Why should people making less than 20k

pay higher taxes or have lower benefits in perpetuity to lower the tax burden of those making over 50k? At the heart of the 'middle class tax cut' debate is that question. All of the major league winners among the middle class fall well above 50k. Both families Kerry has used to justify his position on middle class tax cuts made over 50k and lived in rural states.

As it is people making less than 20k pay a higher effective tax rate than those making over 50k in most cases. Their child credits are capped, they are unlikely to itemize deductions, their charitable contributions are not deductible due to not itemizing, and to top it off most of them don't have tax free health care like their fellow citizens making the 50k or more.

If SS goes broke it is the 20k people who will be totally screwed and living off cat food. If Medicare goes broke it is the 20k people who will bear the brunt of that as well. The state budget cuts and the state tax increases have fallen almost entirely upon people making less than 20k. Yet, some of our candidates say that in order to give people making a decent living some more money they will continue to take from those barely making ends meet (or continure to borrow money from those people and possibly stiff them). And to top it off, those 70k people are likely to wind off either very slightly better off or very slightly worse off anyway.

Interest rates will go up and go up fast if the economy recovers before we show we are serious about getting our house in order. Assuming a 150k mortgage for our 70k family every basis point in interest will cost them over $2000 a year. Which all but eats up the $2100 they save under these tax cuts. And, we get the greater debt which the 20k family winds up having to pay by either seeing increased taxes or decreased benefits, or both. Not only is this policy an immoral transfer of wealth it isn't even an effective one. All this does is take money from people making less than 20k, give it to people making over 50k for a little bit, and then ultimately sends it to people who are rich enough to lend money to the people making 50k.

Clintonomics lowered interest rates and unemployment simultaniously. That was a defacto tax cut of over 2k for a typical homeowner and a defacto wage increase for someone making 20k. That is progressive taxation at its best.

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

and paid nearly $1000 in income taxes so try again.

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

not even Bush claims I did. The only cut from which I benefited was the cut from 15% to 10% for the bottom bracket and that was a one third not 50% tax cut. As to the accountant thing. I made just under 18k. I have no kids so I get around 10k in exemptions. My federal taxable income was around 8k. 10% of 8k is $800 which was my federal income tax liability (in round figures). My state rate is 1.5% applied to all of that 8k which yields another $120 and my city (where I work charges 2% again of that entire 8k which is $160. My total income tax liability was $800 + $120+ $160 which is $1080.

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

Remember these myriad of deductions would have to total over 10k before I got even one thin dime of benefit. As to the idea Bush doesn't have control over those he does. Those taxes went up as a direct result of his refusual to help states out.

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

who hasn't seen an Ohio school, driven on an Ohio road, paid an Ohio tution bill, depended on Ohio's medicaid, nor paid an for an Ohio licence for any of a myriad of services.

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

Which, since you appear to be a Dean supporter, is more than Dean said the average $40,000 a year tax payer in Vermont would keep if Kerry (or Edwards) was President.

You are mixing several unrelated things up. The "effective" tax rate takes into consideration several taxes unrelated to the income tax rate. Some are non-progressive federal taxes. Some are state taxes that would not necessarily go down just because your taxes go up. The best possibility for lower state taxes are Kerry and Edwards. Both would give large grants to states to help them with their budgets, which should ease the need of states to boost tax rates and may even permit them to lower tax rates.

Your candidate (and I am assuming here based on the logo on your post) would cost you $400 a year, and I happen to think $400 a year is a lot to someone with a taxable income of $8,000.

But more importantly, it would costs most low and middle income really needed money that they particularly need in uncertain economic times, where it is harder to pick up a second job or harder for a teenage child to get after-school work because of cutbacks all around. You are single, but getting rid of the middle income and lower income tax cuts really hurts married couple or anyone with children getting care. The Brookings numbers and the Joint Committee's numbers (NOT the administration's) are the basis for calculations that a family of four earning $40,000 save about $2,000 a year in taxes, taxes that some candidates (Gephardt, Dean) would raise. And they would still pay the state and local taxes they pay today, and for states where the state taxes are calculated in tandem with federal taxes, they could pay even more.

not a 400 dollar one. I also, due to the shitty economy lost 16k in salary which means I actually got a negative 15k tax cut. But the fact is I will pay for this paltry sum by eating cat food or paying higher taxes in perpetuity. There is no free lunch. Either Kerry will wreck the economy like Bush has, increase interest rates into the statosphere and burn my SS, or tax me to death now via SS taxes to shore up SS. In any of those cases I lose big to give people making over twice as much as I do tax breaks. And, they already pay a lower percentage of taxes than I do.

