A Dean policy question

[VermontDem2004]

Poll question: A Dean policy question

Do you support repealing all of the tax cuts? Other Democrats have critized him for this by countering their plan of repealing the rich man's tax cut.

[unfrigginreal]

1. Dean is right on this...

to begin with, the so-called middle class tax cut resulted in a net negative for most of the middle class. They ended up paying more in property taxes and some states have even raised the sales tax.

The "other" Democrats are just playing politics as usual. They're more interested in getting elected than telling the Americans the truth about what it's going to take to get the economy back on track.

[ignatiusr]

65. Missing the Point

Part of the reason that states had to raise their sales and property taxes is because of the hundreds of billions of funds that went to the rich rather than to state budgets. If we shifted those to state budgets, and maintained the middle-class cut, then the sales and property tax problem would be partially taken off the table.

[sandnsea]

2. Dean is wrong on this

People are not going to give up their tax credit for his paltry little health care plan. I'm sorry, I think it stinks.

It isn't fair that the middle class built up the surplus in the 90's, didn't get a fair share of the tax cut under Bush, then have to turn around and carry the burden again. The wealthy and the corporations benefited under Bush, let *them* pay for it this time.

We used to have a tax system where the wealthy and corporations paid the large majority of taxes, low and low-middle workers paid next to nothing. This was how the American worker was able to save and create opportunities for themselves. Letting the middle income worker keep his tax cut is good for the economy and the American family. It's time to get back to an economy that values work and fair play.

[VermontDem2004]

3. The tax cut was barely noticeable for the lower middle class

I have no problem with giving back that tax cut for his Health Care planned that worked in the state of Vermont. I talked to people who live in Vermont and they credit the health care plan in Vermont for improving their lives. In Vermont you are automatically eligible for health insurance if you are You're 65 or older, You're legally blind, You have a disability and can't work for at least a year, You're under 21, You're pregnant, or You're the parent or caretaker of a child under 18. I know many people who are in my income bracket who say this tax cut was barely noticeable and they didn't need it. I don't see how leaving a tax cut for the middle class will help boost the economy.

[JohnKleeb]

4. we have different candiates but get rid of the damn thing is right

If we do have Dean as president I hope he will use that money for good causes, I know what DK has in mind.

[MercutioATC]

6. Barely noticeable for the middle-middle class too...

At $130k/yr I'm not seeing stunning savings. Sure, every little bit in my pocket is nice, but I'd much sooner see universal health care or fully-funded education initiatives than the money I'm getting back.

[sandnsea]

8. Well, you won't

$130,000 is upper 10%. Under Kerry's plan, middle class is $40,000 - $90,000, to be fair. Although the marriage penalty and child tax credit would remain, if that helped you at all. Also some of the dividends and capital gains tax cuts might remain too for your income, not as sure on that one.

Try to be honest here.

[MercutioATC]

11. My point was that middle to upper-middle class aren't seeing the savings .

The wealthy certainly are, though. I don't consider my income to qualify as "upper class". I'm definitely still "middle-class". I'm not seeing a great benefit from the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, in extention:

1) The poor see no gain

2) The lower-middle class see no gain

3) The middle and upper-middle class see no significant gain.

The fact that $130k/yr is in the top 10% (actually, it's closer to the top 5%, I believe) is the BEST reason for us not to be providing these cuts.

WE gain nothing or nearly so. The top 4 or 5% get the biggest breaks. I believe that repealing the Bush tax cuts in total will result in the following:

1) The poor see NO difference in taxes paid, but those who didn't qualify for Medicaid now will.

2) The lower-middle class and mid-middle class will see a Federal tax increase, but it will be offest by universal health care and fully-funded educational programs (lessening the need for school levies).

3) The upper-middle class will pay a small bit more than they do now. I, for one, say that we can afford it and view helping the disadvantaged as a great way to help our society as a whole.

4) The wealthy will pay more. Not enough to soak them, but enough to insure that the basic needs of EVERY American are being provided for.

So you see, I AM for repealing ALL of the Bush tax cuts.

[sandnsea]

17. I prefer to win

And we won't win with that plan. Keep the middle class tax cuts and win the election. It just makes sense.

Besides, Kerry's health care plan is better than Dean's anyway so most voters get both their tax cut AND either a health care plan they never had OR big savings in the premiums they already pay.

And all I was trying to explain on the income level is that Kerry defines the people who will have the tax cut repealed as those over $90,000. I understand we live in a bizarre economic time where $130,000 isn't a 'rich' income, but is still in the top 5%, as you say. I don't like misrepresenting who would get what as a member of the 'middle class'.

But I still think it's a better plan, politically and economically.

[MercutioATC]

31. So do I...I think we WILL win with that plan.

.

[Nicholas_J]

Dean is rethinking that

There are signs that Dean's campaign recognizes its exposed position on taxes. Already, he has begun to speak vaguely of supporting tax reform that would ease the burden on workers with modest incomes.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/08/31/economic_focus_helps_kerry/

Sorry, your math is all wrong...

At 130 K, adjusted income you are getting about 3085 back just from the Bush tax cuts of 2003 alone (the average difference in returns for people between 100 and 200 thousand)

Your income is actually in the top 2 percent of all wage earners (there is a tax difference between money earned by working for it and getting a paycheck and getting it by investment or other financial tools, which is why C.E.O.'s prefer lots of stock options to a large salary). A SALARY of 130,000 is in the top 2 percent of all WAGE earners.

