DEMOCRATS must cut taxes when they regain power.

[iconoclastNYC]

The Democratic party should propose tax relief targeted for the lower class and lower-middle classes, while dramatically raising the obligation of the top 1%.

American will be stronger if these two classes are stronger. Therefore I say we cut their taxes and we make it easier for them to raise outstanding children.

We must invest in our shared American future by providing resources to our citizens that aid them in the successful rearing of children.

For the overworked and the underpaid of American I propose the following be available:

Modest unemployment compensation for stay at home mothers, free childcare, free child health-care, significant increases in public education, funding for private education programs including remedial studies or alternative single-course studies, increased funding for children sport leagues, music and art enrichment programs, summer camps, community theater, field trips, nature and hiking expeditions, debating, foreign language study, and most of all, child-rearing mentorship programs for parents.

I believe Education can make the difference between a good parent and a great parent. The children of the lower class and the lower middle class are entitled to great parents, great teachers and great schools. We should aim to improve the quality of all three of these institutions.

If we build community, and increase communication between experienced parents and novice parents, if we fund and fix public education, if we provide the overworked and under-resourced with a little help we can provide improved childhoods to millions of our future citizens.

If these programs are even marginally successful we would have succeeded in fundamentally improve America's competitiveness on the global stage.

The rich will not suffer if their share of the wealth does not continue to grow for eternity. They will not suffer when we return to physicaly sanity and they are made to pay their fair share.

Some would call my rhetoric "class warfare". And it is. The class war is real. We didn't start this war, and we will not win it. But capitulation is not an option.

If the loosers of the class war are victimized by it forever, humanity itself will have been poisoned. We cannot continue our existence with our heads in the sand. The winners of capatalism have been victimized the loosers of capitalism for far too long.

Luckily the Internet is providing the activist left with a much needed booster shoot. Signs abound of a new left-win boldness and ambition. Optimism, and outspokenness.

The Internet has leveled the playing field and the people will slowly begin to beat back the forces of infectious fratricidal greed which has fueled this tragic and unncessary class war for far too long.

[democracyindanger]

1. And...

raise the taxes on the superrich. You know, the ones that have been the beneficiaries of the past 5 years.

[Mojambo]

2. Just make corporations actually pay taxes

And you'll be able to give just about everyone else a tax break and pay for social programs.

[CAG]

6. I'm all for corporate responsibility, but they would just pass the

costs to us, the consumers, anyway.

[iconoclastNYC]

16. I agree.

And thats why I dont think corporate taxation is very effective. Tax extremly above average income and tax idle wealth. Everything else should be at token levels or abolished.

[Mojambo]

20. If corporations get all the rights of the individual

They should pay like an individual.

[CAG]

31. When I pay my individual tax, I can't pass on that cost to you or

anyone else. The corporation can and will. Therefore, they will never "pay like an individual", because they will just pass on those costs back to us.

I know it sucks, I know its not right, I know its not what Jesus would do, but its just reality.

[Mojambo]

39. Where does this fit into the free market thing?

So in order to keep corporations from gouging us we need to give them a free ride?

Sounds less like a free market and more like extortion.

But I'm far from an economist and won't pretend to have a great grasp of these issues.

[iconoclastNYC]

41. Let me try to explain.

If you tax the profit at the corporate level they can just try to raise prices (pass it on to the consumer).

So I think it might be better to tax the income that is distributed to the owners of the corporations.

I'm not an economist so I could be totally wrong.

[Mojambo]

45. That seems to make sense. n/t

[whoneedstickets]

53. Corporate Taxes are regressive..and should be abolished

For exactly the reason you state. Companies simply factor taxation into prices to ensure profit. The higher prices disproportionately impact low income individuals.

Taxes should be assessed on the owners of companies either on the capital gains made from selling securities or on the profits distributed as dividends.

