They say that Dean repealing the tax cuts will kill him. I don't think so

on edit: wrong link first time

http://www.pollingreport.com/health1.htm#Delivery
"I'd like to read you a list of some programs and proposals that are being discussed in this country today. For each one, please tell me whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose it. The first one is: The U.S. government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means repealing most of the recent tax cuts." Form 1 (N=1,284, MoE ± 3.5)

Favor Oppose No
Opinion
% % %
7-8/03 67 26 7
.

"I'd like to read you a list of some programs and proposals that are being discussed in this country today. For each one, please tell me whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose it. The first one is: The U.S. government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes." Form 2 (N=1,244, MoE ± 3.5)

Favor Oppose No
Opinion
% % %
7-8/03 67 29 4



When people get the choice they pick being healthy over a $400 check once. Dean is pretty good at showing the difference, and that he intends to do some good with the tax money.

overpaying. He should shift the burden to those who can really afford to pay.

gets considered for payroll taxes? That shifts the burden away from the poor right there.

Lower-paid people aren't going to get a reduction out of it.

Deans proposal to raise the payoll tax topout does NOT effect the amount that the poor and middle class play, it is only a plan that increases the amount of money in the social security trust fund to keep social security solvent furtther into the future. As Social Security would be solvent until 2041 without doing this, this is a nice, but unnecessasry plan. As a matter of fact, this idea is as old as ronald reagan (Not actuall, but people have been arguning about raising the top out since FDR created SOcial Security, so this is no indication of some brillaiant new idea on Deans part). It will have absolutely ZERO effect on the negative effects of the Bush tax cut on te economy, or assist Dena in the massively adverses effects his repealing the Bush tax cuts totally will have on the poor and middle class unless he polans on instituting a Universal Health care system on the very same day the taxes are repealed.

Deans proposal to raise the payoll tax topout does NOT effect the amount that the poor and middle class play, it is only a plan that increases the amount of money in the social security trust fund to keep social security solvent furtther into the future. As Social Security would be solvent until 2041 without doing this, this is a nice, but unnecessasry plan. As a matter of fact, this idea is as old as ronald reagan (Not actuall, but people have been arguning about raising the top out since FDR created SOcial Security, so this is no indication of some brillaiant new idea on Deans part). It will have absolutely ZERO effect on the negative effects of the Bush tax cut on te economy, or assist Dean in the massively adverses effects his repealing the Bush tax cuts totally will have on the poor and middle class unless he plans on instituting a Universal Health care system on the very same day the taxes are repealed, so the poor and middle class get SOME kind of break on the drain on their paychecks.

and what a shock. Dean would eliminate the cut off (around 88k) at which the payroll tax stops. It is a pay roll tax on the rich.

he would institute a payroll tax. This was in answer to a question about whether he would bring back the estate tax. He left the viewers with the impression that he preferred a payroll tax to an estate tax.

He said AS I NOW HAVE SAID THREE TIMES that he would REMOVE THE CUT OFF POINT
for payroll taxes. That has been his positon over and over again. That is not instituting a pay roll tax.

This tax will affect the middle class, which is already over-burdoned.

Here is the transcript

Governor Dean, about those high earners: The non-partisan Center On Budget And Policy Priorities has suggested using revenue from the estate tax as a progressive way to help bolster Social Security. Should wealthy Americans be contributing more to Social Security?

DEAN: What wealthy Americans should be doing is paying their fair share of the payroll tax. The Social Security cannot survive on its present track.
(APPLAUSE)

And the solution to that is simply to make wage earners above $85,000 subject to the payroll tax. And that will cure the Social Security ills if we can change presidents.

What part, oh genius, is unclear about "make wage earners above $85,000 subject to the payroll tax" is in any way, shape or form unclear?

Here is the link:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22205-2003Aug6.html

Again before admonshing me about lack of research try doing some.

They struggle with tuitions to Choate and Harvard.

You think it's cheap to keep a yacht? Seen slip fees?

And golf! Skiing! Those sports have gone thru the roof!

Do you think a family can support a Lexus and a Humvee if it has to pay taxes????????????

And what about soccer uniforms, hmmmm?

Here's how it works. Most middle class families pay a Social Security tax most of the year. My dad, like most people, gets a break around Christmas time. This allows my dad and others to pay for Christmas dinner and make charitable contributions. The tax kicks in again in January. Dean's middle class payroll tax would end this breather and make it harder for middle class families to afford Christmas dinner.

Why won't Dean instead raise the upper end tax brackets or reinstate the estate tax? He did not discuss these options at all at last Tuesday's debate. He did have the chance however and he was clearly avoiding the estate tax question. He does change his story when it suits him and I would not be surprised if he had a hundred positions on the issue, depending on the interview and whether he remembered what he said in previous interviews. It seems to me that the fat cats (like Dean) should have their taxes increased. The middle class should not be overtaxed. Does Dean really need all that money? Why can't he pay his fair share?