The complete repeal of 3000 odd bucks to a single person who is earning over 100 grand is not much but 1100 dollars to a family that is earning 40 grand with 4 kids is A LOT of money and to have it removed from their paychecks can mean the difference between having a home and being homeless. Or if not that bad, having to go without food, or having their electricity turned off. SO those complete tax cuts are BAD for the middle class and especially the lower middle class with families. OR not being able to afford traking your kids to the doctor when they are sick.

check the charts here:

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

Deans position on repealinmg the taxes completely will end his campaign fast as others get to compare them. He had better come up with FIRM ideas to help the middle class and be CRYSTAL clear on them or his polling will plummet like a stone.

But the media and otrhers are already pointing out Deans tendency to CHANGE his position. The other candidates and the media are going to make it clear that if he changes his mind once, he can do it again if he is elected, and this, I hope, dashes Deans campaign in the rocks.

[CoffeePlease1947]

73. Most people don't make 130K a year

So I don't think that is middle class. You are in the top ten percent after 100K a year.

Mike

[sandnsea]

7. It's Medicaid or a government program

People will not want it, I don't want it. If the middle class tax cut was so small, it won't make much of a difference on the budget anyway. Better to keep it to avoid having it be a campaign issue and get the same Federal health insurance program that people already know is a good one. And his plan, Medicaid or Medicare offers help to everybody you mentioned. And enrollment is automatic for low-income families, so that is a bureaucratic savings as well as making the system easier for families to access. Kerry's plan will appeal to more voters, it's really pretty simple.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. I'll gladly give up my three bucks

per paycheck for some health care. I'm one of the millions of uninsured in this country, and I can tell you that, after shopping around, health care for me would cost a heck of a lot more than three bucks a paycheck! Besides, I like Dean's plan. Sure, it isn't single payer-but it is a plan that actually could get through Congress and be made into law. It has common sense solutions for some problems (such as uniform codes for all diseases and conditions) and is NOT mandatory-I like the option of opting out if I don't like the plan, which, I believe, is unavailable with the other plans proposed.

[unfrigginreal]

5. GOP talking points...

You make a false argument...to begin with, you are ABSOLUTELY right that the tax cut for middle class in America was PALTRY under Bush. It was even worse for the lower class. What you don't expound on is the fact that because of the overall Bush tax cut that the middle class and lower class was shafted in net dollars due to tax increases in property taxes and sales taxes.

You're right to suggest that the wealthy and the corporations pay the majority of the taxes. The best way to accomplish that is to rescind the robber baron's tax cut and institute a fairer version.

[sandnsea]

9. Oh right, GOP talking points

If I didn't think the post would get removed, I'd say alot more about that rude comment.

Dean supporters argue that we have to repeal the whole tax cut in order to pay for the health insurance program. Then they argue the tax cut was so small, it didn't matter in the first place. Cuckoo.

Kerry's plan is to give states a $25 billion aid package which would help take care of the property and sales tax problem. His health care plan is so much better than Dean's. It actually offers help to everybody and gives people quality insurance instead of Medicaid or another equally pitiful government plan. His plan will not only help people have health care, it'll also reduce premiums putting MORE money back in the pockets of workers. And he actually has plans to help manuacturing, small business, provide 4 years of college, science & tech investment, job retraining, labor unions and everything else that's sucking the life out of our economy.

His plan is to do exactly what you said. Rescind the robber baron's tax cut and institute a fairer version. The difference is, he's told you ahead of time exactly what it's going to look like.

[unfrigginreal]

10. How about a cite there Cochise?

you said...

"Dean supporters argue that we have to repeal the whole tax cut in order to pay for the health insurance program. Then they argue the tax cut was so small, it didn't matter in the first place. Cuckoo."

How about a cite where the Dean campaign is saying that the tax cut is too small?

Good luck to you in finding it and I guess that if you don't, that means that all of the good things that you said about Kerry are suspect too...right?

[sandnsea]

12. You said it

"You make a false argument...to begin with, you are ABSOLUTELY right that the tax cut for middle class in America was PALTRY under Bush."

[unfrigginreal]

13. Your Point?

I'm trying to follow your logic here. Why won't you answer the questions that I put to you in the last thread?

[unfrigginreal]

15. Oh, I see, you thought that it was okay to parse my words...

not unexpected from a Kerry supporter.

[sandnsea]

16. Parse your words?

I hate talking to Dean people, I absolutely fucking hate it. You are the most illogical bunch I have ever come across on every single solitary issue.

What did I parse? YOU said it was a paltry tax cut. Another poster said we had to repeal the tax cuts because we need the money. A poster right below here says the same thing. It makes no damn sense. If he only got a $3 a week tax cut, it's paltry and it doesn't make that much difference in the overall budget. Keep the damn thing because that's the way it should be in the first place.

YOU said repeal the robber baron's tax cut and implement a fair plan. That's what Kerry's going to do, not Dean. You don't want it.

Makes NO fucking sense to me at all. You people love Dean for absolutely no logical reasons.

Aaaggh!

[unfrigginreal]

18. It's ashame that you even think that your worthy of hating Dean people...

considering that you have no problem parsing words to make your case.

Here's my original quote on the tax cuts:

You make a false argument...to begin with, you are ABSOLUTELY right that the tax cut for middle class in America was PALTRY under Bush. It was even worse for the lower class. What you don't expound on is the fact that because of the overall Bush tax cut that the middle class and lower class was shafted in net dollars due to tax increases in property taxes and sales taxes.

Here's your retort:

Dean supporters argue that we have to repeal the whole tax cut in order to pay for the health insurance program. Then they argue the tax cut was so small, it didn't matter in the first place. Cuckoo.

My response:

Show us a cite where Dean claimed that the tax cut was too small.

Your response:

you said it...
"You make a false argument...to begin with, you are ABSOLUTELY right that the tax cut for middle class in America was PALTRY under Bush."
-----------------------
I'll refer you back to the first paragraph in this post(after 2 opening sentences), which was much more comprehensive than the snippet that you provided. It sure makes the Kerry supporters look like they're interested in MUCH LESS than the truth.