And I think that degree of hyperbole is counter-productive.
The tax cuts that middle-income and low-income Americans got are not the reason for any of the other conditions to which you refer and not the reason that you consider eating cat food, for which I am really sorry. I am not a Kerry supporter, but I guarantee his plan for bringing America back to prosperity will put you in a better position than anything Bush will ever do AND you will keep the tax cut you got thrown as a gesture when Bush gave his huge tax cuts to his friends. You are mad at the wrong person.
Good luck.

the cat food thing is SS related and I am not going to be on SS. It should be noted that is exactly what our elderly used to do before the advent of SS. My point both then and now is that we are using money from the working poor to finance tax cuts for the upper middle class. Also you are correct on the 400 since it coincided with my cut in pay I didn't have the exact figure on hand but clearly you are correct on that by simple math.

...it's more like "corporations exploiting loopholes in the tax code and the massive breaks for the top 1% are sucking money from the government that should be used to finance programs for the working poor."

the problem with this country is not that the middle class have too much money.

the problem is BUSH INC. and the maladministration's "priorities".

$500 would be a nice piece of cash to someone earning $18K per year. Money is something that is worth more the less you have of it.

And my understanding of the * tax cuts is they are designed for families with kids. I saw some numbers that single people making under $30K actually pay more.

And tax accountants are a luxury that require a nice income to support, as well most tax breaks require that you have some money to activate them (there are very few breaks for lower income people aside from EITC).

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

Sorry, but I gotta disagree.

It's all about perspective, though.

Read "Nickel and Dimed" yet? The author endorses Kucinich, btw...

From Amazon.com:
"Amazon.com's Best of 2001
Essayist and cultural critic Barbara Ehrenreich has always specialized in turning received wisdom on its head with intelligence, clarity, and verve. With some 12 million women being pushed into the labor market by welfare reform, she decided to do some good old-fashioned journalism and find out just how they were going to survive on the wages of the unskilled--at $6 to $7 an hour, only half of what is considered a living wage. So she did what millions of Americans do, she looked for a job and a place to live, worked that job, and tried to make ends meet.

As a waitress in Florida, where her name is suddenly transposed to "girl," trailer trash becomes a demographic category to aspire to with rent at $675 per month. In Maine, where she ends up working as both a cleaning woman and a nursing home assistant, she must first fill out endless pre-employment tests with trick questions such as "Some people work better when they're a little bit high." In Minnesota, she works at Wal-Mart under the repressive surveillance of men and women whose job it is to monitor her behavior for signs of sloth, theft, drug abuse, or worse. She even gets to experience the humiliation of the urine test.

So, do the poor have survival strategies unknown to the middle class? And did Ehrenreich feel the "bracing psychological effects of getting out of the house, as promised by the wonks who brought us welfare reform?" Nah. Even in her best-case scenario, with all the advantages of education, health, a car, and money for first month's rent, she has to work two jobs, seven days a week, and still almost winds up in a shelter. As Ehrenreich points out with her potent combination of humor and outrage, the laws of supply and demand have been reversed. Rental prices skyrocket, but wages never rise. Rather, jobs are so cheap as measured by the pay that workers are encouraged to take as many as they can. Behind those trademark Wal-Mart vests, it turns out, are the borderline homeless. With her characteristic wry wit and her unabashedly liberal bent, Ehrenreich brings the invisible poor out of hiding and, in the process, the world they inhabit--where civil liberties are often ignored and hard work fails to live up to its reputation as the ticket out of poverty. --Lesley Reed --This text refers to the Hardcover edition."


In this article today:
Gains in Wages Expected to Give Economy a Lift

We see the following buried in paragraph 29 (in an article with 30 paragraphs):

"Over all, workers at the very bottom of the income distribution are among the only ones whose hourly wages have trailed inflation recently. Congress has not raised the minimum wage since 1997, and its buying power has been slowly eroded by inflation."

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

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

And when I made income in the range mentioned, I filled out a 1040-EZ (thankfully, that was years ago).

On $18K a year, you most likely :

- Do not have a mortgage
- Have little if any non-reimbursable business expenses
- Have minor charitable contributions
- Have little if any investment income
- Have absolutely NO capital gains or losses
- Etc.

On $18k/year, you are more likely to need that $189 to keep your car running than you are to need it for a tax accountant.

I've made less than 20K recently, and I paid nasty taxes on it. I'm only making 22K now, and will still pay nasty taxes on it.

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

So who you gonna pander to?

advocating this policy admitted that I could take that as an honest answer. But instead they have chosen to lecture Dean supporters on the ideals of fairness and progressive taxation. That, in support of this policy, I can not abide.

That would be 'class warfare'. Easier to dress it up in pretzel logic.

Same reason Bush went around saying he was for shoring up Social Security and whatnot. Only thing is it seems despite Repubs not compromising even when they say they will, that most Democrats really do compromise. Rightward on! March!

The middle class tax cuts are real. And raising taxes on middle class Americans would truly hurt a lot of families.
Kerry and Edwards are saying, I believe, that we need to look first to those who earn a lot, like over $200,000, and if we can, we need to avoid raising taxes on those earning less. Why in the world would you not do that if you could? I am proud of them (one is the candidate I support, the other is not) because they understand what that money means in real terms and they think it is a mistake to raise middle class taxes.
If you can't abide that, well, neither Kerry nor Edwards is your candidate.

Didn't Krugman only endorse keeping the middle class tax cuts because he thought it would be political suicide not to?

Our budget is a disaster, and refusing to recognize that pandering to people making 50-60K isn't really all that responsible doesn't help candidates who are being more politically pragmatic about the issue. We need responsible leadership.

I hope Dennis points out that implementing single-payer healthcare will save Americans who currently help pay for the insurance their employer also pays for around ... what was it... an average $1200 per year for family coverage? I'm sure there's a good range to cover, but he really should whip that figure out.

What was the tax savings again? What could a middle class family save by hammering on their senators & reps for single-payer coverage? Not just premiums -- you've got co-pays, deductibles, etc. -- there's a lot of fat there that is just padding insurance companies' pockets.

Anyway back to the topic I just disagree... we're heading for a fiscal train wreck (to use a cliche) and ignoring it won't make it go away.

I saw someone on C-Span - Washington Journal - this morning, can't remember the name... I should but it escapes me now... anyway he looked at it this way:

Either we deal with the deficit now, and give up the tax cuts we really can't afford for ourselves -- or we keep the tax cuts, or some of them, and let our children worry about paying the deficit later.

I look at it the same way he does; and IIRC that Krugman does... it's 'politically wise' to pander, but present it to the public that way -- you pay or your kids do, with interest -- and I think people will respond. Or maybe that's just me being an idealist. :)

How many people actually had their state taxes go up? I haven't. It's nowhere close to the number of people who pay income tax.

For someone whose state or local taxes have gone up, what is the magic mechanism Dean will use to get them to go back down?

I would like to know just what state you live in. As to your other point. My state lowered taxes virtually every year of Clinton's second term. They have increased them every year of Bush's. Taft, our current governor, was governor for nearly all of those years. Our legislature was Republican then and Republican now. The one, and only, difference is the occupant of the White House and his insane economic policies.

You said either 25 or 38 states had taxes go up. Whether those figures are accurate, I don't know. But if they are, I live in one of the other 25 or 12. lol (Montana)

Now I'm not sure -- it's possible we had a hike in cigarette taxes in there -- is Dean's position that cigarette taxes across America be lowered or eliminated to offset his middle-class tax hike?

People in all 50 states pay income tax, by the way.

:eyes:

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

Dean can't lower state taxes.

and you have the nerve to lecture me on this. In any case that link was labeled, and clearly so, as being incomplete. Two states hadn't even turned in a 2002 budget at the time of that link and we are now in 2003. Thus even more states should be on the list. For example both Washington state and Alabama were not on that list despite high profile very public tax rows.

But some people in some states have had cigarette taxes go up. That is the kind of tax increase Dean supporters are refering to in this argument.

So: what is Dean's plan to offset his middle class tax increase by lowering state and local cigarette taxes, fees, etc.?

in virtually every state under Clinton and have gone up in at least 3/4 of them under Bush. That seems to be a pretty good indicator.

Unless every press outlet in the US is just a pack of liars states cut taxes like crazy under Clinton and last I checked 38 is over 3/4 of 50. I think 3/4 of 50 is 37.5. If I am wrong on that I appologize but I did major in math, I do a lot of math in my head, and I am pretty damn sure of that figure. Hence my statement is true both in that the states cut taxes and that 3/4 of them raised them under Bush. So if you are going to claim I lied here you need to back it up pal.

'...in Montana, where one-third of the school districts fail state accreditation standards, the state ordered an additional $11 million reduction in education financing.'