Genius is right.

That is unmitigated pobbycock. No one who pays payroll taxes stops paying them at some times of the year. Unless they don't work that those times of the year. Unless your dad is a seasonal employee you are nothing short of deluded. If he is that he would pay nothing more than he is now under Dean.

As to you second point. Dean has repeatedly said, in virtually every campaign appearence, THAT HE WOULD REPEAL THE BUSH TAX CUTS. One of those cuts was the ESTATE TAX. But he has also said that he would use that money for health care and for balancing the budget. The fact you are ignorant of simple facts about Dean makes you ignorant not him dishonest.

dodged the estate tax question, when he was asked.

He is either ignorant or worse. That isn't Dean's fault. It isn't my fault. It is his fault.

Sure they do. It's just the way he said it that confused you. Someone who makes 1 paycheck-worth over the FICA-able limit pays no FICA on that last paycheck in December. The tax year starts again New Year's day. So the experience of the taxpayer is that it briefly stops around Xmas. Of course, for those who are very well-paid, it appears to stop in October, or June, or even January (just think, the CEOs getting $1M or more cash salary get all their FICA taken out of their first paycheck! The other 11 are FICA-free. How nice for them.)

Eliminating the ceiling is a good move, and kudos to Dean for it. But it's an imperfect solution at best: the really wealthy get less of their income from salary than those lower down the heap. So someone at the 99th %ile, for example, could well pay less than someone at the 95th.

The proper solution is to FICA all income, regardless of source. If that were done, then those for whom FICA is the biggest tax bite -- the working poor -- might be able to get a break. Think you can get Dean to go for that?

but would that person "need that money to buy Christmas dinner and make charitable contributions"? I mean for the love of God if one can't have a decent Christmas on 90k a year then that is too damn bad.

As to your second idea who knows. There would be a lot of logistical problem but it could work.

You stop paying payroll taxes the minute you have had 86,500 in salary in any one year. So Bill gates probably stops paying at about a few minutes after the clock strikes new years. of each year: for validation...Robert Reich:

Four out of five American workers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. The payroll tax is also regressive: poorer workers pay proportionately more. It's paid out of the first dollar earned, all the way up to a threshold of about $87,000. After that, nothing. Wealthy earners pay only the tiny Medicare portion of the payroll tax on all their earnings. So the very rich finish paying early in the year. Microsoft chairman Bill Gates is done a few minutes past midnight, Jan. 1

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/departments/2003/face_off/0205_faceoff_1.html

you are whining about that would stop. So I guess now you will come up with some other bizarre theory as to why Dean's payroll tax plan is bad.

Its just not Deans....

This has been suggested by viertually every democrat in congress since the SOcial Security Act was written.

Kerry, Kennedy, Kucinich, Edwards, and go back to EVERY CONGRESS for the past 50 years and you will see this being argued. Dean is again, taking for his own idea, what EVERY DEMOCRAT has been demanding for decades.

I called it Dean plan since this thread did. Don't attribute to him word I typed. And again I only did that due to other's having done so first

Every thing that Dean does, Dean did first.

Genius is the one who called it Dean's idea it is that which I responded too. BTW the payroll tax cut which you and Nick are touting and calling Kerry's idea was Graham's first. But bottom line I used Dean's payroll tax only since it had been used by a Kucinich supporter first. Try reading instead of smearing. You owe me an apology.

"No one who pays payroll taxes stops paying them at some times of the year."

I used to be in the category that stopped paying payroll taxes (FICA) towards the end of the year. Unfortunately, being on the mommy track, I haven't kept up with inflation.

'Nothing wrong with that, but with an income more than twice the national average I hope your not expecting sympathy.

If your dad is makeing over $88000.00, he may be considered upper class. I say Dean has got it right, no cap on ss payments. What is fair is fair The Bush tax cut gave it all to the top 1%. that sucks.

......... :crazy:

Some people are willing to make up *anything* about Dean. The self-hate among the left is extremely disturbing.

I don't actually hate Dean. I just don't want him to be President.

tax and the upper class would get off scot-free. Hillary was pointing out that about 85 grand is about the middle point of the middle class. I agree with you that Dean ought to tax rich people like himself. I don't live in an upper class neighborhood and yet all my neighbors woudl be hit by this tax. I've been out talking with
my neighbors and they say that if that's Dean's plan, he can forget about their votes.

Progressives call for higher taxes for rich
January 25, 2002

By JACK HOFFMAN

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Vermont Progressives renewed their call Thursday for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to avoid some of the budget cuts that Gov. Howard Dean outlined earlier this week.

