Dean's ideas on taxes are just wrong

[bluestateguy]

There are many reasons why Howard Dean is losing steam in this campaign. I think his stance on taxes may be coming home to roost. Dean favors repeal of all tax cuts, which, bottom line will mean that working people will have to pay more in taxes than they do now. First of all, this is an argument that we cannot possibly win, but it is also wrong as a matter of policy: why should working men and women be forced to pay for George W. Bush's mistakes? I make only $21,000 a year, and having to pay another $300 in taxes would be a pinch in my budget. I didn't vote for Bush and I should nto have to pay for his screwups. On the other hand, well-to-do people have done quite well over the last year or two and can afford to have their taxes go back up to where they were in 2000. Democrats can win that argument: that the tax cuts should be repealed for the top 2 % only. I think many Democratic voters are starting to realize that Dean's ideas on taxes are a political non-starter that will only result in them paying more.

[jenk]

1. that really hurt Gephardt too

nobody wants to vote for a middle class tax increase.

[dsc]

2. You pay either way

and are far worse off without the increase. SS will go bankrupt at the rate we are going. You, with that low income, are way more dependent on SS, than the wealthy. Or put another way. You currently pay $1575 in SS taxes which are put at greatly increased risk to give you that $300. You lose $1275 under that senario.

[AP]

4. No you don't. The size of total tax revenues/defecit influences the ....

... economy. However, there is NO law of economics which says you have to tax the middle class in a way that gives them a higher relative tax burden than the wealth, or the economy goes to pot.

It's a false dichotomy, which Dean promotes even when he must know it's dumb and it's killing him.

The problem with the tax code is more than that it doesn't raise enough money. The problem with it is that it produces incentives which actually shrink the economy. It discourages work, and it encourages economic activities which do damage to the economy (mostly involving the concentration of huge amounts of money in the hands of few who then can get the government to protect them from having to compete).

Not only should the tax burden be allocated more fairly, but, if it is, it will probably grow the economcy by virtue of the reallocation alone (it will create incentives for productive wealth, rather than undproductive wealth).

Don't believe me? Read Wealth and Democracy.

Why Dean holds such and awful, conservative attitude towards tax policy is one of the most fascinating mysteries of the campaign.

[dsc]

8. Now that you have answered something I didn't say

let me try again. We are looting the SS fund to pay for these tax cuts. THat looting puts $1575 paid by that tax payer (7.5% of 21k) at risk of almost certain bankrupcy. If that happens he loses $1275. Care to try answering what I actually wrote?

[AP]

9. Herbert Hoover also asked the middle class to bear a disproportionate

percentage of the tax burden to pay for government. Society crumbled under the weight of asking the middle class and working class to contribute so much.

It's all about allocation. Allocate less of the burden on the middle class (stop this 30 year trend). Allocate more on money earned other ways than labor (dividend income, cap gains, etc.)

You may want to talk about something else, but that's what you should be talking about.

[dsc]

14. and you are advocating the working poor doing so

As long as we are running debt the people paying are the poor. That is unfair.

[AP]

17. The working poor get the EIC. Republicans have created a permanent

underclass to dirve wages down -- the working poor.

Their next target is making the middle class working poor too. Dean's tax policies don't counter the Republican attacks on the middle class.

[dsc]

20. Not all of us do

I would get less than $10 in EIC. I don't apply due to not wanting to be audited.

[AP]

23. Regardless of what you do, it's almost a fact that Republicans and the tax

code do a decent job of creating a huge underclass which can keep their head just enough above water so that they can drive down wages for the middle class.

[Andromeda]

80. Dean will not raise taxes on the middle class.

Dean wants to repeal all the Bush tax cuts which mostly benefitted the wealthy anyway.

THE MIDDLE CLASS DID NOT GET A TAX CUT. PERIOD. The middle class got $305---that's all! And that was just an advance on their tax returns. I wish people like you and other people who are probably in the higher income brackets would realize that. The middle class will not have to pay more in taxes. Nada, zilch, capoot!

Dean wants to return to the same tax level that existed when Clinton was president.

When the Bush tax cuts are repealed, THEN and only then will the middle class see a tremendous benefit. That will be HEALTH CARE. Health Care has to be paid for somehow and what better way than to repeal Bushes tax cuts.

The middle class are paying MORE taxes now than ever before---and this doesn't just mean income tax. There are car taxes, property taxes, gas tax, etc., etc., etc.,. We pay more taxes disproportionately that any other group. We're not poor enough to get any breaks and we're not rich enough to get any write-offs. In other words, we're SCREWED, big time.

Right now, you are talking about details such as allocations, dividend income, capital gains and other stuff that don't have anything to do with what Dean is talking about. Dean is talking about a progressive tax that would take the burden OFF the middle class. All the details will have to be worked out but I have every faith that Dean knows what he is doing.

The only thing I agree with you on is that the middle class is breaking under the strain. This has been just since BUSH has been president and under him it won't get any better.

The deficit is growing bigger and bigger and I haven't heard ANY of the other candidates address that. Reducing the deficit should be the first and foremost thing that is done to protect the US ecomony because if we don't we won't have S.S. anymore and millions of elderly people will be living on the street. Their Medicare will be gobbled up by the private insurance companies who will pick and choose which elders will receive health care and which ones won't.

This is not an America I want my children and grandchildren to inherit.

[Valjean]

18. Republicans call that ...

The problem with the tax code is more than that it doesn't raise enough money. The problem with it is that it produces incentives which actually shrink the economy. It discourages work, and it encourages economic activities which do damage to the economy (mostly involving the concentration of huge amounts of money in the hands of few who then can get the government to protect them from having to compete).


Republicans call that "investing".

Losing your job because of outsourcing is called "competition".

Shutting down thousands of factories across the nation is called "efficiency".


I would love to see all these "wise" economists lose THEIR jobs. And then we will see how their definitions change.

