Kerry on "targeted tax cuts" - question.

[dean4america]

I watched the highlights of Kerry's economic plan speech just before, and I had a question to those of you with a better understandign of economic/tax policy than I do (phd is in cultural theory... am bad with number :).

In his speech (and, as I checked, in the summary of his plan as posted on the official campaign website), Kerry says that he would "Keep the Middle Class Tax Cuts to Help Families Make Ends Meet <...> He strongly disagrees with Democrats who want to repeal these tax cuts, which would cost a typical middle-class family with two children an additional $2000."

My question is, how does Kerry arrive at this number? Isn't this, essentially, the same formula Bush used to justify and prop up tax cuts en masse. I *believe* the Bush number was 1,200 per typical middle-class family of two parents, two children. If getting rid of the tax cuts for the upper 1% leaves x amount to work with, and then used for health care, and a number of other economic infusions he outlines, wouldn't then the "average" tax refund still come out similar to what we had now among poor and middle-income individuals (that is, those who got ridiculous 12 dollar checks, or even 400 dollar checks but experienced property tax increases over and above that amount).

Even though I am a Dean supporter, I'm not trying to distort Kerry's plan or anything; I'm trying to understand it. If I am misinterpreting it, please enlighten me.

Thanks.

[dsc]

1. He may be calculating the cost

over a period of years. $400 per year for 5 years is 2k. My problem is with the fact that the deficits we are running, and the cuts the feds have already made, are combining to raise state taxes way more than that. My district just passed a levy but still we had to lay off so many lunch personel that our school lunches are atrocious. Today was the first day I worked and the lunch was chicken nuggets, mixed veggies, and milk. That is all at a jr high. No salads, no other drinks. Nothing.

[dean4america]

2. thanks dsc

if he is in fact calculating at 400 over 5 to get 2K, that's going to be a hard sell (at least, to me).

btw, that lunch menu is painful to hear, sorry about that.

cheers

[dsc]

3. Hopefully a Kerry supporter

will clarify as I am offering a theory as much as anything. I do know that one other time we were discussing this here that figure came up and that is how it was arrived at. The lunch thing is just unbelievable. I was in shock. Rumor has it they are switching to frozen dinners as opposed to cooked food. This was in addition to a dozen teachers being laid off. And remember we passed a levy. Had it failed we would have lost over 40 teachers.

[dean4america]

6. ouch

frozen dinners as opposed to cooked food? my god, wtf is going on in this country? that is horrible. may I ask what state you live in?

[sandnsea]

4. A few other things

I haven't found the speech online yet and wasn't able to watch it, where'd you end up finding it anyway?

But there's a few additionals. Sending $25 billion to the states would help keep those property taxes from going up. The health care plan would help reduce premiums, estimated at $1,000 a year. Plus he wants to make enrollment for low-income families automatic so that benefit would help offset the low tax refunds, although the 10% bracket was also pushed by the Democrats and would stay. He's also promoted a payroll tax holiday at times, though I don't know if that's in this plan. So he has a genuine concern for low-income and working families, but keeping the Bush tax cut for the middle class is directed at the middle class voter.

But since I haven't read the actual speech today, don't hold me to any of this, it's just what I've read in the past and off the top of my head.

[dean4america]

5. on his official website

www.johnkerry.com - there is both the full text of his proposal, as well as a truncated summary/outline.

I don't doubt his concern for low-income/working families, I'm just trying to piece together how the numbers come to be. It seems that his proposal is almost too detailed, i.e., if you go from x to y to z, you can get his number. I'm not saying it's a BAD proposal, just that it seems like the kind of thing that another candidate could call him on.

Kerry's not my first choice, but his plan may be the best one out there (though I disagree with it). What I worry about is that a plan perceived as intricate by the media/mainstream viewer gets muddled, especially when Dubya can say "tax cuts" and simplify it to the extreme. Conversely, when Dean says "You can have the tax cuts, or repeal them and have health insurance, etc." it is a nice contrast to Dubya and readily available for consumption. Of course, I'm not basing my support of Dean's plan on its perceive ease of understanding (his may be the best one out there, time will tell).

Anyway, thanks for trying to clarify - cheers

[sandnsea]

7. Thanks

Last time I checked the site, the new speech wasn't up yet so I was going on past information. And it's too late for me to crunch numbers, to be honest. But I guess somebody needs to get to it one of these days soon, on all the candidates.