Bush policies are driving states toward bankruptcy
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2002/broder_engler_2002.shtml

don't give a rat's ass about education. And that article you cite says absolutely nothing about what the actual cuts in federal payments to Montana were. We are just presented with a Republican-inspired education cut at the state level -- and we are supposed to make a leap of faith that cutting the child tax credit, the child care credit, rolling back the 10% bracket, and reinstituting the marriage penalty at the federal level will somehow induce these Republican's to fund education or social services properly? I'm not holding my breath.

Bush Economic Plan would worsen Montana budget crisis by $23 million and cut future job growth

pdf file:
http://www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/Montana_031103_101808.pdf

Montana Impact Analysis: Effects of 2004 Congressional Budget Resolution
http://www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/Montana_042303_080228.pdf

You are mixing up the past, present and the future. lol


And while you are at it, you might want to factor in the fact that ALL THE CANDIDATES AGREE about repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.

In dollar terms, this is far from a minor political scrap. The liberal Washington-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the federal government would take in an additional $2.5 trillion from 2005 to 2012 if all the Bush tax cuts were rolled back. The middle-class provisions (the child-care credit, the new 10% tax bracket and the elimination of the marriage penalty) account for about $686 billion of that total. So, in essence, the Democratic presidential candidates are squabbling over this $686 billion, or 27% of the overall Bush tax cuts.
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031017/5599034s.htm

This isn't a discussion about whether to raise taxes by $2.5 trillion.

ALL THE CANDIDATES AGREE about raising taxes $1.814 trillion on the wealthy.

It's a discussion about whether to raise taxes on the middle-class by $686 billion -- 27% of the Bush tax cut.

So under ALL THE CANDIDATES proposals, federal tax revenues would increase by $1.814 trillion.

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

Obviously the exact figure is just an estimate. The point is, Dean supporters keep trying to muddy the waters by presenting arguments that assume it is about ALL or NOTHING. And it isn't. The majority of the revenue that was lost under the Bush tax cuts will be restored by any of the candidates. Whether it is 1.814 trillion or 1.6 trillion or 2 trillion we don't really know.

But to act as if the decrease in payments to the states by the Feds is due only to the child tax credit, the child care credit, the 10% bracket, and elimination of the marriage penalty is disingenuous. Because that is only a small part of the equation.

original point. The only reason they were discussed is that a fellow poster couldn't phathom how I was paying around 1k in income taxes on 18k in income.

No one is saying that "people making less than 20k should pay higher taxes or have lower benefits in perpetuity to lower the tax burden of those making over 50k".

So asking "Why should people making less than 20k pay higher taxes or have lower benefits in perpetuity to lower the tax burden of those making over 50k?" is meaningless.

You're just trying to distract from the real issue, the real distinction between Gephardt and Dean's tax policy position and Kerry and Edwards' tax policy position.


Gephardt and Dean want to cut the child tax credit, the child care credit, rollback the 10% bracket, and reinstitute the marriage penalty.

Edwards and Kerry don't want to raise these taxes.

That's the difference.

It sounds like you are just upset because you personally don't benefit from the child tax credit, the child care credit, the 10% bracket, or elimination of the marriage penalty.

Right now SS taxes are directly paying for those tax cuts. Those funds come largely from middle and lower middle class earners. In addition every extra year of debt, again a direct consequence of these tax cuts, means an extra year of us not doing anything to solve SS and Medicare. Those programs are far more important to the poor than they are to those upper middle class people who benefit under Kerry and Edward's plan. Everyone of those dollars 'borrowed' from SS is taking it from a 20k tax payer and giving to a mortgage company.

There are so many false premises and assumptions underlying your arguments that they are meaningless.

You need to look at the Edwards and Kerry plans. I don't know Kerry's but if you look at Edwards, you will see that his budget reduces the debt owed to SS.

I agree but in absolute terms that is literally impossible. Even Dean's doesn't do that in the short term. Until, like Clinton did in 99 and 00, we start running surplusses no one's plan will help SS.

Yeah, they have the toughest time in any economy. That's a fact. Increasing their taxes from the 10% bracket to the 15% bracket sure isn't going to help. And local taxes and other expenses are not just going to instantaneously fall because of what happens in D.C. The best that can happen is to let people keep their tax cuts and push the other taxes down, over time, with increased funding and investment. That's what Clinton did and he did it gradually.