BTW, Greenspan sucks because high employment and good wages are called "inflation" in his book. No, we must FIGHT THAT at ALL costs.

[flaminbats]

24. Least we agree on something...

Not only should the tax burden be allocated more fairly, but, if it is, it will probably grow the economcy by virtue of the reallocation alone (it will create incentives for productive wealth, rather than undproductive wealth).

Don't believe me? Read Wealth and Democracy.

I'm afraid this is where our agreement ends.

The problem with the tax code is more than that it doesn't raise enough money. The problem with it is that it produces incentives which actually shrink the economy. It discourages work, and it encourages economic activities which do damage to the economy (mostly involving the concentration of huge amounts of money in the hands of few who then can get the government to protect them from having to compete).

Last I heard one must make money to pay taxes, so it would be insanity to believe someone would avoid work just to not pay taxes! And just because the taxcode doesn't raise enough money, doesn't mean that it can't raise enough...as Clinton demonstrated well while in office...

"there is NO law of economics which says you have to tax the middle class in a way that gives them a higher relative tax burden than the wealth, or the economy goes to pot."

I agree, but it is also generally excepted across the world that the middle class is the source of our economic strength in America. We shouldn't give them unfair treatment, but neither should we exclude them of sharing this burden!

However, there is NO law of economics which says you have to tax the middle class in a way that gives them a higher relative tax burden than the wealth, or the economy goes to pot.

It's a false dichotomy, and misleading to suggest that Dean is in favor of having the middleclass pay more in taxes than the that the wealthy. Secondly, if a Democrat wins...they will either eat this bs about taxcuts, as Clinton did, or cave in to the eager repukes. I wonder which Edwards would do?

[AP]

28. The tax code encoruages certain activities by making them more valuable

than others.

It' makes labour the most expensive by taxing it the hightes. It's gradually making marrying wealthy the best way to get rich, and it currently makes equity ownership and stock options pretty good ways to make money (which is not an option to 99.5% of employees in America).

With the tax code we encourage some of the least productive ways to transfer money, and discourage the most socially valuable (labor).

It's not that people avoid work. It's that we make life harder for people who work for a living. How do we expect that engine of economic growth to work productively when it's worried that it won't make the next mortgage payment, or if it can't leave for a better job, or get more training becuase it's too much of a risk and it doesn't have the savings to invest in its future?

I'm not saying anything crazy here.

The rest of what you wrote is just an attempt to bolster Dean's credibility and I've already addressed it.

[flaminbats]

35. GOOD LORD, you really must put some flavour unto that colourful English!!!

Suggesting that we should spend more than $300 billion a year in borrowed money does sound...rather topsey turvy ta me mate!

It' makes labour the most expensive by taxing it the hightes. It's gradually making marrying wealthy the best way to get rich, and it currently makes equity ownership and stock options pretty good ways to make money (which is not an option to 99.5% of employees in America).

With the tax code we encourage some of the least productive ways to transfer money, and discourage the most socially valuable (labor).

It's not that people avoid work. It's that we make life harder for people who work for a living. How do we expect that engine of economic growth to work productively when it's worried that it won't make the next mortgage payment, or if it can't leave for a better job, or get more training becuase it's too much of a risk and it doesn't have the savings to invest in its future?

How do taxes make labouur more expensive? Most patriotic American's see taxes as the means of maintaining law and order, protecting our freedom, providing basic services, and to pay for those wars which Edwards supported. You seem to have the notion that taxes under Clinton were regressive, but those of us loyal Democrats remember quite distinctly it was the fat...rich re pukes who whined the loudest. Taxes are an unnecessary evil, but having them written based on the code of the Clinton years was both progressive and sufficient to bring in surplusses..a successful combination. This is much better than the alternative, that babyboomers being supported by those with insufficient education or work-skills to get jobs...in addition to a growing tax burden on everyone, that will go to benefit very few. This will not only increase the cries of class warfare, but it may drive a wedge between the different generations.

[AP]

38. How do higher tax rates on earned income make labour worth

less than, say, buying/selling assets, or living off investments or inheriting wealht in about 6 years, which are taxed at much lower rates?

You don't know?

Psst. The answer is in the question.

Go back 30 years. In no later year is the tax code more progressive than it was in an earlier year, except maybe in '94. However, the REpublicans found work-arounds to even that tax code.

The tax burden has steadily moved off people who don't work for a living and on to people who do. Are you really challenging that?

[flaminbats]

50. 30 years would be 1974.

We had graduated rates then, which were more progressive...by providing a smaller transition from rate to rate, and there were around 10 rates used for calculating a person's tax burden. This beats the 5 we have today.

"The tax burden has steadily moved off people who don't work for a living and on to people who do. Are you really challenging that?"

No, I am really giving a cause of this. These causes included more government spending to create Tom Ridge's useless department, more spending for the Iraqi Wars, and more spending used to pay the interest on the national debt. It also means less spending for education, less for health-care, less for infrastructure, and less for protecting out nation from its greatest threats..this is hurting the middleclass the most, when the government is unable to its job. This means that the middle-class will continue to be hurt until we completely repeal the tax-cuts, completely withdraw from Iraq, and make the necessary cuts in military spending to fund universal health-care coverage..which is a top issue among middleclass voters.

Tax cuts will provide only token help with their overpriced power bills and will not keep a worker out of debt with enormous health-care problems. What these people need is the power of the government to regulate the utilities and to provide health insurance that cannot turn anyone down! Just as Bill Clinton pointed out about the middleclass tax cut, which he would eventually dump, it was more of a social policy statement than a real economic proposal. Clinton added this to give his message some flavour, but would have never won if he had not focused on health-care reform, deficit reduction, or his education and Americorp proposals.

[AP]

53. That's what I'm saying: more progressive in 74. Steadily less

so in every year since.

