Clark announces tax reform plan

[BeyondGeography]

"Monday in Nashua, New Hampshire General Wes Clark announced his Families First Tax Reform, the most sweeping tax plan to be offered by a presidential candidate in years. His tax simplification plan will make the tax code more progressive, relieve the working family-family squeexe and reduce poverty.

"Under the Clark plan a family of four making up to $50,000 will pay no federal income taxes, and all tax-paying families making up to $100,000 with children will get a tax cut.

"Relief for working families will be fully paid for by closing corporate loopholes and by a five percentage point rate increase on income greater than $1 million per year. The rate increase will only affect the top 0.1 percent of txpayers, 99.9 percent of taxpayers will not pay a dime more.

Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform:

• A married couple with two children making $50,000 will get a $1,583 tax break, meaning they will pay no federal income tax at all.

• A married couple with three children earning $21,000 annually will get a $2,287 tax break.

• A married couple with two children making $85,000 will get a $975 tax cut.

• 31 million working families will get tax relief, with the typical family getting a $1,477 tax cut.

http://www.clark04.com/story/65/

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. But there is a HUGE omission in this plan

He says nothing at all about a large group of people: singles without children. Some are rich, but most are not, whether they're young people struggling with college loans or older singles who never made more than $50,000 a year or who have been unemployed or under-employed during the Bush recession.

For example, how is this plan going to help the "displaced homemaker," who never had children and has been selling lingerie at Penney's since her husband "traded her in for a new model"?

How is it going to help an older gay man of my acquaintance who lost his professional level job and has been unable to find a new one in two years?

And hey, what about me, a fifty-three year-old self-employed person?

I don't remember the exact figures, but this is not a group to be ignored.

It's a good plan, but to have broad appeal, it needs to say something about singles without children.

[robbedvoter]

3. Anyone with children gets a cut!

He called on karl Rove to spin this! "You don't have to read my lips, I am saying it"

[Demobrat]

4. No kidding.

Families up to $50,000 pay nothing and singles pay what? For the parks, schools and prisons their nonexistant offspring will never use? This is just more blatant pandering to the What About The Children crowd, exactly like Bush's tax cut was. Once again, nothing for me, although I do have an elderly mother to help, two sibs who are single parents, etc etc, since I'm not a breeder I don't count.

[robbedvoter]

6. Families of 4 up to 50,000. And while I am not pandered to,

I am sure happier with this - no , extatic than with the "cancel all cuts" scheme wich would take my child credit away. Yup. I admit. O am a breeder. Hangs head in shame.

[BeyondGeography]

7. So vote Republican

Wes is not a pander bear. People with mouths to feed and kids to put through school take priority.

[Demobrat]

8. Not a pander bear?

More like a blatant attempt to buy votes.

[BeyondGeography]

10. But you would have been happy

if he bought yours?

[Demobrat]

15. No. The country is deep in debt

thanks to the last round of tax cuts. Anybody who tells me to vote for him because he'll put more money in my pocket is insulting my intelligence.

[BeyondGeography]

20. He's righting a social wrong

and restoring progressivity to the tax code. It's all paid for by the top 0.1 percent of families, the same people who have made out like bandits under Bush.

So, go ahead, be insulted.

[Demobrat]

22. I would be

if I thought Clark had a chance in hell. Luckily, it's all academic anyway.

[H2O Man]

18. Slow down, my friend!

You are not going to be left behind! This is a shift in the burden of taxation, aiming it directly at the most wealthy, including non-human entities, such as corporations and wealthy republicans. It is not a plan to punish single-parents, or single people, at all. It's good to question exactly what ANY candidate offers on economic issues. This puts Clark with Edwards for being able to say how they will begin to heal the wounds that this administration has inflicted on our nation.

[Demobrat]

23. The plan isn't to punish me, huh?

No, it just happens to work out that way because I don't fall into the right demographic group. Clark to singles: "Screw you, you don't count". Well, maybe not, but we do vote.

[worldgonekrazy]

41. Does The Good of the People hold no value for you?

I understand what you are saying and it is an issue that should be addressed. But my feeling is that if I were to be an older adult with no children (I haven't reached that stage in life yet) I would feel fine paying for schools and other facilities for other people's children. Why? Because I believe that it is good and just to contribute to the overall health of society. Maybe I would feel differently were I actually in that circumstance, but I doubt it.