As to families earning less than $20,000, with EIC, Child Tax Credit, subsidized health care, LIHEAP, and other programs, they receive plenty of federal benefits and generally pay little federal tax in the first place. Those families with 2 or more children really do often get back all their taxes, Fed & FICA. For every unfairness you list, there's another benefit low income people get that upper income people don't.

We can fund these programs AND keep tax the real tax relief for middle income families. There is no reason to hurt people who are doing well, but aren't rich, when taxing the very wealthy and corporations will accomplish the exact same thing.

they aren't their. I do mention adding to our debt and not solving SS which will devastate those people.

and no double talk.

Does Kerry advocate taking longer to balance the budget than Dean is advocating?

Does SS money currently go to help balance the budget?

Does SS tax come more from families making 20k than those making 70k and more?

All of the following are yes. Thus Kerry is advocating one or more of the following. A) cutting SS benefits in the future B) increasing SS taxes in the future C) some combo of A and B D) running ruinous debts like some sort of banana republic.

Those have the effect of either increasing taxes on or decreasing benefits to people making under 20k to give tax breaks to people making over twice as much. Or in the case of D it has the effect of ruining the economy. You can't do what Kerry is doing without doing atleast one of A thru D.

and no double talk.

Do Dean and Gephardt want to cut the child tax credit, the child care credit, rollback the 10% bracket, and reinstitute the marriage penalty?

Will this raise enough money to balance the budget?

Do Dean or Gephardt explain how they are going to make up the difference?


Yes. No. No.

Thus (according to your 'logic') Dean and Gephardt are advocating one or more of the following. A) cutting SS benefits in the future B) increasing SS taxes in the future C) some combo of A and B D) running ruinous debts like some sort of banana republic.

Those have the effect of either increasing taxes on or decreasing benefits to people making under 20k to give tax breaks to people making over twice as much. Or in the case of D it has the effect of ruining the economy. You can't do what Gephardt and Dean want to do without doing atleast one of A thru D. (At least, according to your 'logic'.)

and since at least Dean is advocating balancing the budget the fastest he is most likely to avoid those consequences. I won't speak to Gephardt due to having no idea what his plan in regards the deficit is.

You don't know about Gephardt's plan...what's Dean's plan? What percentage of the revenue to balance the budget is going to come from repealing the child tax credit, the child care credit, rolling back the 10% bracket, and reinstituting the marriage penalty?

if we don't raise taxes on the middle class?

We know approximately the cost of the tax hikes Dean is proposing -- $686 Billion in higher taxes on the middle class in the first 7 years. Since you are saying the benefit would be balancing the budget sooner -- how much sooner? A year? A month? A day? Does Dean have any idea?

If we knew how much sooner Dean would balance the budget with this tax, we could weigh that benefit against the costs to the middle class. If we don't know the benefit, how can we know if the cost is worth it?

I had my FICA raised back in the 80's to help create a surplus for my SS when I retire. I then had my taxes raised in the 90's which created a surplus that was supposed to go to pay for my SS retirement. George Bush then turned around and gave the bulk of that money to the wealthy. Please explain to me why I should pay it AGAIN???

No, before I agree to another tax increase, Congress is going to get that money back from the corporations and the wealthy and implement a budget and tax policy that is reflective of the economic reality of the workers in this country. I'm going to fight for traditional Democratic values, even if I have to fight the so-called 'Democratic wing' to get them back.

I am merely asking to to return your share of the ill gotten botty that Bush gave you. That is exactly and precisely what Dean is advocating a return to the Clinton rates. And BTW he didn't raise your taxes unless you are in the highest bracket in which case you aren't middle class.

that will somehow magically be offset at the state and local level.

If you look at my post I say no such thing. What I do say is that currently the money for the tax cut is coming directly from SS funds or from borrowing. The first option screws the working poor the second raises interest rates.

I must have moved into a different tax bracket naturally, because my taxes went up. In any event, I still don't think adding to working people's tax burden is the best way to fix the economic problems. If we can put the taxes back on upper income and corporations, and leave the cuts for lower incomes, we'll be moving towards a more progressive tax policy. That is the way to help working people for the long run and that's what I want to do.

then the working poor is funding those tax cuts. It is that simple.

Dean doesn't say how he's going to balance the budget. He doesn't say that cutting the child tax credit, the child care credit, rolling back the 10% bracket, and reinstituting the marriage penalty is going to do it.

Is he going to change his mind again about raising the retirement age? That would save a lot of money. And nothing's more important than balancing the budget. What about cutting Medicare? Maybe Dean's position on that will evolve again.


Just what does Dean plan to cut in his budget-balancing zeal?