And this didn't start the day that Tom Ridge needed money for anything, And in fact doesn't have as much to do with where it's spend as it does with where it comes from. It comes from the middle class, disproportionately.

Here's something that will clear this up for you: Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips. Another suggestion: listen to John Edwards's stump speech.

[flaminbats]

57. Hell man, I read that when I was 14!

Can't you suggest something interesting, like "The Work of Nations"..by Robert Reich? That was a hell of alot more up to date, than was Phillip's book from doomsday...

One thing Phillip's book doesn't go into, how deficit spending began to increase during the Nixon years. The only breaks we've had since then have been Carter and Clinton. But you haven't discussed how deficit spending provides huge profits for the upper classes ie (American dynasty), at the expense of most average taxpayers. We pay the amount and the interest with our tax-dollars, and the fucking bondholders make the profits. This is class warfare using our taxmoney...that is if you really even care?

[AP]

61. So you're 16? That book came out two years ago.

So, uhm, you want to stand by your assertion there in the second the paragraph?

Why don't you pick up the book, read it, and then we'll talk.

[flaminbats]

69. -228, actually...

I still preying that you good stewards of the Earth shall leave me a country, a environment , and a better place for when I'm born. ;) But then again...maybe I should hold my breath.

Didn't Phillip write something back in the sixties or seventies?

[AP]

44. If you don't believe me that deficit spending during tough

times on investments in future productivity is bad, just read the Rubin quote below, which, ahem, I think was mistakenly intended to bolster Dean's credibility.

And remind me again why giving money away to Bechtel and Halliburton in order to balance the budget is a good idea?

[flaminbats]

54. Yes...I believe you.

And if you think times are tough...just wait and see pal!

The point is that when looking at the debt, economists always look at it compared to GDP. What they don't meantion is what happens when a third or half the workforce retires, what happens to the economy and the debt?

To me this is a nightmare scenerio, but one we must prepare for now. Taxes are a tiny percentage of GDP compared to what they were in the 50's..when our economy boomed. We could just repeal shrub's taxcuts, and my hope is that we would begin to see surplusses. This much is certain, without surplusses a national healthcare program is unlikely...and without the money to pay down the deficit and fund new programs, we may have to raise taxes..not just repeal some hokey repuke taxcuts.

[AP]

56. We now have a polarization of wealth that matches the polarization

on the eve of the Great Depression. It's not just the polarization of wealth that is similar.

Hoower did what Dean suggests, and we went into the depression.

Also what I'm saying is that, to get the allocation of the tax burden aligned in a way that will help the economy -- if you want to increas reveue 25-50%, it might very well be possible that you could still lower marginal rates on most income brackts (and raise rates on cap gains, dividends, and CLOSE CORPORATE LOOPHOLES and get a CORPORATIN ALT MIN INC TAX).

You know that corporations have inverted their contribution to the tax base? It's gone from 80% to 20%, I beleive. And what did they get? A commensurate quadrupling of the largest corporations' influence on politics and culture.

In fact, I bet you could raise tax revenues by 200% and get all the money from corporations (and income from coporate activities -- cap gains on stock sales and dividends) before you'd have to ask the middle class to pay more on their earned income.

I think Dean knows this, but I think he thinks that America should be in the business of coddling Wall St.

[flaminbats]

58. Mind if I pose a personal question?

suppose Edwards does win, do you really think he will pass legislation to extend the tax-cuts...or ditch it in favor of reducing the deficit?

It's fun to discuss Adam Smith and Kevin Phillips, but now what will we do in this real world? Will you be pissed if Edwards agrees to oppose or veto any legislation that extends those taxcuts, call him a commie traitor, demand that he switches parties?

To be honest that is how it will happen. Repukes won't agree to closing loopholes, and most Congressional Democrats will oppose an extension. So until Democrats retake Congress, Edwards will have to use the veto pen to stop this...or else give in, like he did on tort reform!

[AP]

62. I have no doubt he'll do what he says he's going to do -- raise taxes

on forms of unearned income, roll back tax cuts on incomes over 200K, and collect more cash from corporations.

Edwards is a very persuasive speaker. I'm sure he'll convince congress to do what he says.

"These are not the droids you're looking for..."

Know what I mean?

[flaminbats]

67. That's no answer! ohhh please raise these upper rates for me T. Delay!!!

He might be able to do this with a Democratic Congress, but raising rates with votes from a Republican Congress...Get Real! If Clinton was a better public speaker, but this didn't help him with nuts like Newt Gingrich or Trent Lott.

Again, when Edwards finds that his only option in the Repuke Congress his to veto the extension for all of the tax cuts, how will you feel?

[AP]

82. You're right. That's not an answer I gave. Edwards isn't proposing that.

Probably because he knows he couldn't get it to pass.

[no name no slogan]

51. SS WILL NOT go bankrupt-- that's a RW myth/talking point

...they've used to justify privatizing the whole thing.

The Social Security system, as it currently stands (with the "pay as you go" system), will remain fiscally sound until 2041, according to most recent projections. At that point, it will have to tap into its reserves to start paying out benefits.

This source, although slightly dated, still contains a good analysis of what's "wrong" with SS and how to "fix" it.

[evil_orange_cat]

3. Dean is right, it's public conception of the tax cuts is wrong...

sure, Deans revokation of the tax cuts would mean everyone paying a little more in taxes... but the savings with lowered health care, lower state and local taxes, and lower education costs... not to mention job growth... would mean that repealing the tax cuts would NOT cost Americans more money.

But the media won't propagate the REAL version of what repealing the tax cuts means. They will latch on to Bush's version of things. Kerry, and the other candidates who don't want to repeal all the cuts, simply recognize that the public is too misinformed about the tax situation and are taking a position more popular and in line with the public's misconceptions.

[AP]

5. The last 30 years have been remarkable in that they've shifted the burden

on paying taxes down the income scale. Dean has no interest in reversing this trend.