The Progressives, with support of a couple dozen Democrats and one Republican, proposed two new income tax surcharges. Taxes would go up 12.5 percent on taxable income between $43,000 and $158,000. On taxable income above $158,000, taxes would be increased 25 percent.

Taxable income is the amount left after personal exemptions and deductions have been subtracted from wages, business earnings and other types of income.

Currently, Vermont’s highest income tax rate is 9.5 percent. That is the rate paid on taxable income above $283,000. Under the plan the Progressives proposed Thursday, the highest Vermont tax rate would be 11.88 percent.

The coalition also called for a change in the tax on capital gains. Currently, Vermont treats long-term capital gains as the federal government does and taxes it at a lower rate. The highest rate Vermont collects on capital gains is 4.8 percent.

The Progressives said Thursday that gains on investments should be treated the same as salaries and wages that people are paid for their labor. They said the tax rate should for capital gains should be the same as it is for ordinary income...


Dean reiterated his opposition to raising the income tax shortly after the Progressives unveiled their tax plan. Dean contends Vermont’s marginal income tax rate — that is, the top rate paid by those in the highest income brackets — already is too high.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41293.html

But do it like this:

Ad after ad stating that people making less than $X will NOT see their taxes raised. Give Joe & Jane Sixpack a fixed number that they can compare to their income. Don't talk in terms of the top % of taxpayers, it's been shown that about 20% of the population thinks THEY are in the top 1% bracket. Pick a number, I don't know, $150,000? And DRIVE IT HOME.

Dead should make it a positive.

REDUCE THE BIRTH TAX - the Bush deficit our kids must pay

while providing universal health.

Good example of reclaiming the vocabulary of political encounters.

up.

that is is not a 400 dollar check ONE that Dean is repealing.
It is anywhere from 50 dollars to several thousand dollars a year that Dean will be realing with the the first set of tax cuts, and half as much with the second set of tax cuts. and the tax tables are set with these reductions clear through the year 2010. So Dean would be taking tens of thousands of dollars away from the average middle classs families over the next ten years, while no giving them nothing in return, given his statemtns about incrementalism in health care and his statements about raising the social security age as well as cuttign payments to doctors on medicare services. There are already large health orgainzation like the Mayo Clinic, who no longer accept even MEDICARE, becasue of cuts to the amount of money the doctors and organizations receive for giving medical care. Lowering it further will simply do what happened in Vermont. Health care providers all began to pull out because Dena kept lowerrin state payments to Medicaid. f he does the same to MEdicare, elderly people and the disabled may find that they have health coverage that is useless, as no one will accept it within a hundred miles of where they live.

Those tax cuts have been paid for many times over by tax increases in virtually every state and locality. Ohio, for example, raised its sales tax to 6% (up to 7% with local piggy back) and applied it to a bunch of services. That alone negates the tax cut for most middle class people. Add in increased property taxes and it is gone all gone.

If Dean repeals the cuts, the roll backs at the local levels WILL NOT OCCUR immediately, doubly harming the poor and middle class. Sorry. Deans ideas about the tax cuts are so frigging stupid, following Suppply side economic ideas, rather than Democratic Keynesian ideas on taxation, which allows for cyclical tax increases and tax cuts, dependent on economic condition. We are advancing into major deficit, and repealing the cuts will not do a damned thing to stimulate the economy, but throw the stock market into a tailspin, with more job losses.

It will take years of arguing to lower sales taxes, and prorty taxes even if Dean repeals the tax cuts, so all he will be doing is increasing the taxation at all levels on the poor and middle class.

Dean is a fiscal idiot. He repealed the very mechanism that Snelling created that got rid of Vermonts deficits, and then had to continually battle deficits by cutting budgets for his entire tenure as governor. What a moron.

yourself post links too? In one article you yourself posted it was claimed that Vermont's spending went up much faster than the national average. In many others it is claimed he raised taxes. There is a fiscal idiot afoot but it isn't Dean.

A double whammy on the middle class.

Kerry's is far more clever. He changes the total distribution.

Makes the tax cuts on payroll taxes, a tax holiday on the first 86,500 of income. while repealing the mega breaks on the rich.

This allow the federal government to begin pumping money into the states, while buffering the lower and middle classes against the increases the states have had to impose, and is phased out as te states are able to roll back property and excise taxes as a result of increases in funding from the federal government.

Dean basically reversed the tax IINCREASES put in place by his predicessor, which got the states out of deficits. On top of this Dean also instituted two other income tax cuts, which promarily benefited the rich, while changing the property tax structure, and rasing other excise taxes, hittin the middle class and poor more than the rich.

That is basic Dean economics. it is also why:

Many families in Vermont saw moderate improvements in their standard of living over the 1990s as the wages of median-wage workers grew. However, low-wage workers saw their wages decline over the 1990s, and median income stagnated. The poverty rate and income inequality in Vermont grew over the 1990s (see link below for table).