I mean you surely didn't puposely leave it out of your discussion.

And how much longer would it take if he didn't want to cut the child tax credit, the child care credit, rollback the 10% bracket, and reinstitute the marriage penalty?

By the way I think removing or raising the cap on payroll taxes is a good proposal. Kerry also says that may be a good idea. I mean you surely didn't puposely leave that fact out of your discussion.

Back to my questions about Dean, what is his plan to balance the budget again? What exactly does he say he plans to cut in order to satisfy his budget-balancing zeal? Food stamps? Medicare co-payments? Veteran's benefits? If balancing the budget is all-important, the money's got to come from somewhere, right?

from the other taxes and from some decreases in growth. I think much will depend on what Congress he gets what he will or won't be able to do in regards to growth.

Is it worth it?

...which will generate massive revenue, then i guess kerry wants to stick it to the lower income bracket. actually, that doesn't even make any sense.

so by the middle class giving up the child credit lower income single people will be better off? totally discounting the $$$ generated by forcing corporations to pay taxes we aren't collecting now because they exploit the tax code, and the rollback of the break to the top 1%?

what?

is not only in both candidates plan but there is no serious economist who thinks it will balance the budget on its own. Closing the corporate loopholes may help if he can get it done and if he decides to go far enough. Many of them are outrageous but that doesn't make them huge revenue losses in the general scheme of things. He hasn't been a model of clarity on this so I have no idea how far he will go in doing this.

Just 'sooner'. How much sooner? Is it worth it?

because every minute of every day of every year we are spending money that belongs to the working poor to prop up the upper middle class. That is unfair.

You have no idea how much sooner because Dean has no idea.

that is ridiculous. the corporations exploiting the tax code and the top 1% who receive huge breaks (and hire tax lawyers who deduct everything down to every meal) are diverting money from the government who could use it for programs that benefit the working poor. blaming it on the middle class is absurd.

could you provide some figures to back up that claim? a link preferably???

i'd like to know how it is the middle class and not corporations, sweet corporate contracts (to companies that are not held accountable for their workers' well-being) and the top 1% tax breaks COMBINED that is more responsible for jilting the working poor.

in your words, "put up or shut up".

SS funds prop up the entire rest of the budget. Everything else is in massive deficit and thus those taxes which are largly from the poor and lower middle class are artificially high and other taxes which hit the rich and the middle class are artificially low (or if you prefer spending is artificially high). No matter how you slice it if one part of the budget which depends on the working poor and the working lower middle class for its revenue is flush while the rest of the budget is in red ink then that part is subsidising each and every part of the budget. SS props up defense, props up corporate welfare, and helped pay for every last tax cut including those middle class ones. When you drive up to mcydees in your car, with your kids, and use part of your paycheck to pay for that sandwich remember your life style is generously subsidized by his SS taxes.

you can pick one single issue out of anyone's platform and say it won't do squat.

there are several groups exploiting tax loopholes, creating offshore accounts and receiving massive breaks. together, when these issues are reversed, they generate revenue.

add to that kerry's job growth plan, combining several sectors including renewable energy and small business, and the economy is going somewhere. when the economy goes somewhere, people make more money. when people make more money, they pay more in taxes.

what is so great about dean's plan anyway? he'll make a few bucks more at the expense of several social programs the lower income bracket benefit from.

by your logic we're screwed regardless.

that is what is so great. It isn't a state secret how to grow a decent economy and clean up the agean stables Bush has left us. Bill Clinton showed us the way and Dean will do the same thing. The only difference is the amount of time which is left which does work against us. The solution there, if needed, is increased immigration.

LOL

(To give Dean the credit he deserves, Vermont did go from a $70 million deficit to a $10 million surplus. That is a good record and shows where Dean's priorities are. But to say "Dean's plan worked before?" lol)

Washington state had a surplus of which little had to do with Governer Locke.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa391.pdf

...the poor got poorer and the rich got richer. the poor paid a higher percentage in taxes than the rich did. the divide between the poor and rich grew wider. what is so great about that? that it balanced the budget? sacrificing quality of living for the very people you claim prop up the entire country in order to balance the budget is a good thing?

i will take kerry's plan to cut the defecit in half in four years while raising the standard of living for the poor and middle class rather than sacrificing them while obsessing over the budget.