What is particularly appalling about our current tax system is that both capital gains and dividends are taxed at a lower rate than income. If you sell fixed assets you pay less to the government than if you sell your skills, time and labor.

Ultimately any tax system should be neutral with regard to income source or it introduces incentives for corporate shenanigans like using profit to buy back stock because the capital gains accrued to shareholders will be taxed at a lower rate than dividends would be, or using stock options (taxed as capital gains) to compensate executives rather than income because of the lower tax rate.

There are consequences for abolishing corporate taxes however: The end of write offs. Companies currently pay for expenses like box seats for sporting events because they can 'write off' the costs as a business expense. Do you think they would continue to spend this if it came directly out of profits for shareholders? There would be an impact on the entertainment, sports and restaurant economy for sure.

[CAG]

47. they can gouge us independent of what their taxes are.

Lets take an industry that makes widget X.
There are 5 companies that make widget X, all competing against each other. Their profit margins are all around 3%, and their shareholders are happy. The govt raises the industries tax rate from A% to A+10%. Four companies raise the price of the widget, a fifth raises it slightly.

Two things could happen: the fifth might win a bunch more contracts, make more money despite lower profit margin; their shareholders are happy and stay with them. OR the fifth marginally picks up a few more contracts, but loses some because their services or marketing had to take a hit do to higher cost (taxes?), their profits and profit margins suck, the shareholders bail, the company goes under or gets bought by one of the other companies. Pretty risky.

[iconoclastNYC]

35. They shouldn't get those rights.

Corporate power must be tightly regulated. This is not a winning issue in the elecotrate however.

[Salviati]

26. You know what, I really don't buy this anymore...

...I mean the prices we pay for goods has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of production, other than as a rule price > cost, otherwise corporations will charge as much as they can concievably get out of people. Raising corporate taxes, while increasing cost somewhat, will not change how much money consumers have to spend, so any raise in costs, will likely see a drop in sales, giving the corporation a double whammy to the bottom line, they'd probably be better off just absorbing the tax adjustment in the first place...

[CAG]

34. I disagree; most industries work at a very low

profit margin (manufacturing, grocery industry, wholesalers, retail). Its simple math that they must pass on costs to the consumers. I wish it were more complex than that, and that they could "Arthur Anderson" their way around it, but it just doesn't happen.

There are exceptions for which I agree with your argument. Big pharma thieves, for instance, the Halliburtons and Enrons of the world, etc.

[iconoclastNYC]

42. But why even bother with it?

If you tax the rich at the proper rate the need for corporate taxes goes away.

[CAG]

49. Exactly.

[TahitiNut]

13. Their taxes should be DOUBLED.

Corporate profits are higher than they've been in over 30 years, and their tax rate is the lowest in over 50 years.

[iconoclastNYC]

17. Nice graph. I wish you had sourced it.

[TahitiNut]

48. Thanks for the heads up. Corrected.

It now shows my most recent version, with source data noted.

[CAG]

27. Your graph only proves

that profits are not really tied to corporate tax rates (look at the Clinton years, for instance). The roller coaster of profits are tied to the overall economic outlook, supply/demand of a given industry, productive capacity, etc.

As I posted earlier, corporations are just going to pass on any increase in their tax rates to the consumer (us). Profits are a necessary result of capitalism, and there's nothing wrong with that. The only question is what is an "acceptable" level of profits before it becomes profiteering, or as I call it, theft. The pharmaceutical industry is a perfect example. Remember when we thought they were profiteering scumbags when they had profit margins of 8-10% in the 80's and 90's, which were double that of any other industry? Well, now their profit margin is upwards of 20%; "thou shalt not steal" evidently is not one of the ten commandments big pharma and the repubs in their back pockets thinks of very much.

[iconoclastNYC]

50. Excellent point!

[TahitiNut]

51. The notion that taxes and expenses are merely "passed on" ...

... is a dangerous over-simplification. Corporations are income redistribution machines. Some income is allocated to raw materials. Some income is allocated to direct labor compensation. Some income is allocated to managerial and executive compensation. Some income is allocated lobbying and legal fees. And some income is allocated to profits. Some of these allocations are more elastic than others. Corporations cannot merely increase prices to reflect a shortfall in desired profits! (Unless they're an unregulated monopoly.)

Even if they can ... then those taxes are generated by choice, not confiscation. Corporations are currently taxed at lower rates than labor ... and corporations, unlike working class people, can deduct damned near every dollar they spend.

[NuttyFluffers]

52. they will pass ANYTHING onto customers ALONG with graft.

but, if there's really a non-monopolized market, then market forces will take care of that? right? prices will have to go back down and biz can't keep doing that if there's REAL competition. that's the theory preached in econ classes and biz classes everywhere in usa, right? right?

well, can't have it both ways. can't have both mythologies: "free market"/market forces exist and can work; and "they'll just pass it on to consumers and there's nothing that can be done..."

are we living in monopolized times or not? and if so, WE HAVE LAWS TO BREAK UP MONOPOLIES.

we did it before -- and our country became prosperous when we did -- and we can do it agian. we fostered competition, created it even when things went bad, even if we had to have state intervention to create it. we can AND MUST do it again.

otherwise just call it what it is -- Gilded Age redux.

i don't believe those myths anymore. they are completely contradictory and hypocritical. one must therefore be wrong. and if one honestly believes in regulated capitalism then one must drop the latter. period.

[DBoon]

3. I like the idea of a negative income tax

if you make less than a certain amount, you get money back.

[iconoclastNYC]

21. People would spend it on crap.

More crap...so guess where that money goes? Back into the hands of the wealthy who make all the crap. Increasingly that means a lot of it will head to Asia.

Thats why I think this it is smart for a return to the government making smart investments in our shared future.

[Singular73]

4. You are going about it the wrong way....

Amateur Populists, I swear :)

When I'm not tired (ie, tomorrow), I may visit back to reframe your argument.

[iconoclastNYC]

7. Better yet.

Why don't you take the time to offer your own vision?

[Stinky The Clown]

5. In the 04 primaries, I recall that

Clark called for **elimination** of taxes on salaries up to ..... mmmm .... $50K, I think.

Surely someone can verify or correct this.

[oscar111]

9. Clark called for shifting taxes to the top

right sparky.

none on the lower classes.

I think the OP is a winner. a vote-getter.

A goal should be Truman's tax structure. 90% at the top, not the pathetic 35 now.

we had prosperity then, because the Great Middle Class was housed and educated with the money.

wages lower now than when Reaganomics began.. adjusted for inflation.

TOSS REAGANOMICS!

[iconoclastNYC]

23. Love it! "TOSS REGANOMICS"

Where is our left-wing independant Perot-type candidate, with his self and people funded hour-long campaign ad/documentaries with the charts explaning the con which is Reganomics? The father of which U.S. President called it Voodoo Economics?

If only I was 20 years older and 20 billion richer!!!

[iconoclastNYC]

14. You miss my point.

My proposal creates framework by which parents who are looking or open to enrichment are given support thru thier community, mentorship, education, and all the other things i mentioned.

It allows a stay at home parent to make thier career managing the family and raising the children to reach thier full potential.

It ensures that the children of the not rich can compete with the children of the rich who are afford so many advantages becasue thier parents have vastly superior resources.

I guess you could call this socialism. But if we frame this proposal and brand it and make it successful and popular, the only people left to smear it would be marganalized right-wing idealogues.

[libertypirate]

8. You all we need something else more....

We need to wipe the slate clean. If we want to fix our tax issues we need to have better control of the actual spending.

Not a dime until we clean up the mess that is spending us into the whole we are in.

One more thing if there is a war there should be a uber tax on the individuals that benifit from it.

Call it a bonus tax, anthing over $$$ amount should get nailed durring times of war.

[oscar111]

12. Middle Class produces all: All should go to the Middle Class

Truman's tax structure saw to it that funds existed to house and educate the productive middle class

result then, Truman's time, was prosperity.

Federal tax revenues are a way to see to the wellbeing of the middle class.

FDR knew that

[libertypirate]

56. Yeah but you can't just focus on the middle class.

We all have to become important again. The middle class schools may not be great but they are not at all like the decimation that has occurred by under funding in the more impoverished communities. If it was the intention make the conditions at some of these facilities unwelcoming and non conducive to learning; the goal has been achieved. It's not about fairness at all it is back to getting the job done.

For everything that they have done to us they have been doing it to them much longer.

We also need to un-privatize the hell out of the extremely costly contracts with open price tags. It is really a joke the numbers these people push as open ended contracts.

[iconoclastNYC]

25. If you look at it, most of it is defense spending.

Health, Education, and the rest of it barely comes close to the Pentagons 400 billion/yr.

[libertypirate]

54. Defense

Our (de|o)fense as morphed into a slush fund protected by the propaganda of patriotism and hidden by privatization.

[CAG]

10. the difference is, the dems will cut taxes AND still be

fiscally responsible. The repubs are so gutless, they just tell the people, "hey, we'll cut your taxes, but we're still going to spend, spend, spend to send you all of the pork"

[LSK]

11. Clinton laid out a blueprint in the early 90s

Cut military spending by 200B /year, get out of Iraq, revote the Bush tax cuts, and offer a stimulus package to put more money in consumers pockets so they SPEND.

[oscar111]

19. Homeless pay 1O% tax: sales tax. Regressive to the max

they should not pay a cent.

Clark's idea is fine.

As long as it is coupled with Truman's top rate of ninety percent.

1O9 Trillion is US wealth, and we have 12 million hungry. Insane. Barbarism, pure and simple.

[iconoclastNYC]

28. They spend now.

More spending is not going to improve our economy.

We need a smarter, more diverse, and vibrant economy which rewards workers and discourages the hoarding of the spoils of said economy.

[Mythsaje]

15. Education

is VITAL. I can't begin to stress this enough. Everyone with the talent and skills necessary to be sent on to higher education SHOULD be given every opportunity to go, regardless of race, creed, or social status.

[oscar111]

29. CA college free:till RR became governor

so a usa precedeent for free colleges, as they have in Europe.

[Mythsaje]

37. I think they should be

I believe in Universal Education. It's at least as important as Universal Healthcare. IMO

[iconoclastNYC]

44. Most civilized nations have both

[iconoclastNYC]

43. Sounds like there is an opportunity

For a democrat of vision to run on fixing Reagan's mistake.

[iconoclastNYC]

30. AMEN! AMEN!

I think the term Education needs to be expanded to include the informal Education that children receive from thier parents. And Parents recieve in childrearing from thier child.

If we raise our children to be bad parents, the skill of parenting will die out. I think it is in a lot of the lower classes, esp. in single-parents families or in families where both parents are out of the home.

[Selatius]

18. Tax reform for the near future is dead

You will not get adequate tax reform as long as special interests still dominate the campaign scene. The only reason why corporations pay so little in taxes is because of lobbying efforts. The only reason why tax rates progressively went lower for the top 1% of income earners in this country from 90% to 35% today is because of lobbying by, again, wealthy and powerful interests.

Corporations and wealthy industrialists have done more than their fair share in writing in loopholes, credits, exemptions, shelters, etc. into the tax code, and it happened on the watch of BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. What you get at the end of the day is a tax code that is complex, bloated, and grossly regressive in nature.

[oscar111]

22. 109 Trillion is US wealth

see bottom line

www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/accessible/l5.htm

and demopedia, page "capital"

12 billion ends hunger, all of it. Tiny part of just ONE trillion.

4 billion ends homelessness.

again, tiny part of jus ONE trillion.