[the_red_pill]

55. schools help everyone

what would you rather have, you don't pay a dime toward education just because you don't have children? Ok, so instead of learning how to read and write and do arithmatic, some punk learns how to steal instead. He takes your car out on a joy ride and accidentaly hits your friends daughter. Wouldn't you rather have that same kid be a productive member of society, perhaps a customer at your store or providing some kind of service to you?

[dolstein]

30. Good politics, but it doesn't help me at all

I'm one of those single people without children. Apparently, I don't deserve a tax break, even though, as someone who lives and works in New York City and doesn't earn capital gains income, I probably pay a higher effective income tax rate than the gazillionares who are funding George Bush's campaign (around 40% in federal, state and local income taxes).

[October]

61. Not all families...(as usual)

We're one of those families who earns a bit more than what the Clark plan covers, but way less that those Bush*s plans favored.

As usual, we pay, pay, pay....no breaks, no shelters. Nada. Living in the NE is expensive. There are many families in the same boat.

And, singles too - like you, dolstein.

[the_red_pill]

53. good point

I think you sould voice your concerns not only here but on clark's website. It would be great if you got a response.

[lib13]

2. flat tax

I would support him if he offered a flat tax. One rate, everyone pays the same percentage, no deductions, no loopholes, no BS.

[robbedvoter]

5. Thanks, Steve Forbes. We believe in fair share here - progressive taxes

Steve Forbes should pay a bit more. Corporations too. Closing of the loopholes - mentioned.

[lib13]

17. Progressive tax

I am not Steve Forbes. I am single and make less than $50,000 per year. But I use the same roads, police, fire department, garbage men, etc... as someone making twice as much as me. Why should they pay more (of a percentage of their income)?

[tokenlib]

31. Check out Responsible Wealth.org

If you go to www.responsiblewealth.org ...they explain why those who benefit more from our society--should be expected to return more. It is a good site done by good and decent people.

[toopers]

39. I believe a flat tax, at least the way I understand it,

means that a person who has a higher income would pay more in taxes. The flat tax refers to a tax rate (ie percent of income) as opposed to a total dollar amount. It makes each person equal in regards to how much they contribute based upon income.

I actually prefer a national sales tax.

[w4rma]

59. Wouldn't that hurt buisnesses and lessen the circulation of resources?

A tax on every transaction to pay for everything?

[sendero]

37. a flat tax...

... would suck even more than what we have now. No thanks.

[worldgonekrazy]

42. If Bush gets four more years, you just might get your way

The two Bush tax cuts we have had so far were (among other things) part of a strategy to move the nation towards a flat tax system. The Bush Admin knows they cannot do such a thing in one fell swoop (just like they can't eliminate social programs with one hit), so instead they are going with a long term regressive strategy.

BTW, I think you might be on the wrong message board if you honestly think a flat tax system would be fair and equitable.

[lib13]

57. why is a flat tax not fair?

I seriously don't understand why a flat tax is not fair, to me is the MOST fair!

For example, if the USA had a flat tax of say 25%, with absolutely NO deductions, loopholes, etc.. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income, and nobody has accountants and lawyers to dodge taxes or not pay.

[BootinUp]

60. The disparity in wealth

in this country has increased dramatically in the last two decades. A progressive tax rate is about the only way to prevent the lowest income people from eating dirt. CEOs and other fat cats take disgustingly huge salaries, bonuses, etc regardless of a companies performance. Its out of control and has been for a while. Unions have little power anymore. But as long as the stock prices are up...We done good! so they say.

[robbedvoter]

9. I wonder: will DU pay more attention to a progressive tax cut or

to the guy championing Raygun's tax cuts endorsing a candidate?
I already know the answer for CNN - I want to see how DU is (or not) different)

[shanti]

11. what about single parents??

we do the work of two parents, don't we deserve a cut too?

[robbedvoter]

14. All parents get a cut. if you make less than 100K

[joanski01]

12. Wes was great.

He said, Karl Rove, if you're listening,I'm going to provide tax cuts for 31 million families and I'm raising taxes on the 1/10th that make over a million dollars. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it. And if that makes me an old style democrat, then I'm saying it with pride. AND, I dare you to come after me for it.

We need a higher standard for America.

We need leadership to promote honest, open Government.


WHOO HOOO - Go Clark.

