Dean Supporters - Some thoughts on the tax issue

[unfrigginreal]

Fasten your seatbelts. The road to Boston is about to get bumpier.

Governor Dean is getting attacked fast and furious from the other campaigns over repealing the Bush tax cuts. Nothing unusual, they've attacked him on everything else, from issues to appearance. This time is a little different though, there's a concerted effort, especially from one campaign, to get him to change his position for the good of the party. The argument is that the issue will be demogauged in the General Election, painting Dean as a tax hiker, and winning the election for Bush.

Is that argument valid? Would Dean's tax position cost us the election to Bush? I don't know, but it's not important at this point in time. We're still in the primary season.

Realize what they're asking Dean to do, change his position. And not because they believe that Dean is wrong, but because they're worried about how well it will play in Nov. 2004.

Now, I assure you, the very minute that Dean follows this "advice", the other candidates will be falling all over each other to be the first with the flip-flop tag.

Remember why many of us came to support Dean, because he was taking the unpopular position(our position) on the war that many of the others caved on for political expediency. That's the real intent of their "advice", to make him one of them, and bring him down to their level.

I personally hope that Dean sticks to his guns on this issue. If the others still feel this way when and if Dean is the nominee, then let them offer the advice then, as a supporter and not an opponent.

[Paperclips]

1. Its a loser

Campaigning to repeal ALL of the tax cuts is a loser. Repealing the cuts that the top 1 or 2% got is a solid campaign issue. But going after the entire tax cut, including the increased child tax credit will not win it for Dean, and most likely will have a negative down ticket effect as well.

[meegbear]

4. Good point ....

and WELCOME ABOARD!!! :party:

[Paperclips]

6. Been here

been here a long time. Got tired of only reading and not posting.

[Hep]

5. When even D's repeat it over and over and over

I'm sure you'll be right.

But you're not right in principle. Say it with me, for the hundredth time:

We don't need any of Bush's tax cuts to have fair and reasonable tax policy in this country.

Say it over and over. We can give breaks to the middle class, and those pooooooor breeders without using Bush's framework.

Say it! WE DON'T NEED BUSH'S TAX CUTS TO HAVE A FAIR TAX POLICY.

[sangh0]

7. Repeat this!

The middle-class cuts are DEMOCRATIC tax cuts.

Bush* doesn't like middle-class tax cuts.

[Hep]

13. show me

the bill.

[sangh0]

28. Why?

The middle class tax cuts were proposed and promoted by Dems. Bush* and the Repukes opposed it.

[Hep]

44. Say it again

BEcause you don't say it enough.

[sangh0]

68. The middle-class cuts are DEMOCRATIC tax cuts.

Bush* doesn't like middle-class tax cuts.

[Larkspur]

16. The Democratic middle class tax cuts are as unfair as Bush's

They only help a narrow band of people, not everyone in the middle class. Us single and child-free tax payers get soaked by our government, which increases our property taxes to pay for schools which we don't use, while the married with children get large tax breaks to shoulder the property tax increases.

This Democrat is for FAIR Taxes, not bribes disguised as tax cuts for the middle class married with children.

[Yupster]

46. 10 % tax bracket

was created from the 15 % bracket.

Did that not help you?

It had to unless you paid no income taxes.

[Larkspur]

64. I'm in the 31% tax bracket

and no, I do not see a tax decrease in my take home pay, but I do see my state income taxes going up.

[Yupster]

89. If you're in the 31 % tax bracket, then

you know you're also in the 10% bracket, the 15 % bracket and the 28 % bracket.

[Larkspur]

106. So? I still don't see an increase in my takehome pay

As the Citizen for Tax Justic document http://www.ctj.org/pdf/2003statecut.pdf on this topic shows, singles without children under Bush's tax cuts get a $50 tax cut for 2003. That translates into a $4.17 monthly (I get paid monthly) reduction.

Maybe I'm getting that measely amount, but my state income taxes have exceeded that amount and my property taxes will add to my burden.

Bush's tax cuts bleeds me red ink.

Sen. Kerry, Lieberman, etc who want to keep middle class tax cuts are not talking about the majority -- singles without children. They're pandering to an elitest group -- married with children.

What I want is FAIR Taxation. Dean comes the closest to giving me that.

[Yupster]

108. You're not in the 31 % bracket

There isn't any 31 % bracket any more. It's been reduced by both of the tax cuts.

Part of the 15 % bracket has been made 10%. The 28 % bracket has been cut to 25 %. The 31 % bracket has been cut to 28 %. If you're still paying the old rates, sue your accountant.

Here's the current chart of tax rates as of the second Bush tax cut package from CNN.

****************************************************************

"TAX RATES DECLINE
Tax rate declines were accelerated courtesy of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
Old rate New rate Tax-bracket end points
Single Joint
10% Same $7,000 $14,000
15% Same $28,400 $56,800
27% 25% $68,800 $114,650
30% 28% $143,500 $174,700
35% 33% $311,950 $311,950
38.6% 35% None None

New tax rates are effective from Jan. 1, 2003 through 2010. Tax-bracket endpoints are for 2003 and represent the top dollar-amount of taxable income which is subject to a given rate. In other words, the first $7,000 of taxable income for a single filer is taxed at 10 percent; dollars $7,000 through $28,400 is taxed at 15 percent and so on. These endpoints are indexed for inflation and can change from year to year."

********************************************************************

[Larkspur]

119. Ok I was in the 28% tax bracket, but that's not the point

My company includes the Bush tax cuts in our payroll program and includes state tax increases. My net gain is nonexistent and include my property tax increases, I will have a net loss, not gain from Bush's tax cuts.

As a single filer, I pay more taxes in my income bracket than married filing jointly, who make out like bandits, and single head of households. The tax cuts Kerry was referring to in his criticism of Dean's tax repeal plan was not for me. It was for the married filing jointly with kids.

[Yupster]

121. Your state legislature can

raise your tax or lower it. That's their perogative. They've probably been raising it pretty steady for 30 years.

Your federal income tax went down from 31 to 28 %. Since you make a large income, that should make a considerable difference to you.

If you want to complain about your state tax going up blame the guys who voted to do it in your state capital, not Washington, because not every state has raised taxes.