Median family income for four-person families
Middle-income families in Vermont have not fared particularly well during the current economic expansion. The incomes of families in the middle of the income distribution stagnated over the 1990s. Median family income for four-person families was $53,691 in 1998, compared to its 1989 level of $53,103 (in 1998 dollars).

Income inequality
Income inequality in Vermont grew over the 1990s. In the late 1990s, the income of the wealthiest 20% of families was 8.4 times that of the poorest 20% of families. By comparison, in the late 1980s, the wealthiest 20% of families had 7.4 times the income of the poorest 20%.

Poverty rate
The poverty rate in Vermont grew during the 1990s, from 8.1% in 1987-88 to 9.6% in 1997-98. However, the poverty rate in Vermont in the late 1990s remained below the national rate (13.0% in 1997-98).

Wages
In Vermont in the 1990s, the wages of low-wage workers declined, while the wages of similar workers grew at the national level. In 1999, the inflation-adjusted hourly wages of low-wage workers (workers at the 20th percentile) were 0.4% lower than they were in 1989, but due to wage gains in the 1980s they remained 10.5% higher than they were in 1979. The wages of workers in the middle of the wage distribution grew over both the 1980s and 1990s. The inflation-adjusted median wage (the wage of workers in the middle) in 1999 was 12.2% higher than it was in 1979.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/datazone_states_usmap_vt

That was the efect of Dean Economics, the new Reaganomics. while he was governor.

counting methods.

First he cut income taxes twice (using your method of counting) not the four times you are claiming here. Once when e let his predecessor's tax increase expire and once in 99. Again even using your counting method you are baldly false. He also decoupled Vermont's tax system from the feds which was a defacto tax increase on the rich. They both lost the benefit of Bush's cut on their tax bill and were no longer able to deduct there Vermont income taxes from their Vermont income taxes. The total effect of what Dean did here was to lower the stated percentage of taxation from 9.9% to 9.5% even under what I consider your dishonest accounting. But due to the decoupling he may well have actually increased the actual rate of taxation.

Here's why. Say John Bigbucks is a denizen of Vermont and is in the highest tax bracket. Then his marginal fed rate is 33%. Under the system Dean inherited his marginal state rate is 28% of the feds rate. Assuming this guy itemizes under the old system he got to write off .28 * .33 of his federal income. That is .0814 or 8.14%. Thus he is paying 9.9% of 91.86% of his income. Which is 9.09%. Under Dean's new system he pays 9.5%. There is one snag for me though (and not being a tax expert I have no idea how many people in this bracket are effect by the AMT) the AMT may forbid the write off for some taxpayers. Incidently note that when I figured his write off I used Bush's lower rate but that when I figured out his tax bill I used Clinton's higher rate. This I gave you the best case possible and still Dean's plan increased taxes on the richest Vermonters.

On to sales taxes. Here you can no longer claim that Dean increased these taxes and say he cut income taxes twice. The sales tax was at 5% due to his predecessors increase of it. Thus he inherited a 5% sales taxes to go with the 28% income tax. You can't have it both ways. Either he is responsibe for both the decrease in income and sales taxes in 94 or he is responsible for neither one. Take your pick.

On property taxes you are flat out wrong. Dean did increase the state property tax under act 60. But he coupled that with a new system under which poor households (actually up to 75k so hardly poor) could choose to either pay the property tax or 2% of their income whichever is lower. Thus a family with an income of 25k can't pay over $500 in state property taxes under this plan. That had the effect of cutting, the opposite of raising, property taxes for poor people.

The rest is just a rehash of arguements over whether taxes which are regressive but have social benefits should be raised. That is an honest disagreemwnt on your part but it should be noted that Kerry has voted for at least one gas taz increase (93) so you may wish to rethink him too.

but I am wrong on one thing in the post above. State taxes can still be deducted so the rates are as they appear regardless of AMT or anything else.

Live in an aprartment, work a low paying job, and sorry charlie, you dont adjjst those state taxes out, this is the famous federal offset that caused Deans tax changes in Vermont to begin the reversal from a progressive tax state into a mildly recessive one. Dean did not make Vermont a suprt regressive tax state, keeping it mosderatyely fair, but he moved it from having one of the MOST fair systems in the nation, to begin the procees into regression, so lves by fiscal consevatives.

No one can deduct sales taxes or any other state taxes save income taxes. This been true since 1987 when the reform of 1986 kicked in. Also thanks to the AMT the really rich also can't deduct those taxes since their deductions are limited. I guess your next argument will be that somehow Dean caused the federal change. I think you may wish to look at your own candidate instead as he voted for that bill. Incidently, he did so hoping states would increase income taxes and reduce sales taxes which didn't happen but it was a good idea at the time.

In 2002, so again, you are wrong.

I have the 1040 schedule A in my hand right now. You may deduct income and property. Lines 5 thru 8.