[evil_orange_cat]

12. repealing Bush tax cuts would be a great first step ;)

but I agree there are no real progressives to pick from...

[libview]

33. so your saying if Dean raises everyones taxes,

state and local governments will give everyone a tax cut?
ya....right
Dean will never be elected president by promising to raise everyones taxes.

[quaker bill]

6. No his ideas are correct, but perhaps unpopular.

With the current tax code, money for spending on discretionary social programs will dry up in just a few years.

This was always the repugs intent and they have things set up now so this will happen on it's own. Federal Debt service will increase as a portion of the budget every year. Soon the boomers will retire and revenues will drop relative to expenditure for entitled benefits.

The system has been set up for failure and not by accident.

Either we figure out how to afford a bit more in taxes or federal funds for schools, helping the poor, building libraries and colleges, and on and on funds for this will just dry up.

Anyone can profess a belief in the common good, it is a rare politician that will ask us to pay some taxes for it.

[AP]

7. His ideas are defnitely not correct, and he actually uses a very conserva-

tive tactic to confuse voters into supporting them.

He wants middle class voters to think they're upper middle class. He says, look, we're asking the rich to give back their cuts, so you have to too. M'kay? He's conflating class identity to get the middle class to accept their hurt.

The fact is, the rich (especially big corporations and people who make money from them) have been doing better tax-wise every year since 1973, and the middle class has been getting screwed more and more every year.

98-00 may have seemed like great years, but the rich still made off like bandits and got a disporportionate % of the benefits (where do you think they got the power to buy themselves a Bush gov't in the face of democratic opposition?).

Dean saying that we should go back to 00, like it was the halcyon days of tax fairness is beyond laughable. It's dangerous for democracy.

You want to hear a Democrat who's CORRECT about taxes? Listen to ANY of the other remaining Democrats.

[papau]

10. combined with Dean refundable payroll tax credit on FIT - and it is not

an increase in taxes on the middle class and poor.

But I'd like Dean's refundable payroll SS tax tax credit that is to be announced - at least I'm told it is to be announced - combined with Kerry or Clark FIT change.

[AP]

19. Until I actually SEE something from Dean about this, I can't comment on

it.

[UGABrother]

11. I disagree about Dean's tactics

"He wants middle class voters to think they're upper middle class. He says, look, we're asking the rich to give back their cuts, so you have to too. M'kay? He's conflating class identity to get the middle class to accept their hurt."

I haven't heard that speech. Usually what he argues is that the middle class is actually paying more under Bush's tax plan because of the rising costs of healthcare,college tuition, etc..

However, I think it's unlikely that this nuance would be clear to the majority of Americans watching a Dean/Bush debate. Repealing the tax cuts for upper income brackets and corporations is the most important thing for now, and luckily most of the candidates seem to favor this.

[ozone_man]

13. The tax cuts are a tax increase to our children.

You want to hear a Democrat who's CORRECT about taxes? Listen to ANY of the other remaining Democrats.

Most economists will disagree with you. Deficits matter alot. Greenspahn has said this many times, Rubin, O'Neill, etc..

Dean is not talking about balancing the budget immediately, but reigning it in. We must get rid of the Bush tax cut, which was predominately a tax cut for the rich, to do this and at the same time start health care and education programs, without threatening the demise of Social Security. Dean is the only one speaking the truth out there. The rest are no different than Bush. The deficits will kill us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=328154&mesg_id=328154

Here's a clip from mad_as_hell's post:

Eisenhauer:

""I repeat, this budget will be a balanced one... The amount of income over outgo, described in the budget as a Surplus, to be applied against our national debt, is 4 billion 2 hundred million. Personally, I do not feel that any amount can be properly called a "Surplus" as long as the nation is in debt. I prefer to think of such an item as "reduction on our children's inherited mortgage." Once we have established such payments as normal practice, we can profitably make improvements in our tax structure and thereby truly reduce the heavy burdens of taxation. ""

[AP]

21. "most economists" -- Krugman doesn't agree with Dean.

And Krugman rarely talks about the allocation of the tax burden.

Clinton doesn't even agree with Dean. He said 'Democrats agree that you deficit spend in times of trouble."

[ozone_man]

25. Robert Rubin was Clinton's Treasury Secretary.

He is very aware of the dangers involved. IIRC he has a book out that may explain his positions.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/13/news/economy/rubin.reut/

Rubin again warns on deficits

Former Treasury Secretary warns of 'very severe, seriously threatening' economic impact
January 13, 2004: 2:48 PM EST

<clip>

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Large and mounting U.S. budget deficits pose "a very substantial risk" to the economy, in part by raising the chance of a sharp dollar drop, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin warned Tuesday.

"I think there is a very substantial risk ... you could have a very severe and seriously threatening set of economic impacts," if the United States does not shift its fiscal course, Rubin said in a conference call with reporters.

<clip>

Deficit spending in times of trouble is only acceptable if it is used to restore the economy. That means creating jobs, health care (so that people can work), education benefits (future jobs), etc..

Dean is for taking away the tax cut for the rich and I think his payroll tax modifications will help the lower and middle class. The main point is that all the other candidates are reckless deficit spenders and that will prevent investment in our country because we will be paying interest on our debt. It really is a simple concept, if you spend more than you earn, you will have to pay dearly for it down the road. Probably most people have experienced the hardships caused by running up credit card bills carelessly, and then servicing the debt with interest payments that often do not even reduce the principal. This is what we are headed into. Rubin sees that by 2010 we will be there.

[AP]

31. Deficits during good times: bad. During bad times: necessary.

Notice that Dean wouldn't even run deficits in the circumstances in which Rubin says they're required.

Also, remember Dean said that the 87 bil Iraq allocation was OK if the budget was balanced.