Moving the top tax bracket to 39.6% goes a long way. Taking an additional 4.6% off Dick Grasso's salary will add $6.8 million to federal revenue. Saddling the middle class with more taxes doesn't help considering their marginal propensity to spend.

sorry but dean is going to have to come up with a better policy than "hey, tell me what dubya did on that one; i'll do the exact opposite!"

on economics is to do what Clinton did not the opposite of what Bush did. In fairness those wind up being the same thing but that isn't necessarily or forever the case.

kerry is advocating strong overhaul of the tax code so corporations don't exploit the system and set up offshore accounts and avoid paing taxes = $$$$$$$$$$$

he is also going to roll back the tax cuts on the upper class because they can afford it = $$$$$

in dean's vermont the lower class paid a higher percentage in taxes than the upper income bracket. the disparity between upper-lower income grew wider. i don't think we need that "plan" right now.

keeping the child tax credit and not reinstating the marriage penalty is part of a broader plan; with the revenue from the corporate and upper income tax brackets in addition to his detailed plan on creating renewable energy sites here in the you.s., exporting that technology as well, boosts to start and maintain small business and a plan for those willing to work to earn money for college through public service = an economic environment of stability that is upwardly mobile. the only people who are going to bitch are about 1% of the population. woopdedoo.

kerry's tax plan can't be separated from his entire economic growth stimulus plan; his goal is to cut the defecit in half in his first term while raising the standard of living. it is more important to reverse the climate of despair and corporate cronyism than to obsess over balancing the budget in record time.

1. After reading all the posts it seems to me that your basic preference for Dean's plan rests on balancing the budget faster. I agree that we have to get to a balanced budget, but once you have debt of this magnitude, if you do it too fast then you hurt people on the lower end. The number of the effect of Kerry and Dean's plans is like 82% restored to 85%. That difference is not enough to make the argument that we must take away the paltry amount that certain people got in order to balance the budget maybe a year sooner.

2. I am more on the brink of financial disaster making over 50k, married with 2 kids than I ever was unmarried, childless and making 18k. It costs a lot to have kids.

3. It is unfair that people in the lower end do not get the increased CTC. Kerry is not at fault for this. It would be part of his plan to make this fair.

By the way, Kerry's example was two people making 35K each, or one making 50K and the other making 20K.

These aren't rich people. This is a teacher in her 5th year of teaching and a husband working in a grocery store.

One thing Republicans do is that they try to make people who make middle class incomes ignorantly identify with a class way richer.

A person making 50-150K a year, all from earned income, has practically ZERO political and economic interests in common with a person who makes 500K a year mostly from capital gains from the sale of stock, and from dividend income and inheritance or trust funds.

You have identified one of the most insidious of the Republican spins. Potent also because it taps into the American Dream of upward mobility.

those people, making 3 to 4 times as much as a 20k worker, are getting subidized by that worker. You can spin, fold, and mutilate that till the cows come home and give birth to aliens but that is the case.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/assets.html

Assets at the end of December 1986 were about $47 billion; by the end of June 2003, assets totaled about $1,474 billion.

Now using that June figure and the following derived interest rate. Total debt $6,228 billion, interest on that debt 318 billion. That is between 4 and 5% I'll use the lower figure. $1,474 billion * 0.04 = $58.96 billion. That is the amount in interest from just the prior robbing of SS.

Added to that we need to find this years surpluss (I used the intermediate figure from this link)

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR02/II_project.html#77635

That figure is $188 billion. We now get $246.96 billion in total SS surplusses this year alone. Our current deficit was $374 billion.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/26/politics/main570166.shtml

Our real deficit is $620.96 billion. In other words we are borrowing over a third of our total borrowing from working class people and by delaying paying that money back we are making it increasingly likely we won't ever be able to. Can Dean's plan fix this horrid mess? I don't know but if it can't then Kerry's definately can't either. All remarks about cat food aside we owe our elderly and future elderly poor better than this. While I don't see why working poor young people should be paying for the rich elderly to get medical care I also fail to see why current or future poor elderly ought to pay for tax cuts they have no hope of ever getting.

Yeah, the system's messed up. Does anyone deny that?

So the middle-class tax hikes Dean is proposing - how critical are these for making things better? You've said all they will do is allow the budget to be balanced 'sooner'.


HOW MUCH SOONER?

and neither is Dean. The short answer is well over half a trillion dollars sooner as that is the cost of the cuts (646 billion if I recall I did enough searching someone else can find the precise amount). It is now less than 40 years before those SS surplusses become SS deficits. Dean is saying he will balance the budget in year 5 (I think) Kerry is saying he won't even after year 8. That is three years difference plus whatever time Kerry would have his sucessor take to get rid of the second half. That is nearly a tenth, if not more than a tenth, of the time we have left. We can't afford that. We just can't. Maybe you don't need SS. I don't either but only due to being in a different system. Most people in the financial situation I am currently in need SS more than anything else.

