I must say that I love Lieberman's economic plan!

[Loyal]

I am not a supporter of his, but I like him more and more after reading his new ideas.

http://www.leadingwithintegrity.com/plan/taxplan.htm

Here's what Lieberman will do if he is elected:

First, he will keep in place the middle class tax cuts that Democrats forced Bush to include in his packages—such as the increase in the child tax credit and the elimination of the marriage penalty.

Second, to make the system better balanced, he will:

Restructure the income tax brackets in a systematic way
Reset the top two income tax rates that George W. Bush lowered
Lower the middle two rates for middle class families
Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income families
Restore the dividend tax that Bush repealed
Reform the estate tax that Bush repealed
Eliminate wasteful corporate loopholes and subsidies that Bush has protected
Add a limited 5 percent surtax to the highest income taxpayers that will prevent them from taking advantage of the lowered rates for middle class families

Now if this doesn't get us the middle class, I don't know what will. Lowering rates for everyone except the top 2% will unleash incredible economic growth, in my opinion. What do you folks think of Lieberman's plan for tax fairness?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. do you like what he said on MSNBC this morning....

"There's nothing to apologize for about invading Iraq. Bush* did the right thing"....i don't care what ANY of his stance on the issues are....he is a jerk!....

[gWbush is Mabus]

2. i like it a lot

[IndianaGreen]

3. Lieberman will have the same problem that all Democrats will have

Any attempt to restore fiscal sanity will be portrayed by Bush as a "tax increase" rather than a "tax restoration" which is what it really is.

It will take considerable skill to break through the media noise and get through people with the truth.

[Loyal]

6. Well technically it is a tax increase

Let's not dance around the issue, IG. But it will be a tax increase on the wealthy. You can call it a tax restoration, but raising rates after they have been cut is technically an increase. And you're damned right that Bush and his cronies will throw a fit about it, too.

[AP]

10. It's a reapportionment of the tax burden in a way that is fair for rich &

middle class & poor.

[Loyal]

11. More dancing

Listen I like Lieberman's plan, but let's be honest on here. It is a tax increase on some people. lol

[HFishbine]

15. Media Spun it Against the Dems Out the Gate

Fox news teased it as a "Shocker for the Rich," when it could have just as easily been portrayed as a "Bonanza for the middle class."

[cthrumatrix]

4. Lieberman has shown his stripes ....and there are better choices

He has shared how there is no need for an apology for the occuaption/invasion of Iraq .....enough said.

[papau]

5. Needs to add ending the cap on wages that are taxed for the payroll tax

and I'd suggest the 150,000 be made 200,000 so that it sells better - or if we can get the wage cap lifted, make it 300,000!

But the trillion or so would restore the economy.

Then trade $800 billion of that for single payer, no insurance company involved except as an administrative service provider -National health - since this would free up the premiums the working families get an economic break - and the country as a whole saves 15% of current health costs (minimum extimate - it may be as high as 25%).

Now if Joe can kiss off his pro insurance company bias, he is back into this race.

[ShimokitaJer]

7. I'd like it better if I understood it.

What does "restructure the tax brackets in a systematic way" mean, and what kind of "reform" does he propose for the estate tax? Also, Lieberman has a history of being pro-corporate, so until he specifies exactly which loopholes he's planning on closing, I'm taking that one with a grain of salt.

Better than Bush? Absolutely. The best we can do? I don't think so.

[AP]

9. It means making the rates more progressive. Higher rates on higher income

and lower rates on lower gains, and it probably means spreading out the bands farther up the income scale. It's ridiculous that the tax code is progressive up to 300K and flat beyond that.

What would be great is if the code where made progressive on corporate income tax too by having having bands and rates than extend way up into the income ranges which corporations earn.

[ShimokitaJer]

13. That's what I would hope it meant, but...

What I'm taking issue with is the vagueness of the language. He can promise to "restructure" and "reform" and play to the middle class while not specifically saying he's going to increase the taxes on the wealthy or corporations, where the majority of his contributions come from.

I agree with you that Edwards plan is better. We'll never have a fair tax system until we start distinguishing the way we tax income from labor and income from dividends.

[AP]

8. It's the right thing to do.

Edwards one-ups him on progressivity. Edwards wants a second tier for dividend income.

[Loyal]

12. What is up though

with his talks about millionaires lounging by the pool and paying lower taxes on dividend income? Working people own dividends, too, hello. :hi: Sure lots of rich people own them, and most people who own dividends are rich, but not everyone. It's being a little disingenuous I think.

[AP]

16. Break it down.

The average working class person probably will earn 99.5% of their lifetime income as earned income taxed at higher rates than dividen, cap gains, etc rates.

The average Millionaire will probably earn 25% of their lifetime income as earned income. The rest will come as cap gains, dividends, trust fund income, inheritance under the cap, etc, etc. (if you have two millionaire partents, you can get 1 million tax free from them).

[HFishbine]

14. Can Someone Explain

what's fair about the child tax credit? As a single person, I wonder why I should have to pay a greater share of taxes than people who choose to have children.

Yeah, yeah, I know -- children are expensive. But they demand a lot from public funds too. Just look at the cost of education. Why should a parent get a tax credit for creating an expense for the government, while I, who have added no such burden to public funding, pay more than those responsible? I just don't get it.

