, has never mattered when it comes to tax issues. The public will be told, with all the noise and blare that 200 million dollars can buy, that Dean wants to tax married people with children -- a more powerful way of saying it would be 'families' -- an extra $1,000 a year. And in exchange for giving Bush this political lifeline, Dean would get the federal government an extra $11 billion a year, according to the calculations done in another post in this thread. That's a foolish political risk.

The End.

So, when he starts to really talk about this issue he could campaign on reinstituting the child credit after it goes away, as will be done in Bush's current policy.

then he might, at some point down the road, institute some form of middle class tax cuts, which he hasn't described.

Why not just leave the existing middle class tax cuts in place, as several other candidates and non-candidates have proposed? It seems simpler, and it certainly carries less political risk.

Or are you and the General happy fighting for the status quo?

that are losing MORE than their temporary $1,000 tax cut in the form of higher property taxes, HUGE raises in insurance premiums, far higher tuition costs at public Universities, overcrowded public schools with fewer decent programs for their, not to mention the horrible state of the economy, and the terror of losing their jobs if they haven't already, and on and on and on.

That's what Dean is talking about.

These are most likely Republicans or right leaning Independents and this "tax cut" is "red meat" to a segment of society that is part of the Republican base and a base Bush must keep courting to keep the White House.

the taunting sucks, however.

I do think Dean should campaign on letting them stay. It'll be easier to campaign on *and* the amount of money saved seems to be miniscule compared to the rest of the tax shift.

to leaving the middle class tax cuts/breaks; Dems should raise capital gains to 25%/30% while decreasing the FICA tax rate and moving the cap to $500k. FICA is now 6.5% up to ~$85k, make it 4% up to $500k.

exemption for true family businesses, homes or farms -- but no other loopholes.

And close the corporate tax loopholes. If you are going to give any corporate tax breaks, make them breaks for small to medium businesses and make them proportional to the total US income tax paid by company employees.

And give preferential government contracts to companies that employ Americans and pay them a living wage.

I was of course assuming that the dividend and estate tax breaks would be repealed (back to pre-Shrub levels). Capital gains is often overlooked, and the mechanism by which the wealthy get richer. I threw out the SS rate change to help minimize burden given current market conditions.

why not let them keep it and knock the pins out from under the arguement?

the upper 5% who got the majority of the cut.
IOW
REPEAL THE BUSH TAX CUT.

Everything else is just parsing to try to get at Dean, but that's expected.