So, basically, he's saying it's OK to give taxpayer money to Bechtel and Halliburton, and he'll do it if he needs to do it to balance the budget.

[quaker bill]

37. I am sorry, deny it as you wish, but the fiscal crisis is real.

We remain the least taxed western industrial economy. You are conflating popularity with propriety.

Tax cuts are a republican meme.

"If given a choice between voting for a republican and a democrat running as a republican, people will vote for the republican every time" Harry Truman

My county is 2 billion dollars behind in school construction. It is not alone. (because of tax cuts)

People have been cut from benefits (150,000 poor kids off health insurance, in Fla. for instance) because of tax cuts

Child protective services have been cut and 750+ positions that would be protecting kids from abuse remain unfilled. (because of tax cuts)

Public libraries have closed branches and cut back on hours (because of tax cuts)

Exactly 4 people are doing enforcement of federal wetlands protection for the entire State of Florida (and one has been mobilized to Iraq) because of tax cuts.

The list goes on and on. If you want services, you simply have to pay for them. I agree, lets make it more progressive, but everyone not in poverty needs to pay.

The long term budget deficit under the Bush* tax plan adds up to 44 Trillion dollars. Policies of the other candidates might cut this back to a debt of 25 Trillion or so. That is still a very large unpaid bill to leave your kids.

No watered down republicanism for me thanks.

[AP]

41. Yes, we're the least taxed country on earth. And we produce

a TON of wealth for people at the top, and it's not taxed, and we have a more polarized distribution of wealth in our country than at any time in our history. It's on par with the polarization of wealth just before the depression (and it wasn't a coincidence then, and it isn't now).

We have a more polarized distribution of wealth than Europe had in the waning days of the aristocracy (again, no coincidence).

You're not going to save the economy by asking the middle class serfs to turn over more of their wealth eanred from the labors, just because you're not willing to get it from inheritance, dividend income and capitol gains.

Labor is the source of all wealth, and we're wrapping a harness arround it and saying, you, labor, you're going to work the hardest to pull us out of the mess.

Hooever did that. It didn't work.

[quaker bill]

46. I agree with a more progressive tax system.

I also feel that Dean is right in that the greatest injustice in the Bush* tax plan is to lay off to future generations the expenses of today.

Everyone above poverty needs to pay taxes. I would be quite happy to see all of the taxes on something like the first +/- 20 thousand eliminated (payroll included). I would be quite happy as a middle class earner to pay more to make up the difference.

[AP]

48. We've already pushed the costs into the future. But the future

isn't a monolithic single-economic class. You have to pay back today's loan in the future, and how you pay it back in the future is just as important as how you pay it back now. You have to ALLOCATE the burden on people in a way that reflects who's getting the benefits. The rich are getting all the benefits, and the middle class almost none.

I too think I should pay more than someone benefitting less. But I think someone benefitting more, should have to pay a bigger burden in exchange for their huge benefits.

The fact is, America is turning into an increasingly tall pyramid of wealth with a few people at the top and not all that much mobility for people at the bottom. The people at the top are not being asked to do very much in exchange for this pyramid the Republicans have given them.

[quaker bill]

59. Yes we have pushed costs into the future

But most candidates are proposing plans that will only continue this. You are correct that the future is not a monolith, and niether is the present. We are the richest and least taxed western industrialized economy now.

On what earthly basis does it become moral to pass our expenses on to future generations? Most parents want to leave their kids some cash rather than a credit card charged out to the limit.

I have no problem with taxes that lean heavily on the rich. As the Bush* tax cut overwhelmingly benefitted the rich. Repealing it entirely will result in a substantially more progressive tax plan.

As I recall when we were all together(?) opposing the Bush* plan in 2000 it was because 80 percent of the benefit went to the top 1 percent. Would that not imply that repealing it would result in 80 percent of the increased revenue coming from the top 1 percent? Sounds progressive enough for me.

I think everyone here supports progressive programs to intended cure social injustice. Are we prepared to support them with our cash or only words? Are supporters of these programs only 'electable' if someone else is paying?

As no one proposes ending all taxes on the poor, I will support Dean because at least he is proposing to stop stealing their payroll taxes to support general fund expenditures, you know like adding another 40,000 soldiers. (10,000 soldiers = */-1.2 billion a year)

[AP]

64. It's moral to pass costs into the future when you're making an invesment

in a wealthier future. Individuals do this all the time. You take out a school, car loand or a mortgage today so that tomorrow you're wealthier.

Also you're 80% thing -- it wasn't all that progressive in 2000.

During the '90s the top quintile got 150% wealthier, and their tax effective tax rate was cut in half. Their effective tax rate should have stayed steady.

All the other quintiles saw their effective tax rates stay the same or go up slightly. Dean wants to go back to that???? That's the tax code which polarized society and created a nation in which Bush undemocratically became president!


Crazy.

[quaker bill]

66. But then you actually pay off the car or the college education

loan, you don't leave the expense for your kid to cover.

The Clinton tax plan solved the deficit. Because of this interest rates fell. People who had no hope of such could suddenly buy homes.

I generally invest in the future with my money. I do not borrow it from my kids. I am all for investment and am willing to pay taxes to support it.

The tax code did not make Bush* president. It may have been the Clenis, Al Gore's tepid and risk adverse campaign, or Ralph Nader, or all three with a bit of BFEE intrique. It was not the tax code.

I am all for a progressive tax code and even a tax on accumulated wealth. I am even for the complete de-taxing of the poor. I do agree that the maldistribution of wealth in this country is a major issue. I just don't think you can solve it with tax policy.

There is no excuse for taking payroll taxes from the minimum wage worker (FICA) at 7.5% then stealing a good part of that money to fund a tax cut for the middle and upper class. This is what we are doing now and will continue to do under the other tax reform proposals in play.