[robbedvoter]

13. For unfiltered info on this go to the source:

Summary
http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/summary/
full policy:
http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/
Speech:
http://clark04.com/speeches/025/

[dkf]

16. OK. I'm pissed.

We singles constantly get stiffed.

I got $300 in the 1st cut, $1 more each month in the 3rd cut and that is it.

Now Clark wants to do NOTHING for me, give everyone else a break and saddle me with DEBT DEBT DEBT.

For single people and people with no kids, this entire tax cut scheme is a raw deal.

And my per capita debt is increasing...

This sux.

[BeyondGeography]

19. You get to spend all you earn

on poor lil' ole you.

[Demobrat]

24. Now, how do you know that, exactly?

Could he possibly be responsible for elderly relatives who need help? Have sibs who are single parents who couldn't make it without him? Be putting a younger brother or sister through school?

[BeyondGeography]

25. He didn't mention all those burdens

and, anyway, his taxes aren't going up a dime, unlike under Howard's plan.

[Demobrat]

27. No, you just assumed.

Just like you assume he got a cut. Well, I'm in the top 1% of female wage earners, and I did get a cut. A big $7 a week, which I will happily trade for heath care for all. In fact I can't wait.

[moondust]

21. Unmarried households are about half the population.

http://www.singlesrights.com/Census_1990-2001/unmarried-majority-table.htm

A while back I chewed out my Senator for not representing "the other half." Amazing that they get away with it.

[KittyWampus]

26. Those Without Kids-

"Expanded benefits for low-income adults without children. Clark's Tax Reform builds on the existing EITC
for childless adults, raising the maximum credit from $382 to $500."


Also, Clark has a program on Student Loans, IIRC.

[tokenlib]

28. Shift the tax burden where it belongs!!

OKAY, my wife and I get nothing from this but the satisfaction that the tax burden is being shifted to those who have more means.
But I can live with that. Go after those corporate loopholes and simplify this dizzying array of child credits, etc. This is a good proposal.

Expand it to singles and non-married couples in the under $50,000 a year range--and it would be even better. But you have to start somewhere.

[SEAburb]

29. How will Clark offset the tax revenue loss this plan

will create?

[dolstein]

38. Read the article

Hell, read the excerpt. It's in there.

[SEAburb]

48. Why? //nt

<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>

[DoYouEverWonder]

40. By increasing the tax on those in the highest income bracket

and closing the loopholes for corporations.

Sounds like a good start to me. Then maybe we can work on something fairer for non-traditional families and single folks.

Don't forget even a dem with no plan, is better than a Bu$h with part 2 of the PNAC plan.

[SEAburb]

49. Thank You

sounds like a good plan

[BiggJawn]

32. Nothing for the single people....AGAIN!

I really like that he wants the top 1% AND those Corporate "people" to pay more. They pollute more, they demand more police patrols arouind their McMansions and office parks, why shouldn't they pay more?

But again, nothing for those of us who aren't married and have already launched our descendants...

Hey, General!! Us single empty nesters vote, TOO!

[NashVegas]

44. Single Head of Household

Is accounted for in this.

[BiggJawn]

50. OK, so?

I didn't explain myself well enough, sorry. I'm an "Empty Nester", no "Qualifying Person", as it were...

[papau]

33. 5 % increase to what? - What is final rate?

"Shifting the burden to those who can most afford it-a 5 percentage point rate increase only on income over $1 million per year. This increase, which can be used only for working families' tax relief, will not apply to the first $1 million of income or to any capital gains. It will not affect 99.9 percent of taxpayers."

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Is there any American equivalent to this?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/economic_trends/effects_taxes_benefits_household_income_01-02/revised/Lakin_revised_final.pdf

It's a study of where the UK tax burden falls - looking at all income, payroll, property, sales etc. taxes.

Interestingly, the end result is that the post-tax income/gross income ratio for the 10 deciles by household income are:

0.47 0.65 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.66

All households: 0.64

with the poorer households paying far more in indirect taxes than direct, and vice versa for the richer; but for all except the poorest 10th, the total tax works out much the same (and the poorest 10th does include significantly more full time higher education students than any other).

On edit: added the link - Doh!

[robbedvoter]

35. WOW! ABC news noticed it too! (CNN still on Bradley)

Presidential Hopeful Clark Offers Plan to Reduce Tax Burden on Lower- and Middle-Class Families
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040105_1141.html

[robbedvoter]

36. 3:45 rerun C-Span - childless, prepare tomatoes, the rest, enjoy!