[dsc]

24. Newsflash

there are a lot of middle class people. Yes your $3 a paycheck isn't much. But 150 million people's $3 a paycheck is $450 million a paycheck, which is around $12 billion a year.

The fact is that we don't have the money to do this and it is fundamentally dishonest to claim that we do. Unless, and until, Kerry and the others who favor keeping some of the tax cut adjust the deficit figures accordingly they are being dishonest. The vast majority, if not all, of the middle class tax cuts are set to expire and the deficit numbers we are being given assume that expiration.

Clinton claimed he would cut middle class taxes, it helped get him elected, and when he was unable to it cost us the Congress. We don't need that again.

[sandnsea]

28. I disagree

It's really that simple. I think with a complete economic, health care and tax package, we don't need to repeal the tax cut for working Americans. It's a disagreement.

With a $400 billion dollar a year deficit, $12 billion isn't that much. It's not right to make working families pay for Bush's horrible economic failings. We lose $125 billion a year in corporate welfare. Get the money there, not from working families.

[dsc]

30. It is 3%

and remember it isn't just the current deficit. There are a whole host of things that we aren't funding that we need to. The real deficit is more like $600 billion due to the SS subsidy of our budget. That represents a future promise to pay money. Also you neglect to account for the fact those cuts are scheduled to phase out and that thus the deficit numbers don't include them. Clinton tried it your way and it cost us Congress.

[sandnsea]

32. No, Dean's way won't even get us in the door

$12 billion is not going to make a dent in the deficit. If the economy doesn't get fixed, there's no way we're going to get the deficit down anyway. Let middle income families keep their money, it isn't right to make them struggle even more when it won't effectively help anything anyway.

I looked over Vermont's plan. It's like the Oregon Health Plan we have where I live. It sucks. And it doesn't cover everybody, only lower income people. This is NOT a solution.

And depending on which statement you read, Dean says he's going to repeal some of the tax cuts and other times all of them. So you may or may not lose your tax cut and you may or may not get help with health insurance based on the Vermont plan.

And if he somehow manages to get elected on this 'platform' and then people think he's not going to repeal their tax cuts and then he does, and they end up with no health care at all, we'll never get a Democratic President for 20 years. And if they willingly give up their tax cut and only low income families get help with health coverage, it'll be even worse.

[dsc]

35. Please cite one place

where Dean has stated he isn't repealing the whole tax cut. I haven't seen any statements to that effect.

[sandnsea]

37. Here's one

This is the first thing I ran across, but I've seen numerous news reports and health plan reports that state Dean is repealing some/most of the Bush tax cuts (not all). You can choose to read this quote any way you want, but it's clear to me there are tax cuts Dean would like to keep in place were he to create a new tax package. I wish he'd be a little clearer with what he really intends to do.

"All the cuts, though there are some tax cuts that we would look at as an economic-stimulus package. But right now the President's tax cuts are so irresponsible and so foolish that I would repeal all of them. The kinds of things I like in tax policy are things like rapid depreciation, with fixed time periods of eligibility. But the such a mess that it's better to start all over again."

http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/030804/68/3d3xh.html

[dsc]

39. I'm sorry

but maybe I am particularly dense, but I see a clear statement to eliminate the tax cuts. He does say me may put in stimulative ones but they aren't necessarily Bush's. I hope the next one is better.

[sandnsea]

43. Too funny

Both your arguments lack complete logic. Dean likes some of the tax cuts as economic stimulants, says in another speech he likes the middle class tax cuts, says he is going to keep some of the tax cuts in his own tax plan, and ALL of it is in reference to the Bush tax cuts... but that's not keeping some of the Bush tax cuts.

Repeal the Bush tax cuts in February 2005, then on April 1 2005, April Fools, they're back again. But he won't tell you which ones now. Typical Dean Doubletalk. Typical Dean Denial by Deniacs.

[dsc]

45. are all tax cut's the Presidents

Dean uses the words tax cuts for what he supports and the President's tax cuts for what he is repealing. Unless your contention is that all tax cuts are the President's tax cuts which strike me as being the illogical position I am right.

[sandnsea]

50. Just shut up

Think whatever crazy ass thing you want to think. Dean is good, Dean is great, blessed be Dean. You Dean people have truly lost your minds. Bye now.

[dsc]

51. and of course it is we who are mean and nasty

not to mention illogical. It isn't my fault that you either a) can't read what you yourself quote or b) won't read what you yourself quote. Dean was very careful in what he said. He used his words carefully to distnguish between tax cuts he would consider and those Bush has already done. It isn't my fault, nor his, that you can't find a quote to make your point.

[sandnsea]

52. read the thread

It started with someone saying I was parroting GOP talking points and then being called a liar. How kind.

Maybe you can look at words on a page, but comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong suit, without which, there is no reading. Repealing the Bush tax cuts and then putting some of them back in is the same damn thing as not repealing all the tax cuts. Considering some of the Bush tax cuts as helpful, and wanting to keep them, is the same thing as not repealing all of the Bush tax cuts. The quotes are there, you can try to warp them anyway you like, but they are still there. Dean is wishy-washy on whether or not he's going to repeal all the Bush tax cuts, just like he is on every other issue.

By the way, how's the 16 questions coming along? When was the last time Dean mentioned that?

[dsc]

56. THAT ISN'T WHAT HE SAID

He said he would cut some taxes (NO WHERE DOES HE SAY THE SAME TAXES BUSH CUT) That is why your quote doesn't support your contention. He is careful in his language. The word PRESIDENT'S only appears as a modifier for the tax cuts he is repealing. To give an illustration. Bob Graham is in favor of repealing the Bush tax cuts and cutting SS taxes. That would fit what Dean's statement means. I admit to not knowing exactly what taxes Dean is talking about here but my illustration proves that what that statement clearly means is possible.