As none of them will create quite enough revenue, besides stealing payroll taxes from the working poor, we will charge the remaining debt off on our kids and grandkids. This is plainly immoral and your argument doesn't even come close to a justification. I can see it as little more than a rationalization for greed and avarice.

The cost of a policy of political expedience on taxes is clearly the loss of a claim to moral leadership based on the willingness to make a sacrifice for the common good. In short it is a watered down version of the republican meme. "tax cuts good - government bad"

[AP]

83. You actually do. Your estate is responsible for your debts. If you didn't

pay them in full, it would come out the money your children would inherit.

They'd still welcome the cost, provided the investments you made reaped rewards.

They're not interested in your unsecured credit card debt. But they'd happily satsify that mortgage.

The massive transfer in wealth to the wealthy has given the wealthy huge political power. The tax code and driving down wages for people who work for a living are two of the biggest methods used to transfer wealth to the the wealthy. They are the reasons Bush is president today. If it weren't for those reasons, more people woould have more power and our democracy would work.

[flaminbats]

15. Then why did Dean and Gephardt have huge leads in Iowa til the last days?

It wasn't because of his campaign agenda. It was because many young people just didn't show up at the caucases, which helped Kerry. It was also because Dean didn't campaign like he should have in Iowa...

pinning this blame on the taxcut is foolish...the reality is most caucus voters never got a taxcut, or even care about this issue one way or the other! But they would care if the gasoline tax or sales tax went up, which will happen if all these taxcuts are not repealed!

[AP]

22. Dean had the wrong priorities, and his chat on taxes is part of his messed

up priorities.

He'd rather attack Dems whow want to help people who work for a living on the IWR vote than actually persue policies which indicate he understands how people who work for a living experience the economy.

[flaminbats]

26. What???

He'd rather attack Dems whow want to help people who work for a living on the IWR vote than actually persue policies which indicate he understands how people who work for a living experience the economy.

Who works on the IWR vote for a living? :wtf:

[AP]

30. Dean uses the IWR to attack Edwards and Kerry becasue his

chat is so out of touch with how middle class America experiences the economy, and their's isn't.

[flaminbats]

36. Chat? what chat?

actually I am out of touch...I only get the Earned Income Credit, so like any poor fart, this makes me unworthy and too out of touch for Edwards! Maybe if I were a millionaire firm pushing tort reform, this would be different...:smoke:

[AP]

40. Then you're one of the 35 million poor people Edwards talked

about in the debate. He's the first to bring it up.

And once he lifts you up into the middle class, he wants to make sure you're not just a wage slave working to balance the budget so that the rich don't have to work.

[flaminbats]

52. Really, coool dude....

:hippie::wow: a hoopy lift from Edwards' totally awesome tort reforms! B-):wow:

[dkf]

16. My goodness...how ever did you survive the Clinton years?

I guess you agree with Bush, that you ARE better off under Bush than Clinton.

[TheDonkey]

27. The Dean-Gep tax plan is what will bring them down.

It's not going over very well with Democrats, and definetly wouldn't with rethugs and independents.

[dansolo]

29. Because as of right now those cut are set to expire

After 2004 the middle calss tax cuts go away, so repealing all of Bush's tax cuts will have no effect on middle class taxes, because they will already have gone up. The only way this would change is if Congress makes them permanent in this session, but at this time, they disappear after the election.

[union_maid]

32. Dean was right BEFORE the tax cuts

When he says there was no middle class tax cut, he's right. There never was going to be one. Anyone who's lived through previous tax cuts knows that any cut in federal income tax is going to cost the average working taxpayer much more than it saves him or her in the long run. But..big fat but here...he's wrong because it's happened and the cuts that are costing us have happened and we're not really doing very well..right now. Our property taxes aren't going back down any time soon. Tuitions at state schools will not be restored to previous levels. We'll continue to pay for those tax cuts and a lot of us are making less money than we were a few years ago and have the same bills to deal with. His position on restoring the middle class tax cuts puts him out of touch with the real, right now and today concerns of the middle class, depending, of course, on what you mean by "middle class". There's a big range of financial circumstances within what we call the middle class and the perception among a lot of paycheck to paycheck folks is that Dean doesn't really get what is is to be them.

[AP]

34. EXACTLY!

[quaker bill]

43. Again the correct but unpopular idea.

I know, we simply cannot tax the middle class to support programs for the poor. We can't consider taxing folks who live paycheck to paycheck to support those who don't get paychecks and whose unemployment benefits have run out. How starkly unAmerican a proposal! It is just wrong and must be stopped! The poor suffering middle class must be protected!

(Sarcasm off)

Come on people, you all seem to support progressive programs to cure social injustice. Why is it that none of you seem to want to put your money into it? Are the progressive program proposals just warm and fuzzy words we like to hear ourselves saying. Or is it that they are just fine as long as some unidentified "rich" person pays. "Don't think of asking us to chip in." Are progressives really this self centered?

[AP]

47. The middle class ARE putting the money into those programs.

They're bearing a way bigger burden than the rich. The question is, why can't people who get so much wealth from unearned income take up some of the slack so that people who work for a living can have a little more in their pockets so they can make investments in their own future.

What you did in your post is you're trying conflating the economic interests of the middle class and the super wealthy. You're encouraging people to have misplaced class loyalties.

If the middle class were actually getting a free ride in America, you'd be write to say this. But the rich have been getting rich LITERALLY on the backs of the middle class. We have had a huge transfer of economic, political and cultural power right to the top. And what you're advocating and what Dean advocates does almost nothing to reverse the trend.

Look at Dean's education program: tax subsidized profit for wall st in the form of ANOTHER student loan. Who's paying the taxes in Dean's America? Well, until year 6 or 7, the middle class will be. It's a transfer of wealth from the middle class to wall st on the backs of people trying to get an education.