Bush cuts taxes in 2001, states increase taxes, Bush cuts taxes in 2003, states raise taxes again.

Dean repeals the Buswh taxs cuts, the state taxes DO NOT IMMEDIATELY dissappear. So people see an increase in their paychecks, and THEN still have to continue paying the increases in their state and local sales taxes, property taxes,all of th other excise taxes, So Deans repeal of ALL of the Bush tax cuts means an immediate drop in the salaries of the working middle class and poor, however small that may be, as much as 200 dollars a month for a family of 4 making 60,000 dollars a year, and that will come IMMEDIATELY, yet they will STILL be paying the increased state adn local taxes for at least one year, possibly two, driving many in the lower middle class below the poverty level. Sorry, the IDIOTIC argument that the Bush tax cuts were eaten up by state and local taxes being raised MAKES my case against Deans immediate reversal of the Bush tax cuts, because Dean will reverse the cuts, with NO evidence that all the states will roll back the taxes they increased in order to compensate for the Bush tax cuts. Find me more than 50 percent of states that heve ever LOWED sales taxes, once they were raised. Property taxes, occasionally, but it once taxes other than income taxes are raised, they are RARELY rolled back, which means that once again, Dean will be balancing the busgets as he did in Vermont, on the backs of the poor and the middle class.

I spent nearly 20 years working for a government agency in which 85 percent of our funding came from PROPERTY taxes. Once raised. THe state has NO income tax. We have a sales tax. It has NEVER been lowered, whether a tax cutting republican was in office, or a Tax Raising Demoract. RARELY, Republicans have cut property taxes. Twice in 30 years, as I recall. THe best they do is promise not to raise them, and keep that promise. I have also seen the same in the sttaes surrounding my state, as well as in New York State.

Deans repeal of the Bush tax cuts WILL be a rasei iin the taxes of the poor and meddle class, as they have ALL recieved something in these cuts, and these cuts at least offset the effects of thew taxes they now face on the local level to some degree. Deans repeal of these cuts will grind them into the dust economically.

The economically soundest course of action right now would be to redistribute the Bush tax cuts progressively, so that the poor and middle class would recieve even LARGER cuts than they have, and greatly reduce or eleiminate the cuts given to te top two percent of the population which comprises more thand 65 percent of the total tax cut money.
This provides immedicate "TRICKLE UP" economics, which is more sound thatn Supply side.

By having the middle class begin to spend immediately, only those companies who provide products and services DESIRED by the larger middle and lower classes will survive and thrive, and this eliminates the tax protection that shores up inefficient companies who stay viable through massive infusions of federal granst money and tax breaks.

Dean showed his maasive fiscal incompentance and lack of ability to plan, first, by repealling the Snelling tax increases, that got rid of the deficits (these paralleled the Clinton increases a year later, which taxes the poor ans the middle class slightly or not at all, but slammed the rich, in order to get rid of the deficit).Clinton NEVER repealed the tax increases, which caused a masive surplus, which Clinton DID NOT GIVE AWAY, in a tax cut, but pumpend into social services and to the states. Dean on the other hand, repealed the Snelling tax increaases, and produced surpluses by massive cuts to state spending and then GAVE THE SURPLUSES aweay in income tax cuts, relying in the increases from the federal governmment under CLinton.

Then in 1999, 10 months before the 2000 election, the moron Dean, after MORE massive cuts in social and infrastructure spending, decidesd to use the surplus in order to give ANOTHER income tax cuts. Ten months later, Bush is in office, states start losing money. Dean is praised for leaving Vemront in with a surplus, but it was nothing like the surplus that CLinton left the nation, in relative terms. Dean actually left the Vermont Rainy day fund at half the level required by law. Dean has shown the very WORSE sensse of fiscal timing in history. Which is why I keep referring to the following. While on average the entire united states went through a perriod of the poor moving into the Middle Class and the poverty rate shrinking by 21 percent, the Middle Class a shofting upwards, in Deans Vermont, the opposite occurs, more people fall into poverty (aroung a 12 percent increase) Overall salaries fall, the middle class stagnates, the rich get richer.

Deans old fashione tight fisted, lets all starve and then throw a big party economics look politically good, fo a politician on a political agenda, but over time, are just plain abusive and stupid...A picture of Deans Vermont:

Median family income for four-person families
Middle-income families in Vermont have not fared particularly well during the current economic expansion. The incomes of families in the middle of the income distribution stagnated over the 1990s. Median family income for four-person families was $53,691 in 1998, compared to its 1989 level of $53,103 (in 1998 dollars).

Income inequality
Income inequality in Vermont grew over the 1990s. In the late 1990s, the income of the wealthiest 20% of families was 8.4 times that of the poorest 20% of families. By comparison, in the late 1980s, the wealthiest 20% of families had 7.4 times the income of the poorest 20%.