BTW please point out where I " said you were parroting GOP talking points". If so then you have my apology but since I no longer drink and thus remember what I type I know damn well I did no such thing. Yet I am the one you dissed. But classless being that you are I am sure that justification is the closest I will come to an apology.

The questions were aimed at Bush why not ask him about them. When Dean gets some answers I am sure he will share them.

[sandnsea]

60. This is insanity

I will apologize for getting nasty with you, but it's not like I haven't been attacked on so many occasions that it all runs together eventually. Even by you, though you may not recall and you did eventually apologize.... eventually.

Beyond that, this discussion is like arguing with somebody over the color of the sky... it's blue, it's gray, it's sapphire so it's not blue. "The word PRESIDENT'S only appears as a modifier for the tax cuts he is repealing." Again, think whatever you want. Dean is going to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts. Got it.

[dsc]

69. Huh?

That is exactly what I said. It is you who said he had said something else on other occasions. I never, not ever, denied that he would repeal all of Bush's tax cuts.

[sandnsea]

70. lol

<Sarcasm.> Dean is repealing the Bush tax cuts, (not the President's or the middle class or the poopy-doopy tax cuts), the Bush tax cuts. Got it.</sarcasm>

[dsc]

71. sorry been on the go since

9am and I live in the east. You can do the math.

[Nicholas_J]

64. Dean is

a glib, dishonest, and annoying politician who is part and parcekl of the reason politicians are considered one of the earths lowerst life forms. Dean has every bad trait of every bad politician who ever existed.

[valniel]

75. Interesting Constitutional Arguments.

I have tried to follow these arguments but am having a very hard time.

First: I think that Dean wants all the 2001-2003 tax-cuts repealed, even the marriage penalty, child credit and education credit.

Second, if elected, he can certainly veto any further tax-cuts, but in order to repeal anything already enacted, he will have to work with Congress. So far, he has not laid much of the groundwork for such cooperation.

[sandnsea]

38. Here's another

"We would love to have middle-class tax cuts, but they have to be paid for in some way," Dean said. "We're going to have a big economic speech in the middle of September. Maybe there will be some tax reductions, but they will have to be paid for in some way.''

http://www.nhprimary.com/stories/08-2003/080303-deancritical.htm

[dsc]

40. Where do the words

Bush appear in your quote? This is a discussion about repealing the BUSH tax cuts. If you are confused it seems to be your fault. I am not, nor is Dean. He is going to repeal all of the Bush cuts. He says so in the quotes you provide. Sorry, if words like start over, and repeal are confusing to you.

[bread_and_roses]

57. Amen

"We lose $125 billion a year in corporate welfare. Get the money there, not from working families"
to that.

[Nicholas_J]

46. Super wrong on this

ANd the middle class got a very noticeable increase from the cuts, they just disappeared when the states increased their taxes to make up for loses from federal funding. SO Deans solution, Remove the cuts which for a family of 4 earning 40 grand come to well over 2000 dollars. leaving them to STILL have to pay the higher levels of state and local taxation because the states will not immedicaltey lower their taxes when the federal government starts sending money to them.

SO Dean is going to take away roughly 2 grand a year from a middle class family of 4 ,and give them WHAT.


Dena and his supporters just LOVE flinging the lie around that the middle class got nothing from the Bush tax cuts.

This is becasue most Dean supporters are youner, single, and not making more than 50 grtand a year. Whichs is where a single person starts seeing some real money form the cuts, But married and with kids, and they saw a substantial increase, offset by increases in local taxes.

A family making 50,000 a year with two kids recieved a tax cut of $1133.00 from the Bush tax cut of 2003 alone. This does not include what they got from the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

Democrats with a brain in rtheir heads know, as Sharpton stated that this was not a tax cut, but a taxz shift. What the middle class got from the Bush tax cuts was eaten up by the increases at the local level. SO repealing Deans cuts lowers the middle class families paychecks by taking away their cut, but it cannot require the states to then correspondingly lower their increases to sales taxes, income taxes , property taxes.

SO the statement that Deans repealing of the Bush tax cuts will not hurt the middle class because they didnt get much to begin with is pre and simple horse pucks.

A complete table of the savings for single people by adjusted income is available here:


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

And Dean has already removed the hope for the ONLY one benefit he promised by repealing the tax cuts. An IMMEDIATE Universal Health Plan. He has retreated to the same plan he had in Vermont, INcrementalism, which resulted in Vermont ending up with only a TINY increase in insurance coverage in Vermont. In ten years, Dean increased total coverage by seven tenths of a percent.

All this poll proves, as usual, is that there are a lot of Dean supporters on DU who support Dean regardless of the realities of his policies.

[dsc]

48. On what planet

is 1150 dollars 2000? Just what rounding scheme are you using here? The median middle class family did not get anything like 2000 from those cuts. Even your figures suggest that.

BTW your argument completely undercuts the "it isn't much money argument". Assuming your figures are true the deficit figures your candidate is using are complete frauds. They assume that this tax cut expires. Thus when your candidate talks about a 480 billion dollar deficit he should be talking about a close to 600 billion dollar deficit. And we know how much you hate liars right?

[Nicholas_J]

53. Thats just from the 2003 cuts...

It does not include the sums that came from the 2001 cuts. Given that the 2003 cuts were only 350 billion and the 2001 cuts 1.4 TRILLION. THe assumtion that they got a mere 900 more from the 2001 cuts is likely a LARGE underestimation of the amounts recieved by the Bush tax cuts. The earlier cuts were given on the exact same tax schedule as the 2003 cuts so it is more likely that the family making 50 grand a year with two kids received more than 3600 in tax cuts from both Bush Tax cuts. I was being more, conservative in estimations.

