Is Dean safe to ignore middle class 54% getting a $1000 tax break or more?

[papau]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2003/10/29/the_democrats_tax_cut_gamble/

The Democrats' tax cut gamble By Scot Lehigh, 10/29/2003

<snip>If the party is lucky, a year from now any alternative economic plan will seem preferable to George W. Bush's approach. But if the nascent economic recovery takes hold, it's likely that the best Democrats can expect in 2004 is a close, competitive election.

<snip>

"What middle-class tax cut?" Dean asked in Sunday's Democratic debate in Detroit. "On the average, 60 percent of the people in this country got a $304 tax cut." <snip>


So what does an accurate picture look like? Consider these numbers from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Fully 31.5 percent of joint filers (married couples) got a tax break of between $2,001 and $5,000, with an average tax cut $3,096. Another 18 percent of joint filers saw their tax burden fall by between $1,201 and $2,000, with an average reduction of $1,622. In all, 54 percent of joint filers got a tax break of between $1,001 and $5,000.

When it comes to families with children, 40 percent got a tax break ranging from $2,001 to $5,000 (average: $3,151), while another 30 percent got a tax cut of $1,201 to $2,000 (average: $1,624). <snip>

[Rose Siding]

1. That uses averages

This chart has median:

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

[papau]

2. Good Point - so Globe and ABCNote try to spin right - once again

and of course the media - once this "median versus average" is pointed out, will treat the Bush lie as equally valid to the Dean truth - because to do otherwise would be to "make news - not report it" - and it is just a political dispute - folks should "decide who they believe" because our US media endores "faith" votes rather than votes based on facts tainted by having been printed or broadcast, or God-forbid - discussed in print or on the air.

[Frodo]

10. Again - No it doesn't.

That chart does NOT represent the cuts that Dean is proposing repealing.

Continue to assume the electorate is stupid at your own peril. They know what they got and won't be fooled into thinking it will only cost them $100.

[lastliberalintexas]

17. Really?

Because my husband and I got such a huge refund that it totaled $0. And married friends of ours with 2 kids got $450. And my single aunt got nothing. My parents who have 2 grown children got $0. My single brother got, um, well, nothing.

Yep, those refunds will be so very hard to give up in exchange for health care reform. :eyes:

These were NOT "middle class" tax cuts. If you are single or married without children making $75,000, it is very unlikely that you received anything back. While a couple with 4 kids who makes $200,000 a year got a refund!! Yep, that's oh so fair.

So glad that some of our candidates are repeating right wing spin in support of Shrub's tax policies.

[Frodo]

20. Hogwash. You make two critical (common) errors

1) You mistake "refund" for how much your tax cut is. They are not related. Your refund depends on how much you withhold by comparison to your total tax bill. If your taxes go down $1,000 and your employer reduces your witholding by the same amount you may see no difference in your "refund". You got your $1,000 spread over a year of larger paychecks (after taxes). This is a classic blunder.

2) You limit the cuts we are discussing to just the 2003 cuts (whcih DID benefit largely families with kids and those who have dividends. But nobody is talking about repealing just the 2003 cuts. We're talking about the totality of shrub's cuts 2001-2003. In which case you aren't even close to correct.

A single person making $75,000/year with no special deductions is paying a little less than $2,000/yr LESS than she paid in 2000. That's not "
very unlikely you received anything back". If she doesn't itemize that gives her a taxable income of about $68,000 which would have been about $15,500 in taxes in 2000 but now is about $13,800. That's a tax savings of $1,700 in YOUR example. Not one I made up with three kids and a dog.

Let's say it again. ANYONE who paid ANY federal income tax got a cut. The only way you or your reletives got "$0" was if you already paid NO federal income tax.

[lastliberalintexas]

22. No it isn't

First- My husband and I didn't reduce the amount of our withholding, and neither did our employers at our request. In fact, we both withhold at the higher single rate rather than married. We already pay substantial sums in taxes, and our bill is not going down because of this SECOND round of tax cuts.

Second- Yes, we got something ($800 or $600?) from the first round of tax cuts, but it was my understanding that the second round of tax cuts is what the candidates are discussing. I apoligize if that is not correct and if they are all actually talking about both rounds.

I still hold that some of the candidates are being very disingenuous when discussing this issue. They have taken up the right wing mantra that these cuts actually benefitted the middle class, which is just hogwash when you look at the whole financial picture.

In part because of these tax cuts, we are seeing huge deficits which will hurt the middle class and poor far more than that measly tax cut supposedly helped. We're already seeing interest rates creep up, and state and local taxes (even more regressive than the current federal income tax) have skyrocketed during the Shrub years.

The fiscal and monetary policies of this misadministration have been devastating to the middle class and poor. Yet you defend at least a part of them because, IN A VACUUM, that single part supposedly helped the "middle class". That shouldn't be the point of debate.