Poverty rate
The poverty rate in Vermont grew during the 1990s, from 8.1% in 1987-88 to 9.6% in 1997-98. However, the poverty rate in Vermont in the late 1990s remained below the national rate (13.0% in 1997-98).

Wages
In Vermont in the 1990s, the wages of low-wage workers declined, while the wages of similar workers grew at the national level. In 1999, the inflation-adjusted hourly wages of low-wage workers (workers at the 20th percentile) were 0.4% lower than they were in 1989, but due to wage gains in the 1980s they remained 10.5% higher than they were in 1979. The wages of workers in the middle of the wage distribution grew over both the 1980s and 1990s. The inflation-adjusted median wage (the wage of workers in the middle) in 1999 was 12.2% higher than it was in 1979.

Unemployment
The unemployment rate in Vermont fell from 3.7% in 1989 to 3.0% in 1999, leaving the Vermont unemployment rate below that of the nation (4.2% in 1999).

Jobs paying poverty-level wages
Many jobs in Vermont pay poverty-level wages. In 1999, 25.5% of jobs in Vermont paid below the wage needed to lift a family of four above the poverty line with full-time, full-year work. The share of jobs that pay poverty-level wages grew over the 1990s, but Vermont still has a smaller share of poverty-wage jobs than does nation as a whole


http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/datazone_states_usmap_vt

Because of Deans economic incompetance and miserliness,everyone but the rich suffered. The only buffer to the losses produced under Dean, were the large gains produced prior to Deans terms as governor.

Deans economic policies will put the icing on the cake, driving the Bush economy into a depression deeper than the one of the 1930's

People who don't pay federal income taxes, which is the overwhelming majority of the poor got nothing at all from the Bush tax cuts. Not a cent. You are being utterly fraudulent when you say they did.

How much each group got from earning 1 dollar per year, to 1000000 per year.

And that was JUST for the current recent tax cuts, The 2001 cuts gave back 4 times as much.

Dean is so full of crap about that. Every single person who pays taxes saw less tax taken out of their paychecks after the Bush tax cuts. EVERYONE. You are trying and trying to spin this, but every single person, no matter how much they earned, had less tax take out of their paychecks after both tax cuts.

Who Saves What:

less than 10,000 less than 1.00

10-20000 49.00

20-30,000 183.00

30- 40,000 310.00

40 - 50,000 413.00

50- 75,000 737.00

75-100,000 1814.00

100-200,000 3085.00

200-500,000 6733.00

500-1,000,000 20,245.00

over 1,000.000 92,526.00


http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/departments/2003/money/0705_money_1.html

AARP sourced this data to the Brooking institute.

This is ONLY the money people are getting from the 2003 tax cuts. It does not include the money people recieved during the 2001 cuts, which were distributed in the sdame manner, with the rich getting the most, but th poor and middle class getting something.

So Deans repealing of ALL of the bush tax cuts will cost the median family of 4 earning about 50,000 a year will lose 413 dollar a year by Dean repeal, and this does not calculate for the tax cut of 2001 which was 4 times larger than the tax cuts of 2003. WHich means Dean could be adding as much as 2000 in taxes to a family of 4 earning 40-50,000 dollars. BEFORE the states roll back the added sales taxes, added property taxes,xand all of the other excise taxes and even increases to state income taxes that resulted from funding cuts to the states.

Sorry that family will STILL be paying those increases in state and local taxes for quite some time before the the states get out of deficit, and roll back some of the taxes, if they roll back any of them at all. All Dean is doing is adding an additional frderal tax to people who are NOW paying higher local taxes.

ANd what is Dean going to give them in return IMMEDIATELY, for that increase. NOTHING.

If he immediately instituted universal health care, there would be savings in the very large portion of people paychecks that go to pay for their family health plans from work.

But Dean has decided to do this incrementally. SO he is going to be taking away a couple of hundred bucks a year from these people for the 2003 tax cuts alone, tell them that someday he will incrementally take care of health care, and also take away a thousand, 1500 dollars more from their paychecks from the 2001 cuts. Sorry, the data you present is based on the idea that local taxes cancel out the effects of the Bush tax cuts,not that people recieven NOTHING from the Bush tax cuts. But Dean idea adds the taxes back to these people, but does not change the local tax increases, so they are screwed by the Dean plan.

The Brookings Institution did an average and yes some poor people have dividend income or fail to get the EIC and they might get something (very little from this cut). But if one poor person gets $1000 back that makes him and 999 other people average $1. Again take a stats class.

Because NOT doing so was the reason he had to ask for massive budget cuts in 2002. The progressives suggested doing so by instituting an income tax increase to offset the required cuts to state income taxes that were triggered by Bush's tax cuts and Dean refused to do so.

which showed him having done exactly that. In two threads entiled The truth bout Dean and Taxes and The truth about Dean and taxes part 2.

www.state.vt.us/tax/majorvttaxes.htm
www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/tax/vol1-03.htm

Here they are again. Look at the first link.