[union_maid]

55. This is what I mean

"Come on people, you all seem to support progressive programs to cure social injustice. Why is it that none of you seem to want to put your money into it? Are the progressive program proposals just warm and fuzzy words we like to hear ourselves saying. Or is it that they are just fine as long as some unidentified "rich" person pays. "Don't think of asking us to chip in." Are progressives really this self centered?"

I would agree with this if it were, say, 1965 or even 1970. In fact, I did agree with it. I'm still very much in favor of social programs and work for them. However, these days there are a whole lot of people in between the working poor and those with any real disposable income. Maybe middle class is the wrong term, but I don't know what other term there is. There are a lot of people in this country who are being squeezed hard, and are piling up debt for such sundries as car and home repairs and other necessary expenses that can't be avoided, and if there is even the perception that a candidate is out of touch with this group of people, I think it's going to hurt. It's hurt Dean with quite a lot of people I know and precisely because of his stand on taxes.

I went to some Dean meet-ups early on and then some Clark meet-ups. The difference in the people at each was striking. The ones at the Dean meet-ups were much more affluent and tended to be doctors, university students and educators. Clark's were much closer to working class in terms of income if not in terms of occupation.

[quaker bill]

68. Back in my parents day

They paid higher taxes, they rationed gas, and rubber, and sugar, bought war bonds, built good schools, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon.

Did it hurt? probably. But they built the infrastructure we are still using. Guess what, since the tax cuts of the 80's we have been piling up debt (except for a moment under Clinton) and we have not been investing in infrastructure in a sustainable manner.

The kids here largely go to school in worn out buildings built in the 50's and 60's or trailers (modular classrooms). The roof leaks when it rains, so the kids have to cover the computers with plastic. You can't really install a network because the architect didn't think of it when he designed the building 50 years ago.

The parks are all over crowded because there is not enough money to make new ones as fast as the population is growing.

Veterans now suffer ungodly waiting lists for care. The roads are inadequate. The poor and mentally ill have been set adrift. There is no money to pay child protection workers. We are cutting off insurance to kids in poverty. We are cutting off benefits to the unemployed.

I agree that many suffer, some of the self inflicted wound of 'needing' the latest and largest SUV. The best that America is can be known through our willingness sacrifice toward a common goal. Think of the recovery efforts after a natural disaster or 9/11. It is well past time to invoke national pride in a comittment to sacrifice to the common good.

Patriotism is much more than getting wounded in combat or wearing a uniform. It is also the committment to work for the common good and the willingness to back that up with some cash.

[union_maid]

73. SUV? Right..you're talking about one part of the middle class

You really don't have to lecture me on this stuff. In fact, my job depends on social programs being funded. But I also know how badly a lot of people have been hurt in the last few years and how difficult it is for them to literally provide a roof over the head of their families. My parents rationed, paid progressive taxes and did all the things you list there. They also bought their first home on the GI bill, no down payment for twice my father's annual salary. Twice my husband's and my annual salary combined wouldn't buy a one bedroom coop these days. We're OK, kind of. We bought our home 30 years ago. Our kids probably aren't going to be so lucky. My phone at work rings off the hook these days with "middle class" people whose homes are being foreclosed on. They bought overpriced homes because the only other alternative was paying sky high rent in apartments. They can't really afford either. They're also over-income for our services, even if we could help out in a situation like that.

The belief of many on the left that the middle class has no serious financial problems is part of what brought us Ronald Reagan. It's not a good idea to go back there.

[quaker bill]

81. I am sure some people are having a hard time.

I get to meet them as well. I also agree that the tax cut theme brought us Reagan.

The larger point is that voting for Reagan and the Bushes and all their tax cuts did these people no good. They are worse off today than they were in 1980. They are worse off today than they were when Bush II took office in 2000.

The only time the wage earner made any gains in regard to real income since Reagan was under the Clinton plan during the 90's. These are the facts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Why was this the case?

Because when we resolved the budget deficit, all of a sudden the portion of the money supply that was being loaned to government to finance it's excesses was available at a much lower interest rate to business and people who wanted to buy homes. The resulting increase in disposable income from home refinancing at lower rates resulted in a surge in business activity, decreased unemployment, and competition in the labor market. Competition in the labor market drove wages up. This happened with higher tax rates and started when taxes were increased.

I know that this seems counterintuitive. In fact every repug voted against it saying that the plan would result in economic doom.

However, since Bush* took office and cut taxes, real wages have declined, the deficit has grown, and we have a jobless 'recovery'. This is precisely because of bad fiscal policy. Retaining half of a bad fiscal policy is simply not a good choice to move the country forward again.

If any candidate offered a more progressive tax plan that was as aggressive about resolving the deficit as Dean's, I would be backing them, at least on this issue. None are.

Here is another point to chew on, the reason that none of them are being aggressive on the deficit is: the level of taxation required to balance the books when you restrict it to the upper few percent is enormous. Yes they have fantastic wealth, but you see, by definition, there aren't all that many of them.

Finally, my friend, as electoral politics, this strategy also comes up short. Bush clearly has no problem with cutting taxes and driving the deficit through the roof. Any modest and even remotely sensible sounding tax cut proposal offered by the Democrats will simply be out bid by the Republicans. Sticking with this plan keeps the debate in the arena where the repugs come out on top. People will always trust republicans to cut their taxes more than the democrats. There is 20 years of evidence to back them up on this.

[AP]

84. If reducing the deficit were north star of good policy, Herbert Hoover

would have eneded the depression.

The north star of good policy is getting economic, political and cultural powere down the ladder and into a very broad middle class. That's how every country in the world throughtout history has gotten stronger.

That's why a tax code which allocates the tax burden fairly and high wages for workers (and lower taxes on work) are the two most important things to do.

This is why Dean would make a horrible Democratic president and it's probably a reason his campaign is so miserable.

Either he doesn't get it, or he's secretly running a campaign that is very good for wall st and uses populism as a smoke screen.