My state doesn't even have a state income tax, so ours sure hasn't gone up. It's still zero.

[bread_and_roses]

48. If you use doctors, nurses, technicians, or just about anyone

...of any sort, then you "use" the schools. An educated citizenry is essential to a Democracy as well as to the civilized functioning of society. And if you went yourself to a public school, as most of us did, you already "used" the schools. Essential services matter to all of us, whether we use them directly or not.

[Larkspur]

67. Parents should pay their fair share of taxes and they don't

While my property taxes will increase to support the new school, I'm not getting the middle class tax cut that Kerry is claiming exists. That is UNFAIR Taxation. I don't have a problem paying taxes to support schools, I have a problem when parents get tax breaks but are not held accountable for raising their children to be productive members of society.

If children drop out of school, commit crimes, go on welfare, or any combination of the above, can parents be charged with parental malpractice and be forced to payback to the taxpayers all the tax credits they got to "help" raise their kids?

[bread_and_roses]

78. If you are a parent

you already know that the "tax breaks" given to parents in no way offset the costs of raising children. If you are a parent of a child beyond toddler age, you already know that even the best of parents do not completely controll the "outcome" of raising their children. Your anger is misplaced. Raising children is the business of human society, directly or indirectly for all of us. Take your anger where it is deserved: at the wealthy who are reaping huge tax windfalls at the expense of the rest of us and at corporations who rely on the roads, schools, water systems and safety nets that WE pay for but don't pay their share. It is this regressive tax structure and loopholes that penalize you, not the assistance given to parents.

[Larkspur]

118. If it takes a village to raise a child, does that give me a right to

publicly rebuke a misbehaving child in public along with their parents? Do I get to whip someone else's child who is trampling private or public property?

I don't buy the "it takes a village" argument unless I actualy have power to wield.

And don't whine to me about the child tax credit not being enough. You were not required to have children, and those tax credits are more than us child-free get. I wouldn't mind the tax credits if at the local level, I got tax credits for not using the schools.

[bread_and_roses]

122. It bears repeating

If you want to live in a civilized society, you "use" the schools. And BTW, you do not know whether or not I have children. Surely you do not think that it is only those raising children themselves who support a child tax credit? I do not know where your seeming animosity toward the meagre assistance that the child tax credit provides to parents comes from, but I assure you, it is not that paltry bone that oppresses you. It is the weighting of the tax system to favor the very rich and corporations that burdens you with taxes. And I do not doubt you are burdened, but I do not understand your laying that burden at the feet of ordinary people who are at least as oppressed as you.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hep]

14. what are you talking about?

Breeders? People who have offspring? How is that racist?

My wife and I don't plan on having kids, and frankly, I'm a little resentful of the gummint throwing $400 PER KID to people for no other reason than that they HAD kids. I think it's a stupid investment, I think it's vote buying, and I think it needs to be done away with.

So show me why it's racist, for the love of God!

[Paperclips]

18. Talking about

If you heard a GOP person say "poor breeders" what would immediatly pop into your head?

[Larkspur]

22. In my neighborhood, it would bring up "white trash" images

Have a white 19 year old high school drop out at the end of my street who has 3 kids. She worked at the local laundrymat but found it too hard. She's a welfare addict and working on having her 4th kid.

[Hep]

26. poor breeders

If you heard a GOP person say "poor breeders" what would immediatly pop into your head?

Kim Deal.

Let's see, republicans generally aren't gay, so they wouldn't use it to refer to straight people. They generally have kids, like everyone else. So I'd have to say that I would initially think they're referring to themselves.

But that's not the point. Two of your posts got deleted because you assumed what I meant before you asked what I meant.

I'm sick of people with kids drooling over their $400 checks, acting like they're entitled to it. The way some people with kids prop themselves up as victims if their $400 is threatened.

[wtmusic]

21. I have two kids and I agree

Never understood this little bit of 'sugar' thrown at parents, especially parents who are perfectly able to support their kids (there are many other mechanisms in place to help those who aren't).

[LizW]

32. Not racist, just generally offensive

if you are using it to describe ALL people who have children. It implies that all people who have children had them accidentally or because they couldn't be bothered to use birth control or self control, and now expect the rest of society to help support them. Not that there aren't people like that, but there are also those of us who waited, diligently used birth control, had children only when we could afford to. Other than quality public education for all children (which benefits the childless as well as those with offspring) I don't expect the rest of society to do anything about raising my children.

Besides, "breeders" is a divisive term that I would hate to see come into common usage.

[Hep]

42. You're not looking at it withint the context of the thread

if you are using it to describe ALL people who have children. It implies that all people who have children had them accidentally or because they couldn't be bothered to use birth control or self control, and now expect the rest of society to help support them.

If you demand that the government pay you for having kids, then you DO expect the rest of society to help support them. Just be honest about it! I'm OK with supporting their education and their healthcare, because that benefits me. But lump sums of cash and special tax breaks? If you want special tax breaks, let's get rid of sales taxes on goods related to child care. Let's get rid of food taxes. Let's do things that benefit the children directly.

Besides, "breeders" is a divisive term that I would hate to see come into common usage.

What makes it divisive?

[LizW]

112. What makes it divisive?

"If you demand that the government pay you for having kids, then you DO expect the rest of society to help support them. Just be honest about it!"

That is what makes it divisive. It is a term used to express animosity toward people who have children. It is divisive because it is used exclusively by people who seek to portray all parents as leeches on society, demanding more than our fair share. It is divisive because it paints every parent unfairly with the same brush.

It is divisive because it's freeperspeak. It pits the childless against those with children by implying that people only have children so they can rake in more of society's "goodies" at the expense of the childless. It is divisive because it is intended to instill a "victim" mentality in the childless, by implying that they are being forced to support other people's children.

[seaglass]

41. I hope you know you're not winning any converts to the

Dean camp, in fact I believe you do him a disservice. Breeders is a derogatory term and not appreciated.

You can lash out at others if you like but it will not make Dean's position or your principles any more popular.

[Hep]

43. How

is it derogatory? Explain it to me.

And people here who hate dean hate dean, people here who like him like him. Thanks for the flattery but I don't think I'm influential enough to sway anyone anyway. But please explain to me how "breeders" is derogatory.