I'd rather we focus on the totality of Shrub's policies and their awful effects, which is the only way we will beat the repubs on this issue. We will never be able to "out tax cut" the repubs, since they are quite willing (and eager) to cut taxes to such a level that the gov't can't even function. If you let them define the debate by using their terms, we've already lost- at least on this issue.

[Frodo]

23. I won't disagree about the effects on the deficit.

But, yes, we are discussing getting rid of both rounds of tax cuts. The 2003 cuts were, frankly, way too small to account for any real deficit reduction or increased program spending.

A couple of our first tier candidates (including Dean) propose repealing the entire package. So you would lose the $800/year from the first cut and 2%-3% of any taxable income you have over about $56,000 but below about $115,000.

So if you earn, say, $80,000 between the two of you, you now pay about $1,500 less (assuming you have no dividends/capital gains) than you would have paid with the same income in 2000. Or roughly five times what Dean implied the "middle class" got.

You may think giving that up is worth it (and you may be right). But there's no point in him misleading people about it. And the people here who pretend nobody making less than a million realy got any benefit and most people got $100 or so must assume that voters are stupid.

I make WELL under the $75,000 you mentioned, own a house and have a great wife and three wonderful kids. My federal tax bill has gone from the low five figures in 2000 to just about zero this year. Partially due to kids being born, partially due to my lovely wife staying home, and largely due to the tax cuts. I save at least $2,500/yr due to the tax cuts and I am DEFINITELY NOT "rich". I'm barely middle class. I'm not falling for Dean's (or his supporters') spin on this issue. Don't tell me it won't cost me anything. Tell me why it's worth the sacrifice.

[Boom_cha]

3. No, I don't think it's a wise move politically

I'm in favor of rolling back all the Bush tax cuts but I think Dean is making a political mistake that could very well cost him the general election, if he wins the nomination. Regardless of how little the middle class will gain from the Bush tax cuts in coming years, I think there's a huge mass of voters that will not take the time to understand the numbers. They will hear "raise taxes" and vote their pocketbooks. It's also probably too late for Dean to change his position without losing credibility (and support from his base).

[papau]

4. Dean has said repeal AND RESTRUCTURE - so child credit could be

part of the "retructure"

[Boom_cha]

5. I hope he can finesse it

time will tell

[w4rma]

7. Remember that the child tax credit is temporary. It runs out in 2006.

Restructure is the proper word, as the next president would have to put into place a new tax cut to replace that one in order to keep the status-quo.

[Frodo]

11. Actually, I think it's 2011.

2006 was when the $1,000/child was to be fully implemented (under the 2001 cut). The 2003 law accelerated that process, but I think it was still a ten year cut.

[Wellong]

29. You are correct

the tax cut is for 10 years.

And now for a little lesson in 10 year tax cuts. Because this is important information to know. Ever notice that virtually every tax cut is for "10 years" after which it expires? If you havent noticed, review some older debates on the tax cuts.

Here is why they are for 10 years. By senate rules, ALL tax cuts it passes can not have a duration of greater than 10 years.

Strange rule, and one day I am going to get off my lazy ass and research when, where, and why this rule came into being.

If anyone knows, please send me a PM on it.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. I would roll back the tax cuts on the top 1% and the...

capital gains tax! I do not think that all tax cuts are bad! The I would personally campaign on keeping middle class and working class tax cuts intact and repeal the top 1% percent! Additionally I would propose tax credits for small businesses! This is something that I strongly believe in because the small business is the backbone of our economy, not ENRON, WORLD"CON", and TYC"HO"!!! Bush is hurting these business owners!

[Larkspur]

8. Can you campaign for us singles to get our FAIR share of the tax cuts

Married filing jointly make out like bandits and marital status should not be part of the tax code.

[papau]

9. Married filing jointly w/equal incomes is more taxed than filing Single

This is the "marriage penalty"

Yet in a one income house, filing jointly helps.

The only fair solution for all is to the person paying the tax to file BOTH jointly and as a Single - and pay whatever is the lower tax.

[Larkspur]

19. Wrong, last year Married filing jointly at my taxable income level paid

$500 less than single child-free/childless and married filing seperately, who are treated as singles. They got this for just being married and filing jointly. This goes to both childed and child-free married filing jointly.

Single heads of households paid $150 less than child-free/childless singles.

Single child-free pay proportionaly the most in taxes, get the least amount of return for our tax dollars and we can be discrimminated with impunity by our own government when we need government services, such as housing.

See more about tax discrimination against singles at http://www.unmarriedamerica.com/taxes/brochure1.htm and http://www.unmarriedamerica.com/taxes/Millions_of_single_taxpayers_get_no_tax_cuts.html

[Frodo]

21. So you're going to register as a Republican now???

"Single child-free pay proportionaly the most in taxes, get the least amount of return for our tax dollars and we can be discrimminated with impunity by our own government when we need government services, such as housing."