[markus]

39. Just one word on this subject: Mondale

And I'm a Dean man to the bone.

He's right, but he's going to either compromise on the "right thing to do" or comporomise on the honesty and figure out how to sugar coat it or it may doom us.

He already hinted to Diane Sawyer that the payroll tax cut isn't his entire tax plan, which he claimed was leaked before it was ready. I take this (optimistically) that he would agree.

[artr2]

60. How about another word? Clinton

Dean want to take the tax rates back to the levels that they were under Clinton. I don't see the problem with that. Taxes are your admission fee to live here.

[markus]

71. But Clinton promised a middle class tax cut in '92

He didn't go in saying "I'm going to raise taxes to balance the budget."

And neither did Reagan, who passed the largest hike cut in history to address his own deficits.

I genuinly believe Dean (and any other serious candidate) needs to have a plan that addresses the needs of working people (by which I mean just about anybody who gets the vast majority of their income by signing the back of the paycheck, rather than the front).

[AP]

75. Clinton wasn't even driven by desire to balance budget.

He was driven by the desire to have a fair economy which delivered its benefits broadly. The balanced budget was secondary. He didn't even balance the budget. He ran a surplus, and he didn't give the money back. He used it for the Social Security fund.

[Printer70]

42. Dean's prescription is the right medicine...

We cannot credibly attack Bush's tax cuts and then support them ourselves. It goes to the criticism that we have no vision. The entire tax cut scheme is a shell game- taking money from future generations and local governments and giving them to voters to buy them off. We can NEVER out-tax cut the GOP. Dean is standing up to this wrong policy, and we should applaud him for having the courage to do so.

[quaker bill]

45. Thank you

for the well considered post

[AP]

49. But dean has no credibilty on class politics if he can't see

how the tax code works to shift the burden on to the middle class.

I'm so sure that this is one of the big reasons Iowans rejected him.

And the problem isn't that the tax code is shifting money to "voters" today to buy them off. It's shifting massives amounts of wealth to the wealthiest individuals and corporatios so they can buy the government off.

And that's the truth, jack.

[Printer70]

65. Get into the "tax-cutting" game at your own risk

We are fighting on GOP territory, they will see your bet and double it. And then what do we do? They don't care if they add another trillion to the deficit but we do. We shadow the Right and end up losing. That's not a strategy, that's suicide.

[quaker bill]

70. Hammer, Nail, Head

Dead on target. Thanks.

[AP]

76. TAX ALLOCATION. Not cut. There are multiple brackets, and dozens of

different kinds of income.

When you say "tax cutting" do you think I mean cut all taxes, from all sources of income in all brackets? Do you think I mean overall revenue from all sources, collectively?

What do you think I mean when I say 'allocate the burden fairly'?

[markus]

72. How I explained this to my 12 year old daughter

Not meant to insult anybody's intelligence. Just an example of a simply argument.

Bush's middle class tax cut is the equivalent of paying some night watchman $300 to go on a long lunch break while Bush et al back a truck up to the warehouse.

And most people cheerfully take the money and look the otherway. It helps that there's an excellent show on daytime talk about gay couples who want to take away our guns.

The argument we need to be making to people is: my vote's not for sale for a $300 advance on my tax refund. But we need to focus deficit reduction where it will do the most good: on the people who got the biggest tax cut, and if you look around any room there will likely be between one and none of those people around you.

[AP]

77. It's more like this.

Over thirty years, Republicans have been robbing you of thousands a dollars a year and giving it to the rich. In 2001, Bush decided he was going to rob you of a 100,000 dollars, which you're bound to pay in the future, but he's giving it to the rich today. He's doing it one of those rip-off car deals, "you buy this car which is really only worth 20,000, but if you finance it you'll end up paying 60,000, and we'll give you 500 bucks", or "open a savings account (which will generate 100s of dollars in bank fees for the bank) and you get a toaster."

Well, considering they've been ripping the middle class for years, why do you have to give the 300 back just because you want to break the deal for the piece of crap car?

It's a tiny fraction of what they owe you from the previous 30 years, and, furthermore, it'll start to pay for the damages they've been causing. So not only should you be able to keep the money, but the rich should lower the price on the car a lot. They should be subsidizing the cost of that car so that you only have to pay the fair falue of what you're getting.

So, lower taxes on the middle class, rich pick up some of the burden they've been shirking, and lets have a fair tax code.

[corporatewhore]

63. I think your taxes would go down under DK

[KaraokeKarlton]

74. Actually, his statements on taxes are the most honest ones being spoken

For instance, if you listen to Kerry and Edwards, they are promising more than they can ever hope to deliver. They are claiming to be able to fix health care, create jobs, fund No Child Left Behind and special education, college, small business incentives AND keep some of the tax cuts. It can't be done unless they do more of what Bush has done and run the country even further into debt. Dean is absolutely right and the man knows how manage money and budgets. He's great at it. He's not going to promise to keep those cuts at the expense of social programs, education, raise the minimum wage (Vermont will be over $7.00 and hr this year I believe),jobs and health care. It's true that over 60% of Americans got a measly $304. I'm not sure what Clark is promising, but none of them can provide the things we need and keep any of those cuts unless they want to put us so deep in debt we'll never dig ourselves out. Americans are willing to make sacrifices when they understand the importance of making them. Dean does a great job explaining this issue. He's planning tax reform as well, but first things first. There are more pressing issues that must be dealt with first. Dean is a task master...he has never made promises to voters that he didn't deliver.

www.bushtax.com

[AP]

78. Edwards's plans' cost are all covered.

[frustrated_lefty]

79. Dean is right.

Anyone who promises health care and trips to the moon and no taxes is lying. Dean is saying you pay tax and in return you get a, b, c, for it.

Would you pay $300 for universal health care and a solid public educational system? If so, take another look at Dean.

[AP]

85. Dean is wrong. See post 84.