No amount of shoring up SS with trust funds will ever work if those trust funds are used to give tax cuts or fund services. That is true if the cuts go to school teachers, fireman, or CEO's. If Kerry or anyone else runs debts for eight years after Bush is ousted then his sucessor will have only 28 years to pay down enough debt to permit us to fund SS for seniors without increasing taxes on current workers. Again this is a program which greatly helps the poor and lower middle classes, it also derives a lot of taxes from those groups. Stopping stealing from those people, no matter what purpose we put those gains to, should be just about our highest priority.

Stopping stealing from those people

You sound more like you are talking to Bush than a fellow democrat. There is no democrat who wants to dump the idea of SS solvency.

for a relatively short time. Reagan and Congress came to a deal to create one in the 1980's. Since then only Republicans have been doing the stealing. Clinton put a stop to it as soon as he could. I think the next Democrat should do the same. That is one, though hardly the only, reason I support Dean.

on ss solvency. Democrats have spoken at length in the Congress about not using the trust fund. Remember the "Lock Box". It was a national joke, but it was democrats making the attempt. They just have no ability, without shutting down the government, to stop the repuns from spending the money. Also Clinton did do what you say, but only after a slower return to balanced budget, so as not to balance the budget on the middle class. I know that Kerry is also talking about this. Can't speak to specifics on the others.

It is just not the case that Dean is the only one with this as a priority

People are supposed to vote to raise their own taxes, and their motivation will be "It might help balance the budget, but we don't know how much it will help?"

If you are saying this tax hike is needed in order to balance the budget sooner, and you don't know how much sooner it will be balanced because of this tax hike -- what you are saying is, you don't know if it's needed or not.

Clinton's plan was supposed to take 7 years it took 4 instead. But it will take less time (Dean is estimating that it will take him five years) since your candidate refuses to say when he will balance the budget I can't say how much less time that is. Just like I can't say what the difference between our ages is since I don't know your age.

but it's absolutely neccesary.

your candidate won't give me a specific date. And since Dean is promising to balance with removal of the cut and I don't have his plan in enough detail I can't work backward from his plan. If you are that interested find out what Dean's deficts will be in each year. The last 646 billion of total deficit will equal the amount of time he saves by ending those cuts. My guess is that would be between 2 and 3 years. But that is only a guess.

You have NO IDEA how much the middle-class tax hike will help -
but it's absolutely necessary.

which is more than you candidate will do. If your candidate would actually tell us when he intended to balance the budget I could do better. Maybe you need to badger him.

if he wants to get elected. And the only reason you've given as to why it is necessary is that it will allow the budget to be balanced 'sooner'. How much sooner, no one knows.

You seem to believe that is a convincing argument.

I guess we'll find out at the ballot box.

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

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

With thanks to Eloriel who found it and posted it in GD. Used with her permission.

This is an astounding figure and frankly far worse then even I thought. Rest assured that virtually none of these 88% is exempt from SS taxes and thus are being stolen from to the tune of way more than $4 to pay for them. This is truely scandalous. BTW this year refers to 2003 and thus includes the child tax credit but not the bracket tax cut.

You keep trying to mix the two issues -- which would work if Dean were running against Bush -- he's not. He's running against a bunch of candidates who agree about repealing 73% of those tax cuts.

We are talking about massive amounts of money, and very few people. That is the part all we Democrats agree on.

The other part, the taxes Dean and Gephardt want to raise, we are talking massive numbers of people, and a relatively small amount of money for each person. At least in terms of the federal budget. Not so small in the impact on the lives of a family of four living on $70k.

framing the issue the way you do, we will keep reminding you of that fact.

Why can the two not be separated?

That statement seems nonsensical.


I could say that the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban, for example, 'can't be separated'. But just saying something doesn't make it true.

In fact, Kerry and Edwards do indeed support repealing the tax cut on the wealthy, and do not support raising taxes on the middle class. So since in the real world, they are two separate issues, both of which Dean and Gephardt support, and only one of which Kerry and Edwards support, how do you justify your statement that they can't be separated?


Please explain.

That would seem to increase the amount this middle class voter pays.

Not the cuts that were passed back in 2001.

Why in the hell should someone pay taxes when they can't even afford good housing, health insurance, food, clothing, utilities, etc etc???