[ShimokitaJer]

17. We live in a society

And in order to advance the goals of that society, it is often necessary to pay for things for which we don't see an immediate personal benefit.

It is to everyone's advantage to have an educated populace, and so everyone should pay for public education.

I put the child tax credit in the same category. Even though I don't have a child, I can see the sense in paying to offset the costs of childrearing if it means a general decrease in poverty, an increase in the general health of the populace, etc.

It is important to everyone, you included, that children are kept healthy, educated, and out of poverty.

[HFishbine]

19. Shimokita

With all due respect, you've resorted to creating a Straw Man rebuttal. You've set up an argument to a point I did not make. In fact, I agree completely with everything you said. My point was not against the value of public eduction -- which I endorse wholeheartedly.

Accepting the value of healthy and educated kids, my quesion remains, why should single people bear a greater portion of the public burden for kids than parents?

[ShimokitaJer]

21. Because it benefits the society in which YOU live

Those who are better able to bear the burden pay a greater proportion of the taxes. Since children are a big expense, it makes sense to give a tax break to those who are faced with those costs, just as the poor are required to pay taxes at a lower rate. That may sound like socialism, but it's the cornerstone of the whole system of tax brackets. Everybody does better when everybody does better.

How can you not see the connection between tax breaks for families with children and the keeping of children healthy and out of poverty? You could make an argument that the child tax credit should only apply to the poor, but as near as I can tell you aren't taking that position.

[HFishbine]

25. Ahhhh

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. You've articulated two arguments with which I agree.

1) Healthy, educated children are good for society.
2) Keeping children out of poverty is necessary to have healthy educated children.

If having a child is going to send you into poverty, don't have one. If you do though, despite my admonition, then yes, you should get help for the good of your child.

However, if a family is perfectly capable of raising a healthy and educated child, free from poverty, by their own means, then why should I subsidize that family?

Frankly, I resent subsidizing wealthy families, or even middle class families who can well afford a child or two. The child tax credit should have a means test and be only for the purpose of keeping children and their families out of poverty.

[ShimokitaJer]

28. I agree completely

I don't think it's fair that the child subsidy is available across the board, either. Those families who are able to raise the child on their own without financial strain (say, upper middle class and above) should do so without a tax break.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of policy that is really easy for Repulicans to attack, since you could make the argument that we would be giving a tax incentive to the poor to have more children. I personally don't think poor families are lining up to have ten kids so they can rake in the cash, but that is exactly the way the pundits already paint it. Having a flat child tax credit regardless of income makes it at least look like one segment of the population isn't being favored. And since the Republicans are so proud of their "family values," it's one tax break that even they won't attack openly.

[sangh0]

18. The costs of child care

result in lower disposable income for those who have children. Since a truly progressive tax structure is based on disposable income, it makes sense to give workers tax credits/reductions for those things which decrease one's disposable income

[HFishbine]

22. Not buying it

(I'm going to assume that the definition of disposable income, as you use it, is income left over after neccessary expenses.)

I appreciate the explaination, but I find it hard to accept your premise because it fails if one tries to fully apply the principle.

Let's use as an example rent. It's a necessary expense for anyone who doesn't own a home -- it doesn't come out of my disposable income.

If I were given a tax credit for my rent, it would certainly increase my disposable income, yet I'm not. Shouldn't I be, if it is true that it " makes sense to give workers tax credits/reductions for those things which decrease one's disposable income?"

And if such a credit should somehow come to pass, should I be given even greater credit should I decide to move up to a penthouse apartment -- just as parents get more credits for each child they have.

And don't forget, my apartment is not a tax burden the way children are. Sorry, but I still think it's unfair. Parents get a break for creating public spending burdens while single people who refrain from creating spending burdens are asked to pay more.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

20. maybe because it will be those children that will be your doctors, nurses

scientist, engineers, firefighters, police, politicians and soldiers caring for you even though you didn't contribute to their creation you will benefit from them especially in old age...they will be making life and death decissions concerning you and me...all of us....be nice to them they will be changing your's and my diapers and wipping our arses.....taking care of you and me in the nursing home one day :7

[HFishbine]

23. Another Strawman

And some will be prisoners, drug dealers, corporate CEO's and other drags on society, which is to say there is no guarantee that your child will be a benefit to society. He may well be a constant burden.

However, accepting the obvious benefits of a well-raised child, is your point that because parents take up the primary costs of raising children, single people should subsidize parents for the good of society?

[ShimokitaJer]

24. And if we offer child subsidies, hopefully fewer of them

will be prisoners, drug dealers, etc. The connection between poverty and crime is too clear to be disputed.

And yes, although the question wasn't directed at me, single people SHOULD subsidize parents for the good of society, just as the wealthy should bear a greater tax burden to subsidize the poor for the good of society.

[HFishbine]

26. Question

Fair enough, but is my subsidy of your child for the good of society if it means that I have $50 in my savings account, while your child tax credits allow you to get the 50 inch plasma TV instead of the 27 inch?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

29. none of my children nor I have ever owned a 50 inch plasma TV..."strawman"

[oasis]

27. But Lieberman said Democrats shouldn't engage in class warfare

:eyes: