Whose Tax Plan is better for you?

[dogman]

Is Clark's plan going to help you? It's finally a big idea to take to the people. The primaries have a chance to rise above the personal and get down to issues. The GOP will have a tough time convincing people a tax cut isn't good for them.

[cindyw]

1. Clark's plan is interesting, but repubs will never support a tax

cut that takes most people off the roles entirely and only taxes the upper end. It is way too progressive.

[AP]

2. Edwards. More progressivity in tax code is better for everyone, regardless

of income.

If you're rich, you'll have a bigger income, and a higher net, regardless of your tax rate.

The only people it will hurt will be people who get a majority of wealth from something other than working for a living.

For example, if you never made more than 184K with your wife, and have over 3.5 million in assets, and your family has given you over a million bucks over the last 20 years, and you have trust funds, and stand to inherit more money, you might not want any of the Democrats to win. But if you work for a living, or you make money when other people get paid fair wages and are taxed fairly, then you have to be looking to Edwards.

[bearfartinthewoods]

19. other than working for a living

i really like how specific he is about the nature an number of tax loopholes there are and how he will shut them down....even that sleazy wal-mart life insurance scam. i like the way his mind works.
maybe it's the legal training?

[OrAnarch]

3. The GOP will convince of no such thing...

Rather, they will convince the people they need a bigger tax cut, more aggressive foreign imperialism, and stronger persecution of international visitors than is offered in any of Clark's plans.

From every point that Clark is appealing to rights and moderates on, they allready wrote the book. Winning the votes of people who are allready captured by the right will be impossible till we get someone to reach out and finally teach them, and draw them leftward. It is no longer ok to pander on such points. It is no longer ok to appeal to such schools of thought. We stand at a critical time where change is pertinent.

[dogman]

5. Anarchy's the Future?

It still takes the middle to win a majority and that still might not be enough.

[OrAnarch]

7. Anarchy is always the future...

Its up to us to decide if its going to be a progressive or regressive cyclic shift to the current social structure.


The Middle can always be redefined by the minority. Case and point, the actions of the right-wing extermists in the last 5-10 years. The Middle is not what it used to be, and is not representative of the America I want to live in anyway. To win by pandering to such a Middle is no victory. It is a victory to change America one mind at a time, and redefine the political landscape in the favor of liberalism.

[dogman]

11. Hasn't worked yet.

Just 4 more years of B*** and it might be the only choice though. But I guess that's what you want.

[SW FL Dem]

16. OK Teach this Moderate

Been there done that. I fought for civil rights, diversification in the 70s. I am a life long liberal Democrat and I am sick and tired of being called a Republican. My views on most issues are left of those of Howard Dean. Am I the "establishment" simply because I have actually bothered to vote for the past 25 years. What really irks me is that you accuse me of not being a Dem because I have the audacity to be successful.

I remember the excitement of voting in my first presidential election. I voted for Carter, I worked on the campaign for the guy who came in 2nd (out of 17).I don't like Dean. My neighbor doesn't either. He blinks too much and his hand is clammy when you shake it ( I did at the FL convention)

[arewethereyet]

4. Edwards' is best for me personally

and I really like the points that focus on home ownership for those who can't think of this presently and the college program. these two things are the single most importent milestones that a person needs to achieve to make any advancement personally and to benefit the economy as a whole.

its very sound on the basics, on positives for real people and particularly the people having the hardest time getting round the corner and the incentives for jobs growth help all around.

without question and hands down, Edwards.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. I'm going to tell everyone I know - 50k or less, no taxes

well, if you have 4 kids. Still, why don't we let everyone know - a vote for a Democrat means to cut your taxes, and a vote for Bush means to cut rich people's taxes.

[arewethereyet]

8. assuming that he can get a republican congress to pass such a measure

now how likely is that ?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. we need to win Congress too

You have a better idea?

[SayitAintSo]

17. Great way of putting it ...

I like that !

[Bombtrack]

9. Clark's and Edwards will both help my younger siblings

they both (brother and sister) want to go to public colleges in state, and that's all we can really afford because they won't get the scholarships that I got.

Clark and Edwards have the best plans to help them do that.

Also, I will be a middle class earner, if things go right by the end of the next presidential term, so obviously, Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Kucinich have better plans for me than someone who would make me pay more like Gephardt or Dean.

[robbedvoter]

12. Clark's will put some food on the table for us - vital for us.

I confess I don't know Edwards' well enough to compare. HD's would take money away that I couldn't afford.