And not the state during the Dean years.

You will note that Vermont raises MOST of its taxation now from property taxation, then sales taxes, and excise taxes and income taxeation comprises a small percentasge of its taxation

With things like gasoline, gas taxes are now higher on regular gasoline, rather than diesel, used for business purposes. Again, regression. The average guy filling his car to go to work in cant deduct his gasoline expenses, BUT businesses can.

Each one of these tax changes during Deans tenure, favors those who can deduct it and further reduce their costs, while those who cannot, must bear the FULL expense.

You are posting a CURRENT Vermont web site about Vermont taxation not a valid analysis of Dean's taxation policy as Governor. This is a truth about Vermont Taxes NOW link, not ana analysis of Deans theory of tax policy article.

and the rates I quoted are for 2002. So he was governor then. As to raising most from property taxes (well duh) he did that as part of act 60 which as I said before equalized school funding and is made progressive by strictly limiting the amount the poor pay. Those are good things.

As of July 1, 1996, Vermont’s top marginal rate ranked fifth nationally, following Montana, 11%; Rhode Island, 10.69%; Hawaii, 10%; and Iowa, 9.98%. < This ranking overstates Vermont and Rhode Island ’s actual top marginal rate. Because Vermont and Rhode Island are coupled with federal tax liability and do not adjust for state tax deductions on federal taxes, in essence these states allow deduction of state taxes against state tax liability. This is not common among states. All comparisons of state marginal rates carry some overstatement of marginal impact. Since state taxes are generally deductible against federal taxes, the marginal impact of additional state tax liability is reduced by federal tax liability. See Appendix 5, Table 3. Source: Based on data from the Federal Tax Administrators at Internet Site: http//sso.org/fta/tax_stru.html.>

Vermont’s high marginal rate affects very few taxpayers; less than one-half of 1% of Vermont’s 1995 taxpayers are taxed on any income at the highest marginal rate. However, Vermont received roughly 15% of its income tax revenues from these taxpayers in FY95. < The Vermont Tax Department ’s estimates indicate that about 800 taxpayers fall into this category.> Other states’ top marginal rates generally start at much lower income levels. This means that they apply to more taxpayers. For example, Iowa’s 9.98% marginal rate applies to income over $48,645. Hawaii’s top marginal rate of 10.0% applies to income over $20,500.

Does not state Dean decoupled Vermonts taxation.

Because NOT doing so was the reason he had to ask for massive budget cuts in 2002. The progressives suggested doing so by instituting an income tax increase to offset the required cuts to state income taxes that were triggered by Bush's tax cuts and Dean refused to do so.

Your argument is still dead wrong.

Dean repeals the tax cuts. the poor and middle class see lowered paychecks ,they are still paying the higher taxes at the state levels, and either get NO return on those taxes through federal income tax deductions, or by immediate rollback of those state taxes.
So how, by cutting the take home salary of the working poor and the middle class, does Deans magin plan immediately make their life easier. DO all of the states all at once on the same day Dean gets congress to repeal the cuts, suddenly vote to lower sales taxes, excise taxes, proprtty taxes. Do all of the hundreds of thousands of municipalities who do the same thing also cut them that very same day.

No, thus the poor and middle class are driven further towards poverty, as the rate of pvoerty in Vermont grew in Vermont under Dean.

Do all of the states and cities that have income taxes suddenly cut the taxes they have had to raise do so at the very same minute Dean does.

Or do the mills of government grind exceedingly slow.
Sorry, this is another Dean, bilk the poor and middle class plan.

Deans entire mindset on taxation is regressive

The progressive is wrong.

www.state.vt.us/tax/majorvttaxes.htm
www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/tax/vol1-03.htm

favor, and all along they were not in favor, and now that we are in such debt, it should be welcomed move to repeal the cuts.

What swung those democratic voters over into both Reagan and Bush territories, was the tax cuts r=that Bush promised. Even the democrats had to talk about doing some kind of tax cuts in order to try to compete with Bush's talk about tax cuts. The opposition to Bush's tax cuts is now all retrospect...

Same as the number of people who CLAIM to have voted for Dean in 2000 now.

Polls of large number of people in Vermont about the 2000 election show that Deans did not recieve enough votes to have legally won the election.

It seems a a small number of people are too embarassed to admit they voted for him.

It is arguable that the first round of tax cuts where at around 50% popularity depending on the poll. But Gore didn't lose on tax cuts or any other issue. Poll, after poll, after poll, after poll showed that people agreed with Gore on the issues but voted for Bush on character. The second round of cuts were never popular and several commentators on both sides (Brooks, Shields, and Gigot for example) wondered aloud why the Democrats didn't fight them harder in the public arena. All three felt the could have stopped them if they had.

will kill hard working Americans.

What Kerry plans to do is REPEAL ONLY THE PORTIONS OF THE CUTS given to the rich.

How does repealing the cuts, thus lowering the paychecks of hardworking americans, who must pay increased property taxes, increased sales taxes, increased excise taxes increeased by the states in order to adjust for the Bush tax cuts (and still have not done so), help the hardworking american. They will still have to pay all of the increased state and local taxes, and have their paychecks lowered by repealing ALL of the cuts and so te double whammy. THe poor and the middle class do not earn enouogh to decuct those taxes from their federal income taxes, and the more affluent middle class do not get their FULL state and local taxes returned by deducting the sttes taxes, only a small portions. A tax deduction is NOT a tax credit (I have gone through the H&R BLOCK tax courses, and the crap that Dean supporters are trying to shovel is too fnny to even discuss rationally)For every dollar that those poor and middle class nave to pay out in local taxes, they will be fortunate if their ability to deduct them at this income levels will even get them back ten cents for every dollart they shell out in prooperty taxes.

Think of your own mortgage deductions if you have them, do you recieve every single cent that you pay in mortgage interest back in your income tax checks, NO, it only comes to a percentage of the interest when it is used as a deduction. Same with state taxes, they are deductions, not credits.

So here is what Dean is planning, He is planning to repeal ALL of the Bush tax cuts immediatly.Immediately lowering the take home salaries of the poor and middle class who have just been hit with increased charges to in property taxes, sales taxes, additional taxes to their local electricity, water, telephone, cable, tv, cigarette, beer, and god know how many other hidden state excise taxes.

As Dean did in Vermont. His FIRST stated goal is NOW balancing the budget. Dean is now going to balance it on the back of the working poor and middle class, and have them bear the heaviest burden.

The only way to fix this situation of deficit and refinancing the states, is to repeal ONLY the majority of the portions of the Bush cuts to the rich, keep the cuts as a buffer to the poor, against the effects of local taxation, and then use the raise in taxes on the rich in order to refinance the states(only if they agree to roll back local taxes), get state government up and running again, and then as the economy stabilized, repeal the sections of the Bush tax cuts to the poors and middle class, who still pay sales taxes, but do not get the benefits of deducting them for the most part.

An approval of Kerkys Plan from Democratic Economist Robert Reich:


A Better Way to Spur the Economy

By Robert B. Reich

The economy is stuck in first gear. How to get it moving? Not with tax breaks for businesses and investors. No one in their right mind is going to put money into more factories or equipment. There aren't enough customers for all the goods and services that can be produced as it is.

The American economy will rev up only if consumers spend more. The fastest way to put more money in their pockets is to temporarily cut the Social Security payroll tax. Exempt the first $20,000 of income for one year, and the typical worker gains more than $1,000. And since employers won't have to pay their share, they have an extra incentive to keep more people on their payrolls.

This is a far better way to spur consumption than giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. They already spend as much as they want to. Middle- and lower-income taxpayers are more likely to spend whatever extra they get.

Four out of five American workers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. The payroll tax is also regressive: poorer workers pay proportionately more. It's paid out of the first dollar earned, all the way up to a threshold of about $87,000. After that, nothing. Wealthy earners pay only the tiny Medicare portion of the payroll tax on all their earnings. So the very rich finish paying early in the year. Microsoft chairman Bill Gates is done a few minutes past midnight, Jan. 1.

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/departments/2003/face_off/0205_faceoff_1.html

Byt changing the distribution, giving tax cuts to those who earn less than 87,000, and repealing the Bush INCOME tax cuts on the wealthy, guess who benefit from Kerry's plan. the poor and middle class worker who get money back immediately, in every paychjeck to pay their bill or those higher state taxes caused by the Bush cuts. Since the rich are not fiovored, they get to pay increased taxes both at the state and federal levels until or if federal increases to assist the states result in a rollback in the state taxes (which might take a while, as the states ALSO have to work their way out of massive deficits before rolling back taxes)

So the poor and middle class are buffered and offered SOME protection of the adverse effects of Bush's tax cuts, the rich get to pick up the tab for the recovery. Under Deans plan this does not happen, The poor get their paychecks lowered, even if only by a few dollars a week to a hundred or so a week for the middle class family,and still have to deal with the increases at the state level.

Deans plan is a recipe for driving the middle class into pverty through a regressive taxation scheme.

this is why he supports the repeal of the entire taxcut. Because if the people are given a choice between shrub's tax cut and universal healthcare, the taxcuts or paying down the debt, deficit spending or a better future for their children...the choice is clear in every instance. And that is what elections and the democratic process is all about, providing these choices for the people. It is not about running away from these choices.