[seaglass]

52. It's a term that is used by the childfree as an insult to

parents. You perhaps haven't been here long enough to understand that and maybe it was the first term that popped into your head when you thought of parents.

I think you oversimplify when you suggest love or hate for Dean. There are a number of people who are undecided, a number of people who have him on their short list though he may not be number one and a number of people who are ABB and would like to not have to hold their nose to vote for Dean.

Whether you believe it or not, you do have the potential to influence others but the methods you are using are only singing to the choir. I would think if you are advocating Dean for President, your purpose would be to convince those undecideds and those who see Dean as a second or third choice that Dean is the right choice for President.

[Larkspur]

71. No, breeders is a child-free term for irresponsible parents

The full term is Breeder-not-parent or BNP.

BNP are those who breed kids that they can't afford to care for and whine about how hard it is to be a parent while condeming society for not paying them to be full-time parents so that they don't have to go out and actually find a job that they may not like. And these people are the ones most likely to breed the succeeding generations of welfare brats.

The other term is Parent-not-breeder or PNB.

PNB's are parents who either planned ahead financially and emotionally about having a child or after having the kid, they sucked it up and took the responsible route of changing their life to either pay their fair share of the costs of raising the kid or gave the kid up for adoption.

[seaglass]

76. Completely beside the point.

The term is not neutral.

[Hep]

81. Doesn't matter

I've never used or seen the term used as an insult. SO I don't consider someone elses interpretation to be my problem.

[seaglass]

90. So consider yourself enlightened.

[Hep]

99. Consider myself enlightened?

OK!

[Larkspur]

96. In child-free lexicon, BNP's and PNB's refer to a state of mind

not economic, racial, or ethnic classes.

And it's not intended to be neutral but provocative, and to be provocative means to incite. In this case, the child-free use breeder or BNP and PNB in a provocative sense to force others confront their stereotypes of parents, children, and child-free/childless.

[seaglass]

103. Larkspur, I don't interpret the term as having any

racial, ethnic or economic overtones, it's been used often enough here in the past and I never saw that intent. I interpret it as a put-down from the child-free towards parents, meant to inflame.

Hep has explained that he did not know the connotation of the term, so he/she will either learn from this experience or not.

I would say that I doubt that Dr. Dean would use or support such terminology to describe parents and that's why I suggested that using that term to support a Dean position was doing him a disservice.

[Larkspur]

107. Dean wouldn't use the child-free terminology, but he wouldn't tolerate

selfish parents either.

The child-free have long been abused by BNP's and our patriarchal society and we are started to speak up more, whether people like it or not. Some of us are as straight-talking as Gov. Dean and bringing our issues and complaints out in the open can initiate a healing catharsis. Yes, it will ruffle the feathers of the complacent, but that is the purpose of provocative dissent.

FAIR Taxation and accountability would cure much of the ill will between child-free and childed and singles and married. When the government or political parties favor one group financially at the expense of the rest, it creates division and ill will.

[seaglass]

120. I don't think the antagonism is helpful, but whatever

works for you. Using name calling as a tactic does not open my mind to new ideas, in fact it puts me on the defensive and leaves me totally disinterested in what the name-caller has to say.

[Hep]

80. you aren't explaining how

How is it used as an insult? IF you have kids did you not breed? I think this is more of a matter of how a person takes itrather than how a person dishes it out.

I think you oversimplify when you suggest love or hate for Dean. There are a number of people who are undecided, a number of people who have him on their short list though he may not be number one and a number of people who are ABB and would like to not have to hold their nose to vote for Dean.

I'm not here to convince anyone to vote for dean. If they decide not to vote for him becase of something I say that's not even related to his campaign, screw them. They don't approach politics the right way anyway. It's like someone not voting for Dean because the car that just cut them off had a bumper sticker. I'll not waste my time courting their vote in the first place.

Whether you believe it or not, you do have the potential to influence others but the methods you are using are only singing to the choir. I would think if you are advocating Dean for President, your purpose would be to convince those undecideds and those who see Dean as a second or third choice that Dean is the right choice for President.

We see it differently, which is OK. Vote for who you want in the primary. Vote D in the general. That's it.

[Eloriel]

75. It's offenseive and derogatory because it compares humans

to animals. Period.

It's racist (whther YOU had a racist thought in your head at the time or not), it's classist, and it stinks.

Eloriel

[Hep]

82. Nonsense

Compares humans to animals? I guess that's inappropriate because we aren't animals? But wait!

1) We ARE animals

2) We breed plants too.

This is ridiculous. If you want to shift the debate to something completely off point, fine, let's do that.

It's not racist because it isn't racially charged. Nowhere is race even brought up.

It's not classist because it is not socio-economically charged. Everyone got the $400 checks regardless.

And whether or not it stinks is up to you. It's a sensitivity issue.

The bottom line is that giving people money for having kids is BAD policy. Focus on that point or focus on one word, it is entirely up to you.

[Paperclips]

88. Wait a minute

I call it a racist comment and my post saying so is deleted twice. Yet yours saying the same thing sits here untouched.

[Paperclips]

87. As someone from NC

you should remember the outrage that erupted several years ago when a GOP state senator (whose name I can not remember) handed out bumper stickers that said the following...

Can't Feed 'Em
Don't Breed 'Em


He was roundly criticized for this and accused of attacking minorities, and called racist.

Was this bumper sticker derogatory? If yes, then how is the term "poor breeders" not?

[Larkspur]

98. I don't like Repukes, but this bumper sticker saying became a

favorite mantra of the child-free movement.

My dad, who was an FDR-Truman Democrat and who came from poor Irish immigrants, believed that very same mantra. He was not racist, but he grew up during the Great Depression and that experience taught him that a parent should be a responsible adult who can provide for his family. The parent don't have to be a Bill Gates, but have a job that provides funds to pay for the basics of life -- housing, food, clothing, and medical expenses.

[Hep]

100. It's simple!

I don't make a career out of fighting against social programs!

This is amazing! Tell me, would you get pissed off if you were watching a football game and the commentator praised a particularly good player by saying, "He's of a different breed."?

Does everything have to be so damn black and white? Sheez!

[realFedUp]

9. Welcome to DU Paperclips

Do you have a candidate you are currently supporting?

[Paperclips]

10. I have not

committed to, either financially or through volunteer efforts anyone at this time.

There are candidates that I can not, and will not support no matter what.

#1 among them is Al Sharpton. Mostly because of Freddys Fashion Mart.

[papau]

25. Dean includes a promise to restructure - and that better mean retain child

credits.

[Rose Siding]

2. Have you seen this stat?

It's part of Harper's index that was posted last night:

Percentage of Americans who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of this year's tax cut : 88

Average amount these Americans will save : $4

Source: Citizens for Tax Justice (Washington, D.C.)

http://www.harpers.org/harpers-index/listing.php3?src=1&sub_date=2003-10-01

[Yupster]

49. Please ex[lain how this stat

was arrived at?

It seems ridiculous on the face of it.

Are you married? Do you have kids? The extra tax credit per kid would put you over the $ 100 and lots more than 12 % of taxpayer families have kids.

Then there's the new 10 % bracket. That applies to everyone who pays any income tax at all whether you have kids or not. Reducing that bracket from 15 % to 10 % has to save you too.

This statistic just seems nuts to me.

I'd like to see how they arrived at it.

I mean anyone can be creative with statistics.

Maybe they said the high cost of gasoline ate up your tax cut, or inflation did, or higher healthcare, or taxes won't go down between 05
and 06, because they already went down in 02 and 03.

Anyway, when something seems so ridiculous, I need more explanation, ecause there's clearly more to the story than most people got less than a $ 100 cut.

[Rose Siding]

61. Here's more from ctj

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/2003statecut.pdf

[zoidberg]

65. As a percent of all Americans, not all workers

I'm pretty sure my ten year old cousin didn't get a dime from the tax cut. I guess that means it wasn't fair.

[Rose Siding]

70. It's all taxpayers, not all Americans

according to the ctj site page I posted.

[Yupster]

91. Thanks for posting the link

I'll look at it later better.

First reaction is maybe they're going year by year.

Only got $ 50 benefit in 06 over 05, but the major benefit came when the 10 % rate and child credit came in in 02 and 03. That would be true, but deceptive.

I'll look more closely later when I have more time.

[wtmusic]

3. How arrogant

For the good of the party? He hasn't even won the nomination yet! What if he is nominated on that very platform of repealing the cuts for the good of the nation, all other campaigns can crawl off in a corner somewhere.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the source of this is the DLC, and don't expect Dean to feel he owes them any favors.

[Larkspur]

12. I didn't get a tax cut

The tax cuts the leading Dem contenders are talking about are those for the middle class married with children. People with children under 18 make up about 35% of the US population. Out of that minority, I don't know how many are middle class married with children versus single with children. What we are talking about is that this "middle class tax cut" is for a sliver of the electorate. It is in essence, a bribe, not a fair tax cut.

Not everyone in the middle class got a tax cut. My paycheck does not show a tax cut. Singles and child-free get socked the most and get the least amount of benefits from our government. It ticks me off that only a narrow band of people get tax cuts and benefits, but are not held accountable for them, and I'm not just talking about Ken Lay and the boys. My property taxes are going to incrase to pay for a new school, which I will never use, and I don't get a tax break for not sending kids there. Parents who get these tax cuts should be forced to shoulder the burden of these property tax hikes to support schools, not the child-free.

This middle class tax cut issue is a divisive tactic used by the Dem contenders, who are getting blown out by Dean in the fundraising area. They are as bad as Bush.

[Paperclips]

15. Correct

This middle class tax cut issue is a divisive tactic used by the Dem contenders, who are getting blown out by Dean in the fundraising area.

No doubt about it.

They are as bad as Bush.

I wouldn't go that far. I wouldn't even approach saying that.

[Larkspur]

19. "They are as bad as Bush"

I meant it in the vein that they were being divisive as Bush is being divisive.

[Hep]

17. I got one!

My tax cut rocks! I make about 8 dollars more a month!

[Rose Siding]

27. 88% get less than $100

Percentage of Americans who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of this year's tax cut : 88

Average amount these Americans will save : $4

Source: Citizens for Tax Justice (Washington, D.C.)

http://www.harpers.org/harpers-index/listing.php3?src=1&sub_date=2003-10-01

That must be some important 12% if they get to decide fiscal policy.

[Yupster]

53. You didn't benefit from the 10 % bracket?

which was created from the 15 % bracket?

You had to get something from that if you paid any income tax at all.

It wasn't a big deal, but it had to benefit you because it's the lowest bracket. Everyone pays the lowest bracket on their first taxable income, so if you paid any income taxes at all, you benefitted from this.

[KaraokeKarlton]

20. Dean will stick to his guns

He doesn't only intend to get rid of Bush's tax cuts, he also plans to change the tax system so that it eases the burden on the middle class and lower income people and makes the more wealthy people and corporations pay their fair share. Yes, the middle class will lose something minimal, but in the long run they will gain a lot more and eventually end up paying less in taxes than they do with Bush's cuts.

[Paperclips]

23. Try selling that

Yes, the middle class will lose something minimal, but in the long run they will gain a lot more and eventually end up paying less in taxes than they do with Bush's cuts.

I'm going to raise your taxes today, but at some undetermined time in the future I will cut them to less than they are today.

Ya, people are really going to go for that line.

[Capn Sunshine]

29. Lets put it in context

Your tax break , Mr and Mrs 88%er, of $222 this year
is going away. However, next year, your property taxes will decline by $145 and your supplemental school tax of $87 dollars will disappear.

Not only THAT, but the company that holds your retirement money will be subject to more scrutiny to keep them from losing it, and we will get cops and firemen.

Oh, and in two years or less, your children will be covered by a national health plan, saving you $1200.

Try selling THAT.

[Paperclips]

34. Please tell me how

However, next year, your property taxes will decline by $145 and your supplemental school tax of $87 dollars will disappear.

Please tell me how the repealing of all the tax cuts is going to cause my county commission to lower my property taxes. Not going to happen.

[Capn Sunshine]

36. Same way they went up to fund the tax cut

you obviously don't pay any of the bills around the house. The Feds shifted funds away from states and municipalities to fund the first tax cut. This was the technique that led to 47 out of 50 states running defecits.

Perhaps, like many a California voter, you didn't see the connection. You're not alone.

[Yupster]

58. What are some of the big items

that the fed used to pay that the counties are now paying?

The great bulk of my local taxes goes to pay for the local schools, and the fedearl government never paid more than a sliver of the school budget and that almost all goes into special programs and grants like special ed and aid to disabled students.

[livinontheedge]

93. I do pay the bills around my house.

My property taxes went up too! But it wasn't because of cuts in federal tax rates. It's because local politicians keep spending more and more each year. I would love to see the slightest proof that income tax cuts at the federal level have a direct effect on local property tax increases.

I hate Bush's tax cuts because they directly increased the federal deficit and will ultimately lead to higher interest rates. But I'm equally pissed at my city, county, and state governments for spending too damn much money. That's why they dumped Davis in Califorinia. He was spending too much money on too much bullshit. Those state governement pensions were obscene. The people saw that too and tossed his ass to the curb. I wish we could do the same in Missouri. I'm so angry about my property taxes I would vote to recall EVERY politician in this state.

[bearfartinthewoods]

39. i can't sell that

the old 'bird in the hand' saying is carved in stone when it comes to the government. especially here in PA, where our new dem governor is having more trouble bringing in the property tax reform than the state income tax increase. people are pissed. and PA is going to be pretty important this cycle, i think.

[Yupster]

55. Yeah - my county commissioners may blame

Washington's tax cuts for raising my property taxes, but I don't remember the county commissioners cutting my property taxes when Washington raised my taxes 10 years ago.

[Hep]

31. Thank god you're not the salesman!

"I'll take your tax cut and replace it with healthcare, which will save you a couple grand a year. I'll throw in early childhood visitations so thay we can be sure you have everything you need. I'll make it so you don't have to fill out tax forms anymore. And I will see to it that you will get REAL tax cuts. And for the rich, you'll get a tax cut too, but first you have to invest in renewable energy. And, just to top it off, affordable education and job training for all!"

Sounds good to me.

[bearfartinthewoods]

47. pie in the sky sounds good too until you try to get ahold of a piece.

people have very little confidence that even the medicare prescription plan will go through. and i don't have any details that will help me sell your statement "replace it with healthcare"

if you do, please post the link.

you also mention 'REAL tax cuts". a family of four already has a REAL tax cut. as i said elsewhere, it's hard to convince someone that a bird in the hand is NOT better than one in the bush.

[Hep]

84. Lots

of people got no tax cut.

You give people the bottom line. Most people in my state got a raw deal out of the tax cuts. And I find it a little vexing that you appear to think thay these people are too dumb to realize that what they have in their hand is LESS than they had before the tax cuts went into place.

I'm more optimistic. I think people in my area, who I talk to regularly, realize that with the way things are in our state, they've lost out on the deal. And I don't think it's a matter of bird in the hand versus bird in the bush, because people don't have anything in their hands. I offer one bird, which has the potential to grow to mythological proportions, or another bird, which may survive the winter. They'll know which bird to pick.

[bread_and_roses]

24. I think Dean is wrong

look at the wealth distribution in the US and tell me that ordinary wage earners should lose their tax cuts:

http://www.therationalradical.com/dsep/wealth-distribution.htm

"The wealth distribution chart below shows that the top 1% own 38.1% of the wealth in the country, the next 4% own 21.3%, and the next 5% own 11.5%. That is to say, the top 10% of the country owns 70.9% of the wealth of this nation!

Ninety percent of the country owns a mere 29.1%."

But do go look at the chart for a graphic illustration.

For a look at just income, go to:

http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/polact_rich.htm

"Median Household Income: $38,885 (1998) - meaning half of all U.S. households live on this amount or less.

• Despite a 46.5% increase in productivity between 1973 and 1998, a worker earning $25,000 in 1998 is making $1,060 less than they would have in 1973, adjusting for inflation. The real value of the minimum wage has dropped by 27% since 1968."

good income chart there too.

I think it borders on dishonest, and I only say borders to give the benefit of the doubt, to propose policy that treats "middle-class" wage earners like the wealthy. And that is ASIDE from the political repercussions, which I think would be deadly.

[Larkspur]

30. Not every ordinary wage earner got tax cuts

or got cuts that they were gobbled up by property and state income tax increases.

Middle Class tax cuts are an illusion created by Bush to make the many think that Bush is being generous while the most tax cuts favor Bush's buddies.

[bread_and_roses]

54. Larkspur, I understand that

and that is not the point. As others have said, you are trying to sell "a bird in the bush" to people who have no faith in the birdcatchers. Won't work. Plus, what is proposed sounds complicated...do you think most people spend 1/100th of the time we do here on analysis? They will hear that they will lose their tax cut, period. That is not a way to win votes in the working and middle class. But winning votes is only part of the problem, and in my value system secondary. The real problem is policy that treats the ordinary wage earner like the rich. We can leave the "middle-class" tax cuts in place if we tax wealth and corporations.

[stickdog]

33. The CHILD TAX CUT IS TEMPORARY!!!!

So it's meaningless.

Dean could say that any household eaning less than $100,000 total gets to keep their meaningless temporary tax cut.

Would that work -- for the good of the Party?

[Paperclips]

35. Temporary

Little known fact. EVERY tax cut is temporary. By Senate rules, any tax cut it passes MUST be for a length of no greater than 10 years.

[Yupster]

59. What do you mean by temporary?

Is it any more temporary than any other law? Of course congress could change it at any time.

[stickdog]

66. It expires in two years. (NT)

[Yupster]

104. Thanks -- I remember this debate now when it happened

Dick Morris wrote a column (bcause you can't suck prostitute's toes all day now can you?) about how brilliant Bush was for sunsetting the plan.

Here it is from a couple years ago thanks to a yahoo search...

http://www.hillnews.com/morris/060403.aspx

[JaneQPublic]

37. Look at how the public feels about tax cut Vs. health care

[Capn Sunshine]

38. But the forces of doom tell us we're wrong

Because you don't see that factoid on TV. You have to READ.