[MidwestMomma]

18. Unlike Bush who wanted to put 'food on the family'

:D

[toodles_oduff]

13. Clark's plan I think.

If I understand it correctly, if you're making under 50K, you'd be able to dispense with the old 1040s and H&R Block entirely. You'd still have to do FICA and perhaps your state's income tax I suppose. And wasn't getting at the extreme wealth of people like the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and the like, one of the reasons they enacted the Income Tax amendment? That expanding the obligation to the lower income levels didn't come about until WWII? Any DUers who could clarify this point of history. This is only what I heard and it could be wrong.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. exactly, federal income tax was supposed to be strictly for rich people

It's shame it didn't stay that way, but it was probably inevitable. Simplifying the tax code PLUS actual real cuts for non-rich people, and especially working middle class people, is a 100% sure fire winner if you talk about it consistently.

Raising taxes on millionaires is good - that's what the federal income tax is for.

[bearfartinthewoods]

28. strictly for rich people?????

i have never heard this before. got a cite for that statement?

personally, i think the best way to get people involved in government is to have as many people as possible paying for it. that's what hooked me. i decided to try and find out how many of the dollars i pay in taxes ended up in the pockets of people who were richer than i.

[Buffler]

31. I tired to get answers yesterday

on this matter. Tried to get a dollar amount of income that would make someone "rich" and why someone earning $1 less should not pay income taxes.

An answer was never provided.

Though the poster is technically correct. The income tax was instituted originally only against the very wealthy. And it was a very small amount, something like 1%. When the Constitutional Amendment was passed making an income tax constitutional, some members of congress tried to include in the amendment that the tax couldn't exceed X% (something like 5%) and other members in congress objected. Not because they thought this number to be too low, but because they thought such an addition would cause the government to quickly raise the rate to the maximum allowable.

[SW FL Dem]

15. My family did fine under Shrub's tax cuts

But we still support Clark's plan. We earn too much to benefit from any of the child credit/cuts. Shrub's tax cuts saved us about $2500, Dean's plan to increase the Social Security cut off will cost us three times what Shrub "gave us".
Before you blast us, we are liberal Dems and we support the causes we believe in. I would be happy to pay more income tax to support kids and education. It really ticks me off to pay extra Social Security when millionaires continue to receive their monthly checks.

[Hep]

20. Dean's is better for everyone

n/t

[Renew Deal]

22. How do you figure?

Everyones taxes go up and the budget might (as in maybe, sorta, kinda, hopefully) be balanced in 6 years.

[Hep]

23. We can discuss it

when you are ready to engage in reasonsed debate. Right now, I feel as though you are more interested in misinterptretation and conclusion jumping. No good can come from our discussing it. Thanks though for caring enough to post at all.

[Buffler]

24. How?

How is raising my taxes by several thousands dollars (that I don't have) better for me?

[Hep]

25. See my reply to Bleachers7

I can't engage in honest discourse with people who engage in dishonest arguments. We can talk when you show a modicum objectivity.

[Buffler]

26. I read your post

and didn't find how raising my taxes by several thousand dollars is better for me.

Or for my brother and sister in law who had a scheduled c-section just days before new years to assure they got the child tax credit for this year because it helps them a great deal.

Please let me know.

On Edit:

Stating facts, that Howard is going to raise my taxes by a large amount is not engaging in dishonest debate, but stating the facts.

[Hep]

29. Keep repeating it, proving my point

Facts elude you. Seriously. You're talking about interpretation.

[Buffler]

30. What facts are eluding me?

Seriously? Give me specific facts that are eluding me.

Tell me how my taxes will not be raised by Howard. Tell me how my family members taxes won't be raised. For me to be wrong, and facts eluding me, then our taxes must be going to go down under Howard. Give me specifics on how that is going to happen.

[Hep]

32. Wow. Maybe the tenth time I explain it someone will get it.

Reapealing a tax cut does not mean NOT replacing it with something more fair.

Anyone got it yet?

When are democrats going to stop defending Bush's tax cuts?

[Buffler]

33. Seems you are the one who doesnt get it

You are either purposefully ignorant or very poor at reading comprehension.

Reapealing a tax cut does not mean NOT replacing it with something more fair.

This is in no way related to a single thing I have said.

What I have said is that repealing a tax cut will INCREASE my taxes a great amount, as well as the taxes my family members pay. I have said no more, and no less.

YOU said this was better for me and I have asked you to tell me how. You have failed to do so repeatedly.

Again, how is raising my federal income taxes several thousand dollars good for me? The amount my taxes will go up is almost equal to 4 mortgage payments! If I could afford such, I would be living a much more relaxing and luxurious lifestyle than I am.

[Hep]

34. WOW, ostriches can type.

Again, I've said it a dozen time, but I have all day. You stop at step one, ignore the rest, and then claim the rest doesn't exist. It's a great tactic, just not one of integrity.

[Buffler]

35. What is stage 2?

I keep seeing you type about stage 2 all over the place, yet you haven't said what it is. What is it?

Is Dean going to lower my taxes? If so, what is his specific plan to do so? What is he going to lower my federal income tax rate too? Is he going to increase the child tax credit for me and others in my family?

And again, you have said Dean's tax plan is best for me. To date, Deans tax plan is to increase my taxes, a lot! Please, tell me how that is better for me.

[Hep]

44. I have described it.

The fact that you still don't get it is evidence that you're not really all in for this conversation. So you go oppose dean or whatever it is you do, and I'll go have reasonable discussions with people who actually pay attention more than they attack. Thanks!

[Buffler]

47. Since I havent seen

your description, please post it here for me.

[jcgadfly]

49. The super rich are the only ones who lose by repealing the Bush tax cuts

If you are among the super rich (and it seems like you are, since you're complaining), why are you voting for any Democrat?

[HFishbine]

21. Whose Tax Plan is Better for Your Children?

Just wondering...

[sandnsea]

27. Clark defines income brackets

That's the beauty of his plan. The politics of it. He tells all those working Republicans that they specifically will not pay taxes under his plan. The Republican promises of tax cuts will no longer work on these voters. Families earning under $50,000 are way in the majority in America. They will turn out in droves for Clark and Democrats forever, which is where they should have been all along. THAT is the genuis of it. I've posted this 5 times and I don't think anybody gets it yet.

[Jerseycoa]

36. I get it

:hi:

The critics get it, too. It wasn't their guy who came up with it, so it gets the automatic boot. Clark's plan doesn't help me particularly, I have no children. It helps America and it helps the Democratic Party. Gives those pickup truck drivers a reason to come home again, doesn't it?

But I suspect we will soon see Dean flipping his tax plan so it won't flop so badly.

[sandnsea]

39. He'll lose all credibility

The majority of voters will see straight through it. The ones who aren't with him now will never go with him if he does this. And he'll lose a percentage of his own supporters, the ones who bought into the whole Bush tax thing. They'll see he has no campaign if he's actually going to support tax cuts after railing against them for an entire year.

[democratreformed]

37. There is now a savings calculator on clark04.com n/t

[dsc]

38. For me probably neither

but for most people in my income range (under 20k) and with no kids then Dean's is better. Dean's plan will make SS solvent faster. I am not in SS but for those who are that is a big deal. And yes, I do find it both unfair and outrageous, that I am expected to pay more in taxes than people who make more money than I do.

[Paulie]

40. Sorry, but it's all Dennis again

Here's his plan, it's already legislation in the house.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/MEDIA_SUMMARY_OF_TAX_BILL.pdf

[Buffler]

41. Why are you sorry? n/t

[Paulie]

42. Because

I don't want to burst all these happy bubbles others have about their canidates. So it was more of a figure of speech with kindness. :) :) :)

[sandnsea]

45. It is close to Dennis' plan

I noticed that right off, as far as combining all the tax credits. What Dennis didn't do is say there would be no taxes for families under $50,000 and that all those families could fill out a 3 line form or no form at all. At least, not that I've seen. That is the real genius of General Clark's tax plan, the way it was presented as much as the content.

[John_H]

43. Bush's tax plan is best for me but Clark's is best for america.

[WoodrowFan]

46. Same here

We made a small amount back under Shrub's plan, just enough to cover the increase in our property tax that our county had to make to cover the loss of state funding which in turn was necessary because of the loss of federal money to the state. Clark's plan, on first glance, seems good to me. I haven't read Dean's yet so have no opinion on it.

[YNGW]

48. How Much Will I Have To Pay?

That's what it's coming down to for me. I haven't chosen a candidate at this point, but I see all of them essentially governing the same. The clincher for me will be who raises my taxes less, because they're all going to raise my taxes. I'm not falling for this "middle class tax cut" crap. Clinton told me that, then he raised my taxes. Besides, you can't raise taxes on the rich enough to make up anything. There's just not enough of them and what they have they can shelter and/or defer until things are more favorable to them. And no, the tax loopholes won't go away with whichever Dem is elected, it didn't with Clinton.

So the question is, who will personally cost me less?