This is the total schedule for a single person for the 2003 cuts alone:

less than 10,000 $1.00

10- 20,000 49.00

20- 30,000 183.00

30- 40,000 310.00

40- 50,000 413.00

50- 75,000 723.00

75- 100,000 1814.00

100 - 200,000 3085.00

200 - 500,000 6,733.00

500- 1,000,000 20,241.00

more than 1,000,000 92,526.00


This is straight tax cut for an induvidual without deductions for dependents

and only based on the Bush cuts of 2003, not including the cuts of 2001.

A family of 4 with a 50,000 income and two kids thus gets

1122.00 out if the Bush tax cuts of 2003.


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

Add 400 dollars per dependent to this and you get the income tax cut for FAMILIES from the 2003 cuts alone.




Dean will be making the middle class pay to repair the deficits. Clinton cleverly gave that honor to the top 2 percent of all income earners.

Dean is doing what he always has done. He is a fiscal conservative which means he has always created tax systems that favored the wealthy. He is doing so again. Merely reversing the Bush tax cuts will not fix the problem ,as the states have greatly increased their taxes. Nothing Dean can do can as president can immediately force them to reduce those increased taxes, and give the fact that the states are WAY into deficits themselves, even if they start getting money from the government again, many will not reduce the local taxes immediately, Which means an immediate repeal of Bushes tax cuts will drive many lower middle class families below the poverty level, and many poorer families into complete desparation.

Even though the Istitute of Tax and Economic Policies states that Vermont had a relatively fair tax system, they -pointed out that during the 1990's the system moved into becoming more regressive, and was a greater burden to the poor and middle class than to the rich.


file http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/vt%20pr.pdf.

Chck it out yourself but the title of the article is:

Vermont Taxes Poor and Middle-IncomeFamilies More than the Wealthy

No matter what, getting rid of the Bush tax cuts takes money out of the pockets of the working poor and middle class, and does nothing to reverse the tax increases Bushs cutting funds to the states has caused.

Sorry. It is simply a shell game Dean is playing because of a great deal of ignorance about the consequences of Bushs tax cuts, but even more so about the devastating effects on the working poor and middle class that wil result from suddenly reversing them. As well as the resulting economic crash to follow when people are forced to cut back spending even further as their parchecks are lowered each week due to the reversal. Dean simply intends to burden the poor and middle class as he always has. He just relies on them being too stupid to notice.

[bread_and_roses]

58. Yes

"Democrats with a brain in rtheir heads know, as Sharpton stated that this was not a tax cut, but a taxz shift. What the middle class got from the Bush tax cuts was eaten up by the increases at the local level. SO repealing Deans cuts lowers the middle class families paychecks by taking away their cut, but it cannot require the states to then correspondingly lower their increases to sales taxes, income taxes , property taxes."

Yes. Plus, telling the middle class, who are stretched to the limit in many ways that you are going to take away their tax cut is not exactly good politics.

"And Dean has already removed the hope for the ONLY one benefit he promised by repealing the tax cuts. An IMMEDIATE Universal Health Plan."

Yes again. And one has to wonder why, given the support in polls for universal health care.

[Nicholas_J]

61. Actually because no one has firmly pointed

out Deans contunually changing his stance on the issues. I am not stating that Dean is a bad politician, just a craven one. One of the worse typesze of politicians to ever disgrace the democratic party.

He has ever promised to deliver things and always puled back on the promises, HE promised universal health care in Vermont 3 times and was resposible for killing the legislation that wasdesigned to provide it three times. He started the campaign based on Universal Health Care this time round, and is the first to pull back on it, because e simply wanted to get people running around trying to bring the issue back up since it seems to be something the people want. But Denas entire history as governor is a history of not doing what the people want, and doing what Republicans demand.

In all polls, Dean will NOT be able to win his own state against George Bush if Dean is the nominee, which is the REAL ruler by which one must gage what Vermonters think of Howard Dean.

Deans campaign is pretty much the Fox News of Politics. He has created this image of massive crowds by going to small towns, well situated, and bringinh in hundreds if not thousands of campaign workers, which is an indication that Dean only has negligible support in that area. If you have to bring in a rented crowd, you are running a disgustingly dishonest campaign.

After labor day is the kicker. Everyone know that by labor day, either the party has a candidate who si going to slide to the nomination, or that there will be resistance to that candidate. Whenever such resistance exists the frontrunner on labor day has never gfotten the nomination. All media eyes are now focused on Howard Dean, and true or false, every negative in his past record will stick harder to Dean than any other candidate.

[w13rd0]

14. The Bush tax 'reform'...

...is part of the Bush economy. As such, it's wrongheaded, unbalanced, and ill-advised. It should be repealed. Once we get our books back in order that this idiot child has scribbled his fuzzy math all over, we can revisit taxation of the working class. Until then, I'll GLADLY give up the pittance of a bribe that shithead gave ME to see the healthcare costs for my children decline. As it is now, I make maybe another $3 every other week extra from shitheads "tax cut", but the cost of healthcare coverage for my kids has gone from $160 out of each paycheck to $270. Sorry, I'm just not seeing any damned benefit from the Bush economic plan.

[DrFunkenstein]

20. My $3 Will Pay For Health Care?

There's a total leap of logic from the Dean people here. They say that the middle-class tax cut wasn't noticeable and has probably already been put back into the economy by tipping a waitress - and then suddenly say that it is crucial to funding a health care plan that will sink without it. Am I missing something here? Is it unnoticeable or crucial?

PS - How many Dean people support progressive taxation?