Anyway, on the rhetoric. Bush tax cuts and fend for yourself. Yuk. Dean, no tax cuts at all in order to shove everybody into Medicaid or another goverment program. Yuk.

Kerry, keep your tax cuts PLUS low income automatically enrolled; tax credits for mom & pop employees (60% of uninsured) and unemployed; anyone can buy into the existing Federal health program; cover catastrophic costs to reduce health premiums for everybody; holding pharmaceuticals financially accountable; help to health care professionals to improve services and reduce costs; and more. It's a real plan that addresses alot of the problems in health care today.

His detailed policies are why I think he's the better candidate. And what he'll be able to do is address different voting groups with health care solutions specific to them, not try to hit every group with the same remarks which likely won't help them anyway. No tax cut and health care for somebody else isn't a real selling point, and that's about where Dean's plan would leave me and my grown, childless kids.

[dean4america]

8. .

On Kerry, I have nothing against detailed policies (after all, Clinton was the greatest policy wonk in the world, next to maybe Gore), which *may* or *may not* be better than Deans. Once everyone has a plan out on the same topic, then I can compare and see where they stand. But, in this cynical, bullshit-media, dumbed-down world, all the detailed policies in the world might not amount to a hill of beans if it takes Kerry 5 hours to distill his plans. This was Gore's problem, too (granted, a lot of that was biased media propogating the gore is boring meme, etc.). Some of my friends who are big time Kerry supporters sometime cringe when he goes on explaining some policy point, and they support his policies already. With Dean, they know where he stands immediately, which even they concede is a selling point against Kerry.

In a perfect world, Kerry may be the best politician in the traditional sense in the race, but I think Dean is the best candidate to beat Dubya (in terms of inspiring new voters, enlarging the base, appealing to independents, etc.).

(Also, to this point, Dean's stances are more in line with my own, and his health care plan does benefit me).

Cheers

[sandnsea]

11. It's a problem

He'll just have to encourage people to reach higher and think harder than they have in the last few years. Because George W. Bush is what you get when you don't. It's a problem, but I think the American people will realize we have to have more than gimmicks when electing a President... especially when John Kerry shows them the difference!

[burr]

9. Not unless it means a tax increase for your kids....

Providing for the increased security spending, a solvent Social Security System for the Baby Boomers, and a universal healthcare system will not be free. Either we are willing to pay for this, our kids are going to pay for it, or these things will just not be there for the future.

These means repealing all the tax cuts supported by shrub..even the parts we may like, or otherwise face the choice of passing a higher tax burden to the next generation just so they will carry today's dropped obligations. Tax increases in the future should only be used for necessary contempory programs, not to pay off past debts.

Finally, Dean has made no proposal to shove everybody into Medicaid. He would give uninsured people the chance to buy private health insurance similar to what Congress has, while allowing those who are unemployed to get assistance when paying lower COBRA primiums. In other words, we would all pay in and would all benefit from this proposal!

[sandnsea]

10. 'similar'

Not the same. A new government program. That's the plan Dean wants people to buy into. No thank you. People are not going to give up their tax cuts for that, I guarantee you. That plan also creates a whole new bureaucracy, which will cost money, while Kerry's simply uses Federal insurance already in place. And Federal insurance is one of the best available. I am SO behind that.

In addition, Kerry plans on going after corporate tax fraud, shelters, give aways, welfare, off shore, etc., very strongly. That should increase tax revenues as well. And I sincerely do not believe he is going to require the kind of military spending Bush has, he isn't promoting a global military takeover, you know? (Neither is Dean, I understand that) I really think that we can afford the middle class tax cuts, and that they also make sense in order to not take more money out of the economy. And middle class by his definition is $40,000 - $90,000, the true middle class worker.

His policies are just so much better, they really are, all the way around. I appreciate your civil discussion, but I am not likely to choose Dean. I'd go Edwards, Gephardt or Graham before I'd ever choose Howard Dean. But if he gets the nomination, Yard Sign, Bumper Stickers and 100% support!

[burr]

12. The $8 billion dollar difference, in costs for those paying primiums.

Those paying the primiums under the Kerry plan would pay twice as much per month as they would under the Dean plan. Whether or not we have the option of keeping these tax cuts should be clear after running $400 billion yearly deficits, fighting two wars in the middle east, and now that our nation faces the challenge of keeping Social Security solvent for the Baby Boomers.