[worldgonekrazy]

43. Sounds good, but is not achievable IMO

At least not in one term.

As an example of a similar (but opposite) strategy, one need only to look at the Bush Administration's stated goal of moving towards a flat tax. They simply cannot enact such sweeping legislation with one giant reform bill. It would never get past the Senate (what with the Democrats being able to fillibuster and many moderate Repubs probably revolting against it) and it would lead to tremendous outrage amongst the public.

So what is the Bush plan? Well we have already seen the beginning of it with the first two tax cuts. Among other things, these tax cuts are part of a plan to move towards a flat tax. Clark would have to do the same type of thing (incremental reform) to move towards his ideal and I just don't think he could do it in one (or probably even two) terms.

So while it sounds great, I think it is a bit of a hollow promise. Still, certainly an ideal worth striving for.

[eek]

45. What about the DINKs?

Married, no kids.

I have no problem with paying taxes that go toward schools and whatnot even though we do not "use" such services. I reckon we still have an interest because we will want to have well educated adults of the future as our senators, cops, president and so on.

But anyway - I wanna know how complicated the tax return and the tax cut-or-increase is going to be for DINKs: Double Income No Kids


And let's not even start in on the gay couples and unmarries partners.
Another fight for another day. Foot in the door first, sez me, fwiw

Mustn't distract from the simplest message!

[robbedvoter]

46. Why not? Not having the power?

Did you crunch the numbers? Cuz Clark did. And so far, he has more credibility with me than you (I have no idea who you are)

[tabasco]

47. Good work, General !

If nothing else, this proves you are not in the pocket of the millionaires and corporations.

[kymar57]

56. Wes, ya still have my vote!

As a single,childless, 40ish male,I have no problem paying my share of taxes.As an earlier poster noted, my modest income goes only to meet my own needs. But I get more and more pissed watching shrub drain the national treasury for multimillionaire contributors while folks with kids work multiple jobs to "put food on their families". I would gladly give back my $300 bush bribe to buy him an express one-way ticket back to Crawford.(I have in fact given a third of it already to Dem candidates and the eventual nominee will get the rest+.Me Big Spender) Rawk on Wes



:toast:

[Kat45]

51. Some good ideas, BUT

the total emphasis on FAMILIES, FAMILIES, FAMILIES upsets me greatly. (And this is not the first time a politician/government/society's emphasis on families has made me crazy.) He doesn't mention single and/or childless folks at all. Do we also pay no taxes if we make less than a certain amount of money? If that's the case, that would be great, but if it isn't, that's a big problem.

I think it's great to help working families, and getting the money from the richest people and from closing corporate loopholes is great. But there are plenty of us single folks with low-paying jobs who can't make ends meet. The emphasis should be on helping working PEOPLE, low-income working people, not just families.

I love Wes Clark and I think he's the man we need to get us out of the mess that bush* has gotten us into, as well as to move this country forward. So I will withhold final judgment on his tax plan until I hear him address the subject of single and childless people.

[TexasPatriot]

52. hrm

http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/

subsection: Low-income families get crucial additional assistance

"And tax breaks for 3.2 million poor childless workers, which can be used to defray payroll taxes and work-related expenses. "

now - we dont know the details of those breaks, but i'm sure we'll see greater details on the website soon enough - but there's stuff in there for working class people without kids.

[robbedvoter]

54. Funny, same people telling me to accept tax INCREASES for the greater good

are now bristling because they don't get cuts....
Wow!

[Kat45]

58. That's not exactly what I'm saying.

I think the his plan is a good idea in general, but I think that families with children are not the only folks who can barely make ends meet and deserve a break. Even if this had nothing to do with my pocketbook, it would bother me because it always bothers me when anybody harps on "families" and "the children" as if they are the only ones who matter. It bugs me to no end.

As an example, whenever there is a car accident or a fire reported on the news, they tell you the number of people who died and how many of those were children. I don't believe that a child is more valuable than an adult, but these kinds or reports make it sound that way.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

62. it's about time a candidate spelled out exactly what they propose

Now-let's see all other dems (and the dim son too) spell out exactly what they propose on every issue in detail-
That way the voter can make an informed decision.
Enough blind faith.