[Yupster]

60. How do you think a third choice would poll

Raise taxes and don't provide help with healthcare?

I think that's what most voters would expect.

[bread_and_roses]

63. Excellent point

so why is Dean not advocating universal health care but some some complicated Clinton-esque plan that will scare everyone into thinking they might lose what they have (if they have it) and be worse off than under the current mess? The reality is, they do have health care costs now, at the time you are proposing to take away their paltry tax cut, and they have only promises of the proposed benefits.

[JaneQPublic]

79. It doesn't sound so complicated to me

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health

From Dean's flyer, "Promoting American Health":


My plan consists of four major components.


First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we'll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs -- Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 -- middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need.


Second, we'll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level -- $16,613 -- will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need.


Many working families have incomes that put them beyond the help offered by government programs. But this doesn't mean they have viable options for healthcare. We'll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive.


To cushion the costs, we'll also offer a significant tax credit to those with high premium costs. By offering this help, another 5.5 million adults will have access to care.


Third, we need to recognize that one key to a healthy America is making healthcare affordable to small businesses.We shouldn't turn our back on the employer-based system we have now, but neither should we simply throw money at it. We need to modernize the system so employers will have an option beyond passing rising costs on to workers or bailing out of the system entirely. Fortunately, we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.


With the plan I've put forth to the American people, we'll organize a system nearly identical to the one federal workers and members of Congress enjoy. And we'll enable all employers with less than 50 workers to join it at rates lower than are currently available to these companies -- provided they insure their work force. I'll also offer employers a deal: The federal government will pick up 70% of COBRA premiums for employees transitioning out of their jobs, but we'll expect employers to pay the cost of extending coverage for an additional two months. These two months are often the difference between workers finding the health coverage they need, or joining the ranks of the uninsured.


Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. There are many corporations that could provide healthcare to their employees but choose not to. The final element of this plan is a clear, strong message to corporate America that providing health coverage is fundamental to being a good corporate citizen. I look at business tax deductions as part of a compact between American taxpayers and corporate America. We give businesses certain benefits, and expect them to live up to certain responsibilities.

[bread_and_roses]

86. I do activist work around health care

issues, especially for Seniors and the uninsured. Believe me, it is complicated. People are going to be afraid that they will be on the losing end, particularly working people who are already paying for health care at work. Now, you want to tell them that they are going to lose their tax cut to pay for other people's health care while they are still paying for their own? Dean is trying, as Clinton did, to marginally ameliorate the problem of the uninsured while saving the Insurance and Pharmacutical industries most of the profits they are making from goudging Americans at a rate that would have people in other industrialized countries rioting in the streets. We are the richest country in the world; if we tax the rich and corporations at a progressive rate, we can afford Universal health care. Why isn't Dean proposing it?

[southpaw72]

40. pay as you go

Well after lurking and lurking I'm going to chime in.

Personally I hope that Dean sticks to his guns.

I don't buy the line that Americans will automatically reject any discussion of tax reform. For example, MWO has this pithy statement about Dean:

The Moron-American, Free Lunch constituency far outnumbers the Eat Your Vegetables constituency in America. Can you say "Governor Schwarzenegger"?

IMHO drawing this conclusion based on the California recall is neither true nor helpful to the Democratic cause. It also strikes me as somewhat elitist.

Nobody likes paying taxes, me included. But if Dean can make a strong case (a) for reform measures that will put our tax dollars to better use; and (b) that Bush's tax "policy" (if looting the Titanic as it sinks into the North Atlantic can be called a policy) has serious long-term consequences for all of us and our children, the American people will listen.

The point is he can't let the discussion of taxes get dragged out the context of his overall message, namely, restoring some fiscal sanity to our government.

Call me naive. But despite what the VRWC says over and over, there is a sensible center in American politics.

[bearfartinthewoods]

77. okay...the sensible center, here in PA just elected a dem gov, 2 yrs ago

truthfully, we got lucky that the former lt gov pubbie didn't run but sometimes you do get a break and Rendell's plan to shift some of the property tax burden into the income tax helped. this struck a cord because it is more progressive and sensitive to our aging population who suffer most from property taxes.

two years out. nada yet. ok...there is haggling about which tax to raise. recent polling says a slim margin favor income tax over additional sales tax but the unasked question...'what about the property tax relief?' is screaming around here.

people are pissed because they have a gut belief that the income tax will go up and property tax will not go down. and i have to say that they are probably right!

ok...so, tell me how i sell another democrat who says trust me?
remember. this state routinely elects pubbie senators (spectre and santorum) and may well have elected a pubbie gov if the right pubbie had run.

now tell me how we win with out PA. I know it can be done but run the numbers and see how much easier it will be to win with PA than without.

i'm telling you...tax increases will hit here locally....signed by a dem governor, before the election. property tax relief will NOT go through in time.

and then we bring on a dem for prez that wants to do the same thing... one who says...trust me...we can work this out....you'll be better off in the long run...yeah right.

gawd..i can hear bob durgan already........

[southpaw72]

97. well...

Thanks for responding. From where I live, I understand your frustrations (they don't call it "Taxachusetts" for nothing.)

But it seems to me that the point is that you can't get blood from a stone. If people want services, they have to be paid for somehow. It sucks, but how else can we raise revenue?

Here in Mass. our new GOP governor has promised not to raise taxes, ever. By this he means he won't raise income taxes. So instead of progressive taxation, we get it from the other end in the form of increased fees on everything, and cuts to local aid. So we still get taxes (just the regressive kind) and also less for our money.

Part of the problem is that the federal government has been cutting its support to the states, which just passes the blame on to the states. So if the federal government could raise more revenue AND (and most importantly) stop wasting it on pork, that money could be shifted to the states, which would lead to lighter tax burdens on the state level. I'm sure I'm saying stuff you already know.

The government cannot continue raking up record deficits year after year. So either we go with the Grover Norquist solution of privatizing everything, or we need to seriously address the tax issue. I'd rather have a candidate who says that up front, rather than waiting until after he's elected and then raising taxes.

So my point is just this, that Dean needs to make the tax issue part of a bigger programme of reform. (That also includes recouping corporate taxes much more aggressively.) He can't just let the tax issue sit out there alone.

Finally, let me make the point that I'm not a hard-core Deanite. I haven't made up my mind yet. But the fact that he is willing to address the tax issue is, in my mind, a plus, not a minus.

[Yupster]

45. Hey - it worked for

Mondale. :shrug:

[mzmolly]

73. Mondale was running on the percieved economic failures

of Carter. That played a role in his defeat.

[CWebster]

50. Why doesn't the band who have been sitting on their hands

in the Senate for the past couple of years, make the courageous stand and recant their vote to give Bush a blank check---for the sake of the party.

Can't expect this crowd to play fair.

[Roark]

51. I hate it

but as long as Dean continues to insist he is going to revoke all of the middle class tax cuts without an explaniation of how he is going to ease the tax burden that comes from the new, increased state and federal taxes he will not get my vote.

I won't vote for Bush, but if Dean does not clarify his position and find a solution to this i'll stay home next November. In the meantime, i'll continue to support Clark.

[unfrigginreal]

56. You are the 2nd Clark supporter...

to post today that they will not vote for Dean.

[Roark]

57. Qualify your statement

I said I would not vote for Dean if he does not modify his position on the damage his repeal of the Bush tax cut could do to the middle class.

I prefer Clark, but I would happily vote for Dean in the general election if he is not pursuing a course of action that would have a direct and real effect on making the average American middle class workers life harder.

Are you saying you have no problem with that?

[unfrigginreal]

69. I just find it surprising that some will withhold a vote...

for the Democratic candidate because they disagree with them on one issue. If you believe that Dean would be worse than Bush for "the average American middle class workers life" then yes, I do have a problem with that.

[Roark]

72. That is not the question I asked..

What I asked was whether you have no objection to the damage that Dean will do when he revokes the Bush tax cut, increases the tax burden on the middle class and does nothing about the increased state and local taxes. Your dance was nice, but it avoids the question and you and I both know it.

I won't "withhold" a vote. I vote FOR a candidate, not against another candidate. I'm sorry, but Dean will have to earn my vote. He does not get it by default. Increasing taxes on the middle class is an action that I will not support. Sorry.

[SahaleArm]

94. You're right.

I'll be voting for whomever gets elected the nominee, even Holy Joe. Dem's need to set aside their grudges in 2004 and get a Democrat into the WH.

[TLM]

109. Why keep part of a bad plan...

half bad, isn't good simply because it is less bad.

This is the Bushlite montra... want the same shit as Bush, just not as much.


Sharpton and Dean and Kucinish are right... get that bad plan out and then start from a clean slate and pass real tax reform for the middle class and working poor.

I am sick and tired of being handed a half assed handjob on tax reform, because nobody has the guts to say flat out that some tax cuts do more damage than good.

But some people don't care they just want to get paid... even if it means 3 million lost job, higher state taxes, higher college fees, etc.

Tell me how much does it cost to buy your vote?

[killbotfactory]

62. He needs to stress the tax reform part

Repeal the Bush cuts, reform the tax code, and start over. There's no need to keep the cuts which weren't even popular to begin with. In exchange we get universal health care, fully funded federal mandates, lower state taxes, early childhood intervention which will lead to lower crime, investments in small business, investments in infrastructure, and we don't burden our children with horrendous debt.

Hmm... that, or Bush's tax cuts... hmm... tough choice.

[mzmolly]

74. Exactly, it's all in how we 'educate' voters.

(period)

[AP]

83. Dean's "reform" chat is about "simplifying" the tax code and helping...

...the poor.

He's very light on chat about redistributing the tax code in a more progressive manner. Furthemore, "simplifying" is libertarian code. It's a pathway drug for flat taxes.

[Hep]

85. The lengths you go!

Flat taxes!


OMG!

:D

[bearfartinthewoods]

95. and all this is going to happen with the republicans in control of both

or even one of the house and senate?

may i ask where you live? because if the people in your area will buy that i think we need to move more federal money into your education system...or maybe the mental health system because that "plan" is either stupid or nuts or both.

[killbotfactory]

105. Dean will wave a magic wand

and poof, it'll get passed.

Hey, I know! We can bring up that arguement about everything any democrat wants to do! Fun!

[bread_and_roses]

92. Welfare brats? Breeders?

Where is all this rage coming from? Are people not supposed to have children because we have structural poverty and poverty level wages that subsidize corporations at the expense of labor? Having children is an almost universal human desire/need. Only in western industrial society could human beings be savagely condemned for having a child because they don't make "enough" money. Even given all the obstacles, a bad economy, and insufficient resources for day care or after school care, most "welfare mothers" manage to work some of the time - and most would work more if they could. These are disgraceful and savage attacks that blame the poor for being poor in a society which offers damn few options for getting out of poverty.

[Larkspur]

101. Humans don't necessarily want kids for the right reasons

Most people who have kids don't think about the consequences of parenthood before they have them. After the kid comes, all hell breaks loose, and the stress of having unplanned and unwanted kids takes a toll on marriages. Kids and the stress they create are the #1 reason for divorce, especially if one of the partners really didn't want kids to begin with.

And considering that human population has exceeded our biosphere's capability to care for us, don't you think that Nature would counter the urge to breed with encouraging some in the population to not breed? In animals, like mice, overpopulation increases stress to the point that mice in laboratory conditions will go on murderous rampages.

We humans have a brain and we should use it when planning on having children or not. There is no valid excuse for humans to not plan ahead on the consequences of having children, especially considering that we in the industrialized world consume more resources than we give back.

[Hep]

102. Have all the kids you want!

Have mine!

Kidding. I don't have kids and don't plan to. And it's not rage.

And the child tax credit is not for only poor people. Everyone with kids gets it. And I believe that it is unfair.

Look, we pay all sorts of taxes in our lives. Why is it that this is the way this relief is manifested? Why is it that this is a form of tax relief that IN NO WAY guarantees that this child receives any benefit? It's a form of trickle down economics. We hope that if we give you money back in this form, eventually it will trickle down to the kids.

My question is, why not look for better ways to use that money? Ways that target the kids directly? We already do that in some ways, but we're not exploring those opportunities enough. There's a lot more we can do without buying people votes and claiming it's For The Children.

[TLM]

111. That the whole point of this crap.... to get us to fight over crumbs.

To get breeders fighting those with no kids... to get married folks fighting single folks... all while the power elite contnue the same shit they've been pulling. They take your money, my money, and they toss back some scraps that we fight over, so we'll be too busy trying to get 400 bucks here or 300 there, to notice how hard we're gettign fucked over everywhere else.

It is sad to see guys like Kerry and Lieberman who claim to be democrats using this same kind of repuke trick to turn their supporters on each other, by making it sound like this pitance will solve all our probelms, and the gettign rid of Bush's tax cuts will somehow put more burden on the middle class... as if Bush tax cuts lifted any burden off the middle class in the first place.

I paid more taxes under Bush than I ever paid before... because my state taxes went up way more than the amount I saved on federal.

Dean is smart enough to avoid this mess, to get this whole pile of crap out, get rid of it. Then to focus on tax reform from a clean slate, rather than trying to prop up the shity excuse for middle class tax cuts that were found in Bush's plan.

[TLM]

110. Some more thoughts on the tax issue... falling in the same holes.

The repukes fear, more than anything, when the people pool resources.

That is one reason they fear Dean so much, he's showing people how to pool their resources.

Repukes and greedy dems, like Kerry, but into this "me first" notion. They buy votes by telling people they'll give them each money. Split all of the people apart and encourage their selfishness by waving a few hundred bucks at them.

That 400 bucks won't do a damn thing for the average family, even with a few kids, lets say 1200 bucks. That's not going to pay for healthcare for that family, or tuition... sure it will be nice to have a few bucks... probably going to get a new TV or pay bills for a month. Then the money is gone and they are right back in the same mess.

By getting everybody in this selfish me me me mode, all trying to get paid, they mask the fact they are reversing the pooling of resources. This is a ploy to effectively undermine these same people from pooling their resources to get better schools for everybody, better health care for everybody, and better job/business for everybody.

I refuse to support this intentional fomenting of selfishness, nor the candidates who knowingly sell out their constitutions to this process, just for political gain. It is worse than buying votes… what they are buying is apathy. They are paying 400 bucks per kid to get these middle class families to stop pushing for change or trying to get better schools and healthcare. They want them focused on getting paid, and to put middle class working poor with kids against those with no kids. They want people to stop focusing on change and focus only on getting a few bucks from the government, like peasants begging for food at the palace gates.

The whole point is to derail the process of progressive change… like throwing a bunch of 20’s into a crowd of protesters so they’ll not only lose focus on the protest, but turn against each other. And I see so many supposed progressive dems buying into this, mouthing the repuke lines, and all because they want to get theirs….

Who would have thought that progressive values could be bought for 400 bucks.

[CWebster]

114. Good points!

I was thinking the same thing earlier and started a post about it on another thread, but then decided not to bother because the thread was deteriorating into a baiting competition.

You expressed exactly my own thoughts - only better. Thanks.

[ozone_man]

115. Yeah, I was going to rec this post too.

TLM sure seems to have captured the essence of this tax cut.

I would just add, that Bush is massively deficit spending and the payments will be coming due at some point in the future. If we allow deficit spending, what is an acceptable expenditure? I would say jobs and health care. Something that is a good investment, instead of some feeble attempt to jump start the economy, or worse trickle down economics that doesn't work from tax cuts to the wealthy.

[CWebster]

117. Once

there was a guest on Tweety, the host of some financial talk show--"Kudlow and Kramer", maybe? Anyway it was the loud one, not the bogus weirdo in the pin-striped suit, and he said the taxcuts were useless. He said it straight out, that like the rebates, the numbers go up for Walmart and Home Depot for a month, and then they go back down again and nothing changes. I recall a stunned silence from Tweety after he said it. All the guy did is say the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes.

But if everyone contributes to reach a goal for the benefit of all, then everyone sustains the benefit in the long-run.

[unfrigginreal]

113. Counterspin Central has done quite a nice piece on this

A few snippets:

It's the same dumb reasoning that caused many skeptical Democrats to vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution. And we saw how that turned out, didn't we? It was wrong not just on substantive grounds, but it actually HURT the Democrats politically in the 2002 Congressional elections.

Why should anyone respect the Democrats if they are basically conceding that taxes should be cut?

If you are a voter who thinks taxes is an important issue, would you vote for the party that wanted to cut your taxes a little...or the one that wanted to cut them a lot? Anyone sitting on the fence, and pondering whether the tax cuts are a good idea or not will wonder why they should vote for the Democratic candidate, when they actually admit that raising taxes is a bad idea. Why not just vote for the Republicans? They seem to be CONVINCED they are right zabout the beneits of tax cuts, even if you are not sure. And, heck, even the Democrats agree with them. So, the Republicans must be right about taxes!

By refusing to even DEBATE this issue, the Democrats are basically admitting defeat before we've even egaged the argument.

http://counterspin.blogspot.com/#106736458829752434

-------

Also, MWO has updated their site and has posted letters on both sides of the issue.

http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/

[bread_and_roses]

116. No, it is not the same as IWR

because progressive taxation is - or at least was - a core principle in Democrat policy. The pandering is from those who ignore the vast disparity between the top 5% (especially the top 1%) and nearly everyone else, and ignore the distinction between wages and wealth. The essential deceit is to speak as if there is any parity between income taxes and wealth taxes. Or as if there is no difference in lowering the taxes of a family with 50,000 income (which probably consists of two wage earners, so not exactly rich people) and lowering the taxes of a family with 500,000 in dividend income. There is a huge difference, both for the two very different families and for the economy. And I see no reason why any "middle class" wage earner should give back ONE CENT of his/her tax cut BEFORE corporations and the rich have to give back some of theirs. And that is all aside from my opinion that it is a deadly policy on pure political grounds. Spend any time in working class bars? Listen to them on the subject of "taxes" and then try to convince me that middle America will gladly give up $ in hand (which most of them need, whether you think so or not) for an as yet non-existent benefit.

I do agree that many Democrats are a cowardly and pusillanimous lot for being so afraid of being accused of "class warfare" that they will not speak up for the vast majority of wage earners. But I see no difference between them and Dean.