There is much that I like about John Kerry..including the fact that his healthcare plan, like Dean's, is a vast improvement over our current system. I did not back shrub's tax cuts when they were enacted because I knew that once enacted, they would be nearly impossible to get rid of. The drug addict is always the last one to acknowledge his problem, althought those who are close to him are the first to feel the negative effects. Our nation has been strung out on the artificial highs and lows of deficit spending, but now our cash reserves are finally running out.

[sandnsea]

13. The premium amounts isn't right

Kerry's plan is cheaper for families earning less than $55,000 a year, half of all families in America. It only increases for families above $55,000, most of whom have employer provided health insurance and whose premiums will go down with the cost containment aspect of Kerry's health plan. And even for those families who are self-employed with no insurance, there's tax benefits available for them and they won't be forced to buy into a who-knows-what government program, they'll be in the same Federal program which already provides quality coverage.

Kerry's plan is cheaper because he thinks through policy and attacks problems from every direction. Not just applying a quick band-aid that doesn't solve anything in the long run. I know because Oregon's Health Plan is almost the same as the Vermont Plan and it's broke and falling apart. America DOES NOT want this plan.

And the Health Plan and tax cut debate isn't the economic debate. Without a vigorous economic plan, the country is totally bankrupt anyway. $12 billion dollars in taxes isn't going to make a difference in that one way or the other. Let middle income families keep their tax cuts.

[burr]

14. Thorpe says they are right!

Kerry would have families pay $692 a month in primiums, and Dean's plan would reduce this amount to $395 a month. The Dean primium isn't cheap, but it's better than what people have to pay to keep COBRA every month!

[sandnsea]

16. Thorpe according to Dean

First, unemployed people fall into a different category under both Dean & Kerry with 70% & 75% tax credits respectively.

However, for employed people, Dean chose to quote the rates at the top end of the brackets, the 300% of poverty, like I said. That is where Kerry's rates are higher. However, below that Kerry's rates are cheaper. Dean chose not to include that in his side by side. And even if you wanted to try to apply the 300% poverty level to the COBRA formula, I don't think anybody is getting $55,000 a year on unemployment.

Regardless, Dean's plan is already being spun as a tax hike and big government health program with more regulations to business. If Dean really does promote repealing every single tax cut, he's going to lose. And if you had any doubt, this is in no way about me and my income. I am self-employed and NEED help with health insurance desperately. That's why I'd like the candidate with the best policies and best chance to beat Bush to win, and that's John Kerry.

[Nicholas_J]

15. 54 percent of the tax cut went to the top 2 pecent of the population

welath wise, the rest went to everyone else. That is just the recent tax cut. this is what the current cut gave, by income:


income return


less than 10,000 $1

10- 20,000 49

20 -30,000 183

30 -40,000 310

40-50,000 413

50 - 75,000 727

75- 100,000 1814

100-200,000 3085

200-500,000 6733

500-1,000,000 20,241

over 1,000,000 92,526


thats just for single person income

The other chart here shows that a married couple in their 50's with 2 kids will get $1122.00 from the 2003 tax cuts alone.


http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/departments/2003/money/0705_money_1.html


When you figure in the 2001 tax cuts which were higher than the 2003 cuts (1.3 trillion in total cuts as opposed to the 2003 cuts which totalled 350 billion, it is quite obvious that an average family earning in the 40,000 range is going to be keeping about 2 grand if not more.

Which is why a total repeal of the Bush tax cuts will do a good deal of harm to the middle class, and the rich will be efected, but not hurt. Remember, the reason that the Bush tax xuts are said to harm the middle class more and not amount to a tax cut, is that they were not a cut, but a tax shift. The states had to raise their rates on things like property and sales taxes, which effect the poor and middle class far harder than the rich. So by repealing the total tax cuts, you lower a working middle class families weekly paychecks, but you do not immediately lower the amounts that the states have raised their taxes in order to cope with federal cuts to them. So if the tax cuts on the middle class are repealed, they will be earning less, but still paying the higher rates of taxation at the state levels, which took several years to be raised, and since the states are now in debt, will be left in place in order to deal with their deficits, even after the federal government starts sending more money to them.

Repealing ALL of the Bush tax cuts would therefore drive even more middle class people into poverty, and even into bankruptcy, or to lose their homes and such.