Your argument sounds just about exactly like what they say about the rich. And the response is the same. We should be taxing people based on their ability to pay. Ever heard "tax cuts for those who need it least"??? A millionaire doesn't need a $5,000 tax cut as much as a working guy making $60k and he can better aford to pay his "fair share".

A single guy making $60k is MUCH "RICHER" than a married guy with two kids making the same income. On the margins, you don't deserve as much of a cut.

[Larkspur]

24. Income taxes are to tax incomes, not give favors to marital status

And I don't believe in Marxism, which is the situation you just described.

Just because you make less than me and have kids, does not mean that I should be penalized for my lifestyle choice. If it was up to me, I would rather have my tax dollars spent on putting birth control in people's water than paying for kids that BNP's can't afford to care for.

My dad came from poor Irish immigrants, grew up during the Great Depression and those experiences taught him to WAIT until he had a job, saved money, and found a wife-partner BEFORE having kids. That's what responsible parent-wannabes should be doing.

Oh, my dad was a Democrat and an active member of the Democratic Town Committee. Tax fairness should be a non-partisan goal.

[gasperc]

16. I'm in your column, Gore proposed tax cuts and that what we need

his plan in place, keep in the cuts benifitting income under $100k and Dean can't make stupid comments like " I don't care what 70% of the people think" It'll be taken out of context and it's an insulting comment.

[dsc]

12. Your headline is utterly false

By leaving out the words joint filers (ie married couples) you falsly state that 54% of all tax payers got over 1k in tax breaks. If you can edit you need to. If you can't edit you should consider removing your post. This error is not some trivial detail.

[Frodo]

13. Not "utterly false"

The point is still valid even if the specific numbers are not. Do you want to ignore 54% of married couples when running a national campaign?

And Dean's statement is incorrect in it's implication as well.

"What middle-class tax cut?" Dean asked in Sunday's Democratic debate in Detroit. "On the average, 60 percent of the people in this country got a $304 tax cut."{/blockquote]

He is obviously trying to leave the impression that 60% of the middle class got a $300 cut. Which is also "utterly false". I'm not sure anyone who qualifies as "middle class" got LESS than $400. You got $400 by having taxable income over $8,000. How many "middle class" have taxable income under $8k??? I consider myself to be the heart of the middle class (income, family size, etc) and I know it was a lot more than $300. Does Dean consider me "rich". Am I not paying my "fair share"? The average is probably several times the $300 he implies they got.

How many of them do you think are stupid?

[dsc]

14. sorry but more falsehoods

You didn't get $400 for having $8000 taxable income. Unless you definiton of that is over and above any exemptions. Many lower middle class people don't make it to that level. And you headline is still extremely misleading. Way less than half of all tax payers jointly file so that 54% is vastly over inflated.

[Frodo]

15. I'm not the one misleading. Read your own post.

I very clearly said "taxable income", so yes my "definition is over and above any exemptions"... so is the IRS's coincidentally.

And notice how you had to change "middle class" to "lower middle class" to make it not work? The VAST MAJORITY of the "middle class" got quite a bit more than Dean says they did.

[lastliberalintexas]

18. Got a cite for that?

"The VAST MAJORITY of the "middle class" got quite a bit more than Dean says they did."

Like from the IRS or even a newspaper detailing the amounts that people supposedly received? Because that is not the reality that I have seen- most people I know either didn't get anything back or recived far less than $1,000.

[liberalcapitalist]

25. i made under $30,000 last year

And my tax cut was not $1000. It was around $300. Meanwhile, my property taxes and student loan interest went up. Screw the $300, or even $1000. ALL OF BUSH'S TAX CUTS NEED TO GO, and if you don't think so, just vote for W.

[genius]

26. The better plan is to keep the middle class tax cuts

We need to take everything out of the top end from the corporate thieves that have been getting rich. They can afford it and that would cover the deficit.

[bread_and_roses]

27. Yes, progressive taxation

progressive taxation, progressive taxation. According to the 2000 census, about 77% of the households make less than $75,000. Telling those people that you are going to increase their taxes is both suicidal politically and just plain wrong. It is the rich, mostly the top 5% of income/wealth who have benefited to an unprecedented extent from the current tax structure. And corporations. Why should people earning less than $75,000 a year be asked to carry yet MORE of the burden? With nothing in hand to compensate? Nor will we win any elections attacking married couples or parents.

[Mass_Liberal]

28. over a long period of time

health insurance costs a hell of a lot more than the tax cut that bush gave the middle class. Dean is absoloutly right on this one.

Absolut Rightness!Yum.