3O billion doubles research on all current research of disease, such as AIDS, west nile, cancer, heart trouble.... tiny part of just ONE trillion.

46 billion does all the above... tiny part of just ONE trillion.

It takes a thousand billions to make just one trillion.

[iconoclastNYC]

36. Amazing facts! Thank you!

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Then link tax reform to campaign finance reform

100% publically financed campaigns.

Take one nickel from anything other than the public teat and go to jail.

No exceptions. Stiff jail time for breaking the rules.

THEN go for tax reform.

[Selatius]

33. What you're calling for will take generations, not a few years.

If you want 100% fully financed election systems, you may easily end up spending decades if not the rest of your natural-born life trying to see it succeed because you're essentially asking politicians to bite the hand that feeds them. I hope you understand the potentially frightening amount of time and resources this could easily take.

Any Democrat who gets a 3rd or more of their campaign funds from various business interests would be less likely to vote against the interests that fueled their campaigns, which catapulted them into the seats of power they now hold.

[iconoclastNYC]

38. Campaign Reform = SNOOZE. Tax Reform = CHA CHING

Republicans know from thier private business dealings that bribery is the way you get business done.

[iconoclastNYC]

32. OK Mr. Realist

I'm making this proposal because I think it is the bold alternative we need to offer the American people.

I dont think they can steal the election if we get 60-70% to agree with us on every plank of our domestic platform.

We need to offer a bold positive vision that benefits the middle class and sets our country back on track.

First we offer the vision, then we win power. Then we implement it.

Bingo, the next 40 years of liberal rule in America.

Call me a dreamer!

[Selatius]

40. No, the realistic thing to do is wipe out the deficits FIRST

We cannot adequately fund programs that benefit Americans if we cannot even pay off our dues at the end of the year.

Yes, offer this bold vision of yours, but you must build a foundation first, and that is rebalancing the budget. Once that foundation is laid, then you can build on top of that with investments in public education, health care, environmental protections, labor standards, demobilization of the armed forces, etc.

[iconoclastNYC]

46. Of course you eliminate budget deficits; thats a goal of the Tax reform

But you raise revenue enough to fund popular programs which function as investments as well as balance the budget.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Hmm how are we going to pay for the social net?

To put it another way, how are you intending to balance the budget?

Oh and we need to change the langauge, taxes are not bad, they are not taxes, they are service fees we all pay to live in this society

[hfojvt]

57. seems like I am seeing re-runs everywhere

Is there a glitch in the matrix?

Alot of what you propose is going to children. People with two children are already income tax free up to $45,000 which is about the median income. Some of us without children of our own already feel like we are paying for plenty of services for other people's kids.

I also think that we need to do something about economic warfare. Something more than an educational arms race to make our next generation "competetive" in the global economy. It looks like a negative sum game to me.

[iconoclastNYC]

58. Children are the future of our democracy.

Where else should we invest?

[hfojvt]

59. perhaps in public goods and infrastructure for all Americans

rather than just for children. A thirty year old who has been down-sized is also the "future of our democracy" whether he/she has kids or not. They need health care, they need respect, they need a way to utilize their skills and energy and they need some income.

A fifty year old who has had their pension wiped out is also the "future of our democracy" - with a little luck (and a by-pass operation) they will still be a part of this society for another 30 years. Isn't that the future too? Don't people matter any more once they have reached the age of 18? Or do they only count if they have kids?

Childless adults have their own needs, wants, and problems and yet they are expected to provide medical care and day care and education for other people's kids? On my income of $16,000 I paid $869 in income taxes. If I had two kids and the same income, I would get an EIC of $3,861. If I made another $20K and had two kids, I would pay no income taxes. Yes, that is $20,000 of tax-free income, and the $1,000 in property taxes I pay - that money is for schools for their kids. And the $2900 in FICA taxes I pay is apparently not being saved for my retirement. So I have other priorities.