[dajabr]

22. No, but taking a chunk out of...

Corporate and fatcat welfare will...

[MercutioATC]

33. No, but your $3 and Gates' $50k will...

That's the whole point. The middle class aren't giving up much for the benefits because they didn't get back much with the Bush tax cuts.

[DrFunkenstein]

49. How About Just Gates' $50k?

Will it make that much of a difference if I keep my tax cut, considering that I am sure as hell going to spend it, just to pay my bills?

It seems to me that lower and middle class cuts will actually help stimulate the economy in the short term (thus counts as actual stimulus).

[dajabr]

21. Yes, wipe the slate clean and start from scratch...n/t

[Nicholas_J]

63. Unfortunately

The candidates who are talking complete repeal are not talking about starting from scratch...

And Dean has consistantly opposed the insitution of a progressive income tax while governor and to date.

[poskonig]

23. I'd rather keep the good parts in place.

However, it does help sharpen Dean's message and makes him sound less waffling compared to the other candidates.

President Dean would never get those parts of the tax cut repealed, so there has to be a strategic reason why he says it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. Kill tax cut and raise upper marginal rates.

Dean wants to return taxes to Clinton levels.

That's good for starters, but I'd like to see the upper brackets go back to pre-Reagan days when the upper margins were in the 60% range.

[dsc]

26. They were actually 70

Kennedy cut them from 90.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

27. And they're bitching about 33%!

Unbelievable. I hate the bastards.

[JohnKleeb]

29. yep and its so fucked up

JFK didnt have a problem with it, maybe 90 was a little screwy but if that can pay for good programs and I think JFK and LBJ had good ideas.

[Nicholas_J]

62. Dean cut income taxes In Vermont

That the Demos and progressive wanted in order to maintain and expand social programs as well...


While he was cutting programs, he was spending tons of taxpayer bucks to build roads and bridges that only were needed to serve the interests of large businesses that he brought into the state.


The state was in a fiscal crisis at the time, working its way out of the biggest budget deficit in its history. Then-Gov. Richard Snelling had pushed a series of temporary tax increases and budget cuts through the Legislature and Dean took up that austerity plan as his own.

To the anger of more liberal members of his own party, he insisted that the tax increases be rolled back on schedule and then went on to work for additional tax cuts later in his tenure.

By the same token, though, he also supported raising taxes — as long as it wasn’t the income tax — when school funding crises and other issues arose

http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.asp

Progressives call for higher taxes for rich
January 25, 2002

By JACK HOFFMAN

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Vermont Progressives renewed their call Thursday for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to avoid some of the budget cuts that Gov. Howard Dean outlined earlier this week.

The Progressives, with support of a couple dozen Democrats and one Republican, proposed two new income tax surcharges. Taxes would go up 12.5 percent on taxable income between $43,000 and $158,000. On taxable income above $158,000, taxes would be increased 25 percent...

The Progressives said their proposal was designed to mirror the surcharges adopted during that last budget crisis, but they have not proposed an expiration date for the new surcharges.

Dean reiterated his opposition to raising the income tax shortly after the Progressives unveiled their tax plan. Dean contends Vermont’s marginal income tax rate — that is, the top rate paid by those in the highest income brackets — already is too high.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41293.html

[Nicholas_J]

55. Nope

From 88 percent...highest rate ever under Eisenhower.

Kennedy Cut them to 70 percent, Reagan to 28 percent, Bush Sr had to raise them again to 34 percent, and then Clinton whacked them up to 39 percent again. The rates are not the only relevant factor. Distribution of the tax tables is another, and what you are allowed to deduct is another. Reagan allowed a massive increase for deductions for corporate officers remuneration that was not previously allowed, which resulted in the DOWNSIZING trend of the late 80's and early 90's. IF a corporate executive can now give himself a ten million dollar raise or hire a thousand new people and the company can deduct them both equally, what do you thing the corporate official is going to choose. Before Reagan, you couldnt deduct wildly unreasonable executive benefits.

[luigi8888]

34. This is a good idea...

I think it's better than trying to go back and editing and messing with an existing piece of legislation. Just scrap the whole thing top to bottom, and then start making changes from a fresh start. While taxes should be raised for the rich and lowered for the poor, its probably just easier to start anew than to try and salvage broken laws.

[MercutioATC]

36. Bingo!

We're opting for a complete change here, not years of haggling over who gets to keep what. Just jump in the wayback machine to 1999 and start from scratch.

With the changes this package will make, the middle class will be more than compensated for the loss of the pittance Bush gave us.

[renie408]

42. I could live with that...

[renie408]

41. We need to rework the tax cut...

to stimulate growth in the right areas. I believe in repealing the rich man's tax cut (and raising them one or two at that), leaving the cuts that aid the middle class and adding to cuts for our poorest citizens.

[Nicholas_J]

47. And the only person suggesting this

Is Kerry. All a repeal of theBush tax cuts wil do is lower the middle class familys paycheck while still leaving the state increases to compensate for the Bush cuts in funding to the states. Dean cannot mandate that the states immediately LOWER the taxes that they increased when Bush cut finding. But this is not unusual for Dean, whi did the same tax shifting in Vermont, rasing property taxes and other excise taxes, while refusing to increase the income tax on the rich. Which was the very tool that RIchard Snelling left to Dean when he died to get rid of the states deficit.

Snelling created a three tiered income tax, that was to be phased out over several years as the deficit fell. But as soon as Dean rolled it back, he started raising all sorts of little excise taxes that hit the middle class and poor harder. WHen the Vermont progressives tried to get Dean to reinstate the same increased income taxes in order to deal with the consequnces of funding cuts to the states in 2001 bt the current president. Deans response was that the tax rates on the rich were already too high.


Progressives call for higher taxes for rich
January 25, 2002

By JACK HOFFMAN

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Vermont Progressives renewed their call Thursday for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to avoid some of the budget cuts that Gov. Howard Dean outlined earlier this week.

In 1991, then-Gov. Richard Snelling, a Republican, and the Democratic Legislature imposed surcharges on upper-income Vermonters to dig the state out of a huge budget deficit. Those surcharges were temporary, and they were lifted after the shortfall was repaid.

The Progressives said their proposal was designed to mirror the surcharges adopted during that last budget crisis, but they have not proposed an expiration date for the new surcharges.

Dean reiterated his opposition to raising the income tax shortly after the Progressives unveiled their tax plan. Dean contends Vermont’s marginal income tax rate — that is, the top rate paid by those in the highest income brackets — already is too high.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41293.html


There is nothing that Dean or his supporters will noit sink to to try to prove that what Dean is doing will be wonderful for everyone.

Including bad mathematics.

The math is simple...

less than 10,000 $1.00

10- 20,000 49.00

20- 30,000 183.00

30- 40,000 310.00

40- 50,000 413.00

50- 75,000 723.00

75- 100,000 1814.00

100 - 200,000 3085.00

200 - 500,000 6,733.00

500- 1,000,000 20,241.00

more than 1,000,000 92,526.00


This is straight tax cut for an induvidual without deductions for dependents

and only based on the Bush cts of 2003, not including the cuts of 2001.

A family of 4 with a 50,000 income and two kids thus gets

1122.00 out if the Bush tax cuts of 2003.


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

So here we go. The middle class DID get something from the Bush tax cuts.

But it has been eaten up by the increase in taxes that the state and local governments have had to raise in order to deal with cuts to states from Washington.

So now lets say for example, that family who got the 1122 dollars in cuts (lets round to 1100 for simplicity) Now has higher states taxes of 2100 dollars a year due to state increases.

SInce their federal taxes were lowewed by 1100 dollars, and their state taxes raised by 2100, the Bush tax cuts have placed them 1000 dollars in the hole.
So now Dean decided to take back that 1100 by repealing the Bush tax cuts immediately.

Where does that leave this family.

Well, they are STILL going to be paying 2100 dollar more in local taxes, as Deans repeal of theBush tax cuts DOES NOT REPEAL the tax increases at the state and local levels.

WHere are they now.

Well they have had 1100 dollars a year takes away from their pay in federal taxes, and they must still pay 2100 dollrs in state and local taxes.

So repealing the Bush tax cuts on the middle class suddenly means that this family is straight out paying 3200 dollars in taxes, as the offset from the burden of local taxation is no longer removed by the amount less they paid in federal taxes.

Repealing the state tax cut immediately raises this families tax burden by much more than the Bush tax cuts did. If Bush NEVER raised the taxes in the first place, they never would have had the extra state burden, but removing it suddenly, increased their burden by that 2200 dollar increase at the local level, as well as cuts the amount of their paycheck by 1100 per year.

Meaning that in order to prevent the middle class from catastrophe, the tax cuts on them must NOT be immediately repealed, but slowly phased out as the government watches to see if starting to send more money to the states results in the stated beginning to LOWER their tax rates to PRE-BUSH tax cut levels. DOIng it immediatley will cause a massive drop in income available to the average family and create an even worse economic crisis than Bush has gotten us into. As the increases at the state levels did not occur IMMEDIATELY after Bush started cutting funding (local governments try everything first before raising taxes), so the reversal of the Bush tax cuts will not result in an immediate reversal of the increased local taxes, and so the repeal of the cuts should occur gradually rather than immediately, or families will lose their homes due to the sudden cut income no matter HOW small it seems to Dean. A thousand bucks from an annual income when one has just had the state increase their taxes is nothing small at all. It can be the difference between paying your local taxes and not being able to afford them at all, and ten having ones home sold for not paying their property taxes.

[mot78]

44. Keep the Middle Class Ones

I don't agree with the idea of repealing all of Shrub's tax cuts because I feel giving tax breaks to the middle class and to small businesses is effective. We should get rid of the rich tax cuts, because those are the ones causing the deficit. Besides, didn't Gore propose a smaller, middle class-only tax cut in 2000?

[Nicholas_J]

54. Every dem in 2000

Was faced with offering SOME sort of tax cut in 2000, because it was the ONLY thing that got bush the number of votes he did/ Without a tax cut proposal, a republican could NEVER get elected.

Bush's tax cut talk in 2000 was EXTREMELY popular. But like always idiots beleive that the cuts will be fair and progressive. But even so, getting SOMETHING is better than getting NOTHING and this is why repukes alway do well on tax cut talk.

A sudden reversal of the cuts to the middle class will result in an economic collapse that will make the great depression look like a small economic correction.

Remember, they have also had large increases to their taxes at the state and local level which completely wiped out any benefit they got from the Bush cuts.

Repealing the Bush cuts will not make that LARGER local burden disappear overnight. So they will get even poorer and in worse economic shape by repealing the cuts that they have been made by their taxes being raised at the local level. All a repeal of the cuts amounts to is a larger income tax paid by the poor and middle class. The rich will pay more as well, but it wont hurt them much.

The only people who get screwed from both ends by repealing the cuts are the working class.

Cant do it immediately, but slowly in order to act as a buffer to the middle class during the period of refinancing the states and watching to see if the states begin to reduce their tax rates as Washington starts picking up more of the tab.

This is more of Deans balance the budget mania, regardless of who gets destroyed and loses everything possible. It is simply an inhuman idea.

[southern democrat]

59. Redirection of tax cuts

would be a winner,raise the top teir tax rate back up and redirect the tax cut to employers by way of payroll tax deduction.This would undoubtibly create jobs.Employers now match employees s.s 50/50.As far as the tax cut on dividends,I would not be agianst the complete elimination of them provided the people and compinies that get dividends we're required to employ a minnium 75% American work force to Qualifly for the cut.

[Nicholas_J]

66. It looks like Dean

may be "evolving" again, as a recent article has him talking abour "RETHHINKING" completely repealing the tax cut and keeping portions to assist the middle class....



There are signs that Dean's campaign recognizes its exposed position on taxes. Already, he has begun to speak vaguely of supporting tax reform that would ease the burden on workers with modest incomes.


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/08/31/economic_focus_helps_kerry/

[valniel]

67. Easy, Answer is No!

I’m not sure that anybody who is advocating cancelling all the tax cuts truly know them all. Or rather, I’m sure that they don’t.

I’m in favor of keeping some of them, e.g., marriage penalty, education credit, child credit. There might be more, but I can’t think of them right now.

Blindly cancelling them all, without analyzing their effect, is not good policy but merely blindly following a political slogan! Enacted by Bush and a Republican Congress they must be bad!

[Nicholas_J]

72. Both Dean and Gephardt

Currently advocate repealing ALL of the Bush tax cuts, both 2001 and 2003.

[valniel]

74. Are Wrong

There are a lot of different adjustments in the three tax-cuts bills which have been passed in 2001-2003. Until you have evaluated each adjustment and decided that it should be repealed, it is irresponsible to declare that all should be repealed.

One of the ways the Republicans advocate their initiatives, KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid), is now creping into the Dean and Gephardt campaigns, much to the detriment of an intelligent dialogue.

[Nicholas_J]

76. Thats what I say

I totally disagree with the tax cuts being totally repealed as repealing the ones to the rich will already create an economic shock to the markets and businesses, but as long as money is pumped into the economy from below (demand side economics), you make have the stock market going down speculation for speculations sake), but essentially you still have MOST people still buying what they were. buying before. No matter what, repealing the tax cuts, IS raising taxes, Dean supporters just like using the semantics of the situation to try to get around that fact. They also state that members of the middle class didnt see anything from the tax cuts and that is simply false. I have posted a number of charts of the EXACT dollar amounts people received by people from the 2003 cuts alone, and they DID get what for a middle class family of four is a substantial amount of money. Dean supporters must consist of a large number of 130 K a years salaried people to consider the fact that a three grans tax cut is rteally insubstantial for them.

My girlfriend was massively puzzled in 2001 when all of a sudden her paycheck went by by 27 dollars a paycheck. We had NO way of figuring what the hell happened. Perhaps her life insurance had been dropped accidentally. After trying to figure it herself, she just called payroll and asked them WHY her paycheck went up, and the simple answer was that this was the result of the tax cuts. And on her very SMALL salary, 27 bucks was significant. two weeks gas for the car.

And not EVERY state or locality increased its taxes to compensate for state cuts. In Florida, the Bush cuts to funding of government did not lead to raises in local taxes, at lease where I live. So the tax cuts were PURE salary raises to most people here.

Cuts to local services are not obvious here, but have occured. libraries are short staffed, but none are closing. Schools have a shortage of teachers, but that has nothing to do with the budget, No one wants to teach.

But still the reasons the tx cuts have had little impact in florida is that the money given to the middle class for the most part gets "SPENT" in Florida, and so sales tax revenues are raised. As Florida has only two real sources of revenue, sales tax and property tax, the tax cuts to the middle class have been adding money to the states revenues. But the money to the wealthy doenst get spent in one place necessarily.

Dean is placed in a very difficult pace right now.. He is being looked at closely for coninually switching his stances, which looks like he has no stance, but is simply saying WHATEVER he thinks the public wants to hear in order to get support, but as a group of people who write for a worlking class paper in Vermont say about Dean:

Dean -- he talks a good game; he can be charismatic and charming. But I'm warning you. This man will tell you what you want to hear, or at least tell you something that has some little kernel of something that you can interpret as support for the things that are important to you. But when the time comes to stand up and lead on the issue, to take on the money interests and backsliders in his own party, that stiff little spine will turn into a slinky.

If you vote for him, it's your job to stand behind him with a poker and keep him headed in the right direction. Don't give him any honeymoon period, either--keep the pressure on from the second you drop that ballot in the box. The minute you relax, he's going to turn right back into what he really is...a privileged, arrogant, middle of the road republican. Put your political energy into getting some truly progressive folks into the House and Senate, and into State legislatures around the country so that there will be more pressure from more directions. We need to get together our sophisticated progressive thinkers to develop policy ideas in every area, so that we're ready with real, well-thought out counter-proposals for the incremental changes a Dean administration might put forth. If you feel you must, support Dean, do--but then go do the work necessary to make real change.

Ron Jacobs, Donna Bister and Marc Estrin comprise the OLD NORTH END RAG collective. The RAG is an agitational community newspaper serving the Old North End of Burlington, Vermont. This neighborhood is a primarily working class section of Vermonts largest city that has a history of political activism.

http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html

These are Vermonters, writing for and looking after the interests of WORKING class people in Vermont. I have closely followed Deans campaign promises as governor, and then look at what he does when in office and a more deceptive candidate has never existes. He talks democrat, but his every decision in Vermont had to be approved by Republicans before he made that decision.

[valniel]

77. Yes, most people who think it through

would realize that some of the tax-cuts were good and fair. Lowering the 15% tax bracket for low income earners, increase the tax credit for children, eliminating the marriage penalty, and providing a tax-credit for education are all worth keeping, or at least worthy of a debate before stating that they should be eliminated.

But the Republicans, and now Dean and Gephardt, go for KISS (keep it simple, stupid).

[TSIAS]

68. Voted YES

:kick: