Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform

[democratreformed]

Link: http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/

Excerpts: "Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform, a family of four making up to $50,000 will pay no federal income taxes and all taxpaying families with children making up to $100,000 will get a tax cut. The Families First Tax Reform will shift the tax burden from those who are struggling to get by to those with the most to spare. The entire proposal is offset by closing corporate loopholes and by a 5 percentage point rate increase on income over $1 million a year. The rate increase will only reach the income-over $1 million-of the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers.

The tax breaks in Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform all come from consolidating the existing confusing and uneven set of tax benefits for children, including the Child Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the Dependent ExemptionÉ and then expanding them to provide a $2,250 tax credit per child."

[Don Claybrook]

1. Well, it sounds good

But would the remaining tax receipts be enough to fund everything he wants to do and reduce the federal deficit? The thought of not paying federal tax sounds really nice, but I'm afraid it's not too practical.

[BeyondGeography]

13. Your guy will raise middle class taxes

Think you need to stop gloating over at DFA and get a tax plan.

[Don Claybrook]

18. Are you capable of answering my question?

This thread isn't about Dean, and I wasn't attacking Clark, like you are attacking Dean. I think it's clear that there has been no middle-class tax cut.

I asked a question. If you're not capable of providing an answer, just run along and play somewhere else.

[democratreformed]

29. From his speech

"It builds on the plans for our families that I've laid out so far. My health care plan to expand health insurance to an additional thirty million Americans, including every single American child. My job creation plan to take back the tax cuts George Bush gave to the wealthiest Americans and use that money to create jobs. And my higher education plan to help an additional one million Americans enroll in college."

[Don Claybrook]

34. Excellent. Thank you. n/t

[KittyWampus]

31. Close Corporate Loopholes & Raise Rate For Income Over 1 MILLION Annaully

None of this go into anything other than shifting tax burden from working families.

[Don Claybrook]

36. Thanks for the information.

I won't pretend to be a macro-economist, but I am a skeptic. However, if Clark can do this, I'm all for taxing the rich and large corporations more, so long as we can still cover the budget and start to lower the deficit.

Mark me as cautiously optomistic about Clark.

Thanks.

[dave29]

24. A nice plan

however, I have no problem not receiving a middle class tax cut (whatever that means) if it means no debt burden on my children, and or quality healthcare for more Americans.

Having said that, Dean will most likely have a tax plan that will incorporate some sort of middle class tax-relief, while repealing the entire Bush tax cut.

[Donna Zen]

102. The deficite cut is handled by another program.

At this time, job creation is very important. Money that enters the economy is classic stimulous but only through middle class programs. The upper cuts are very ineffective in job creatiion.

I believe that in this case, Clark is redistributing wealth to create a more progressive tax code. There is a bit of socialist in Clark.

There is more pork in the Pentagon budget than anywhere. The money to lower the deficite is better taken from the government contractors and lobbiest.

It is always a surprise to realize how little is understood on this board about Clark. Many bear such distrust for the military that they forget it is little Sweden.

[TacticalPeek]

134. "little Sweden" - true!

With a little Prussia and Roman Empire thrown in.

:evilgrin:

[Hep]

161. Our guy will replace bad tax policy with good tax policy

While Clark chooses to add more bad tax policy to existing bad tax policy.

[Donna Zen]

198. Calling something bad does not make it so.

Please be specific and rather than making unjustified blanket charges.

Clark is a very well educated economist who has experience working in the West Wing office of OMB.

This is a redistribution of wealth.

[Hep]

206. It's a redistribution of wealth to some people

and to me it's just my money paying for your Lexus. Not you of course. But the title of Clarks plan says it all. FAMILIES FIRST. Apparently, contrary to my own personal views, I'mnot a member of a family since I don't have kids. Thanks Wes for making me feel so welcome. Enjoy the number 6 spot on my list, down from 3.

[Donna Zen]

249. Do you understand this tax program

and to me it's just my money paying for your Lexus. Not you of course. But the title of Clarks plan says it all. FAMILIES FIRST.

I'm fairly sure that you do not mean that literally; however, even figuratively, this statement does not match the subject.

and to me it's just my money paying for your Lexus.

Do you earn over a million dollars; I admit this is not any of my business; however, ONLY people who earn over a million will be dollars will be affected.

Lexus

Hep, I do not own a Lexus; I do not qualify for any money at all. None. However, I also believe that 4 people living on $ 50,000 should not be paying taxes. I am sorry you feel that way about children, I believe it takes a village.

I am surprised at the reaction you are having; however, the concept is rather straight forward and perhaps you want to have this reaction.

[Hep]

311. Funny you left out the part where I said

not you.

[Boo Boo]

301. Blah, blah, blah...

nt

[Hep]

312. Yup

how do I respond to such a witty retort?

[BootinUp]

23. I have a feeling

they will release a third party analysis, similar to his healthcare plan. But according to a post below, it does not affect the deficit. I don't have more details yet, still looking.

[Don Claybrook]

33. Thanks

Thanks for the answer, and for the civility. I was just commenting in another thread that we're all going to need to pull together one of these days before long, and it will likely be Dean or Clark. So thanks for not pulling out all the stops and calling my guy the Gloating Servant of Satan or whatever.

I'm all for a progressive tax--I'm at least half-socialist. But I think we have to make sure we can bring in enough to pay the bills too. And that's the reason for my concern, and my question.

Thanks.

[bearfartinthewoods]

55. while you are looking, could you see what happens to a family of two?

as in no kids?

am i allowed to get weary of subsidizing everyone else's children and never even getting a thank-you note?

[thebgrkng]

58. Unless you are making 1,000,000+

...or operating out of Bermuda, you arent subsidizing anyones kids.

[bearfartinthewoods]

71. how you figure that?

before i die i will have paid more in property tax than i paid for the property. over half of that tax goes directly to the school district. i know, i know, we need an educated population but some times it gets old. i pay the same rate for the educated population as the people who have kids and who will personally benefit from the education and be able to give their folks nice presents in their old age.

no one will give me nice presents.,,,not even a thank you card.

signed bear who is getting ready to do the taxes and probably shouldn't be clicking on any thread with the word tax in it.

grumble grumble

[funky_bug]

94. The reason for that

is that the government only supplies 6 percent of the school funding that is necessary under No Child Left Behind. Unfunded mandates are the reason your property taxes are so high. You are being forced to carry the burden that the chimp has endorsed.

As an educator and mother of three, I still bemoan the fact that my property taxes are skyrocketing. Relieve the educational burden placed on the people, and you'll see your property taxes relaxing.

Wes has said, "I will take care of No Child Left Behind." That's the source of your property taxes, not middle class tax breaks.

[bearfartinthewoods]

103. a...i'm not middle class and i don't think i get any tax break unless and

until the marriage penalty goes bye-bye.
b...i understand underfunded mandates
c...i also understand that whether the taxes for education come from the state, federal, township, county or school district, people without children do not receive an equal benefit for their investment as people with children do.

and after 40 or so years of realizing this inequity, it gets old.

[Donna Zen]

237. NCLB will be fully funded

by rolling back the $200,000 plus tax cut. This tax break for families has nothing to with anything. It is a redistribution of wealth...from millionaires to families.

[thebgrkng]

I have no disagreement...

...with that claim if you are just talking about property taxes being used as the primary financing of schools. (For lots of reasons)

I thought (mistakenly) that you were saying this plan had something to do with property taxes. It doesnt. In his speach he spoke about how they middle class / poor people will still be paying payroll tax, and social security, and property tax. I thought that was great cause it showed they are still contributing.

This plan is in addition to rolling back the tax cuts on people who make over 200k a year. Clark also has released a plan to take part of the money saved there (40 billion) and use it to help the States for things like education.

[funky_bug]

106. No

Just responding to property taxes in general. However, I believe as Clark has said on numerous occassions that he will "Take care of NCLB" that it does tie in to his turnaround points.

[bearfartinthewoods]

107. ok...let's stick to federal income taxes.

i see charts telling what happens to a "family" with 1, 2, 3 etc kids.

has anyone seen a chart that says what happens to the families with no kids and to the singles?

[thebgrkng]

118. This specific policy...

...probably wouldnt affect you. At least the money return portion of it. I think the goal as I understand it is still to get it down to a simple form, so that would prob be the same. And closing loopholes is closing loopholes.

As i understand it you will stay where you are (Unless you make over 200k in which case your taxes will be rolled back to whatever they were before). Money used by rolling back the tax cuts will be used for many things, one thing is the 40 billion for States Aid. This is intended for education among other things (first responders...) and should allievate the stress on the huge raise in property taxes.

[bearfartinthewoods]

138. thank you

but it still sucks to be lumped in with people who pay more for a car than we gross in a year, as not deserving of a tax cut, just because we have no kids.

[porkrind]

281. Don't forget to count kids as citizens ...

I don't think a couple without kids (two citizens) should be viewed as equivalent to a family with kids (three or more citizens). For the latter, the income pie is split into more slices. These little citizens deserve to be treated fairly from government.

[liberalhistorian]

303. Yes, but singles and married

couples without kids also deserve to be treated fairly as well, and they never have been in any tax code and in any tax proposal, it's always families that get the breaks and the attention and singles and childless couples always end up picking up the slack.

[Jerseycoa]

114. I feel your pain

I have no kids either. I just don't mind paying in to raising society's children if it produces an educated, healthy, non-criminal, contributing citizenry. It's about the future we can produce for the nation, not necessarily for ourselves. We all benefit when social policy works and we have to pay for it. The trick now is to make it work so we get the return on our investment. I'd rather pay into raising future citizens than for corporate malfeasance and environmental destruction and, as CMB so aptly puts it, "foreign misadventures."

But, like I said, I do feel your tax pain and my old age pain is as close as it gets.

[funky_bug]

139. I don't feel that particular pain

I wasn't sure how to respond. I have kids. I'm a teacher. What can I say to someone who isn't in my particular demographic? I've always felt that it was our responsibility to add to our community... fix the roads, educate the kids... but it is of course a biased opinion. I appreciate your take on the situation, and your response on behalf of my inability to properly empathize.

[bearfartinthewoods]

201. i promise this is my last post here since i don't feel like getting into

a fight over this. but...it really isn't fair and never will be as long as there is any special consideration for people who have kids.

please don't feel attacked or the need to educate me. i promise i understand but look at it this way.

a family of 2...2 people to protect and serve, 2 people using the roads, parks, museums, hospitals and all the other services that we, as a society have decided, is sensible to pay for as a group.

a family of four...4 people to protect and serve, 4 people using the roads, parks, museums, hospitals and all the same services. the '4'
family uses twice as much of the services yet pays less than the '2'
family.

how is that fair? it just isn't. there is no way around the basic inequity of the situation and seeing any tax plan that focuses so much on further reducing the money the '4' family pays just sucks when it means that the family of '2' will pay even more in relation to the '4' as a result.

i don't see how anyone can claim i am not subsidizing other people's children.

[thebgrkng]

221. I'm def not hear to...

...fight. I have to say this is the first idea in this election that has gotten me really excited.

I dont disagree that a lot of taxation is not fair. I would like for it to be more fair. no arguements there.

but my main point is that unless you are in the 0.1% of the population, then this policy in no way affects whether or not you are subsidizing other peoples children.

[maxr4clark]

227. Subsidizing kids is subsidizing prosperity

You were a kid once. Did you go to public schools, or were your parents rich enough to send you to a private school? If your parents were rich enough to send you to public school, you can afford to be philanthropic enough to help those less fortunate get a good education, so they can make a better life for themselves.

If you went to public school, did you ever consider that right now it is your turn to be the one sending the thank you card to the people who subsidized your education, by subsidizing the education of another generation of Americans? You got the good will, so pass it on.

Otherwise we'll have even more people who would vote for a fearmonger like Bush, and you won't have social security or medicare benefits. And your private investments will go down a hole created by a future Enron or stock market crash.

I'm sorry, but this "I don't have kids so why should I pay my taxes" malarky really seems short-sighted to me. Life is not a zero-sum game; we can all win a better life by working together.

[bearfartinthewoods]

235. any way you try and spin in

if i make 20,000 and my neighbor makes 20,000 yet i pay taxes and my neighbor doesn't because he has kids, i am paying extra.

we both get the same benefits from society but i just have to pay more because i don't have kids.

you can't spin that away. i'd just like to see a few people acknowledge the truth.

[robforclark]

241. No spin needed...very simple...

If you went to public school, your education was subsidized by other people's income taxes, even *GASP* those of some single people.

What do you think these people with kids are going to do with the tax breaks? Buy a Jaguar? No, they'll reinvest it in their children, and more importantly, their children's education.

If allowing more families to afford college is not a compelling reason for you to allow for some unevenness in tax reform, well, then I can only assume that in your blatant disregard for the future of American children, you also could give two shits about the environment. And for that matter, the future of this country. I don't even know why you are even involved in politics.

[bearfartinthewoods]

273. you act as if the people with children don't ALSO enjoy all the benefits

of society that you hold over my head. they benefit more because their are more of them. as to what they would do with it, i have no idea what someone who makes 99,999.99 does with extra cash since i have bnever earned even a third of that.

he will be earning 100,000.00 and get a tax cut.
i will be earning 25,000 and will not qualify.

[MidwestMomma]

302. I'll say thank you

I'm a mom and I appreciate your support through your taxes for the many things in society that my child benefited from. I know it must be hard to always be paying and not seeing the direct benefits of your contribution. But I have a great kid who has had a good life so far and I couldn't have done it without your help. It does take a village but I think it's good to give credit to everyone in the village. :-)

[bearfartinthewoods]

330. well...YOU ARE WELCOME!!!!!

that made my day! so nice of you to do that. wait till i show this to my wife! btw...we didn't plan to be childless...it just worked out that way. she-bear works with the kids at the shelter, she's there now but when she gets back i'll show her this.

and before i forget it, THANK YOU for the job you are doing in raising a great kid! that's the flip side of the coin. good parents are never recognized for the job they do. we only ever hear about the families with problems. give your kid a hug for us!

[maddezmom]

2. he's on CSPAN 2 now

[democratreformed]

3. I'm at work n/t

[maddezmom]

5. can you watch on you puter?

http://www.c-span.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=

he sounds good :)

[democratreformed]

10. guess not - keep locking up puter n/t

[maddezmom]

12. hopefully they will play it again on CSPAN.

:)

[robbedvoter]

4. Moral issue - freedom is not free - we ALL have responsibility to

contribute - a FAIR SHARE!!!

[liberalhistorian]

257. Yes, that's indeed true,

but that doesn't mean that one group should pay a helluva lot more than another simply because the government considers the first group to be a "family."

There are more singles in this country now than families, and yet you'd never know it the way politicians and legislators are always pandering and kowtowing to families. Shrub's tax cuts, when they benefitted the non-wealthy at all, only benefitted couples with children, single parents (like me) need not apply. Whenever you shift the tax burden off of one group, it always falls to another group to take up the slack, and singles and single parents are getting a little tired of taking up the slack because Mr. or Miss Right hasn't shown up yet and the government considers those who are married with children to be the only truly important people.

[bearfartinthewoods]

274. don't forget us married w/OUT children or with grown children

we are getting screwed to.

[BootinUp]

6. Wow, Clark will get some attention with this

Excellent idea Clark!

[Auntie Bush]

135. He should get some attention but

so far he hasn't. Wolf just asked a reporter what she thought of Clark's new tax plan...I was all excited....but she brushed off his question and talked about Dean. Doesn't anyone question why ALL the Corp Media push Dean and ignore Clark? Rush must be gaining weight on all those bon-bons he must be eating. Maybe even George will fall off the wagon. It's been a good year. Got bin laden and Howard Dean!
Attention all Democrats! Stay on the first floor because we're in for a fall.

[BootinUp]

272. I agree, CNN seems particularly bad

I think Fox and MSNBC say "Clark" more than CNN. But what are we gonna do? An organized mass mailing? What good will that do? Really we need to vote with our pocket books and time to get him in there. Other than that it is a campaign problem and the thinkers running the show need to figure out how to get Clark air time.

[robbedvoter]

7. Tak reform is pur responsibility - I see it and will demand it!

Those who make the most, should pay more. Familiers of 4 making under 50,000 will not pay a penny! All familiae with children unser 10,000 will,get a cut.

[kang]

8. That sounds like a good policy to me

and it draws a clear distinction between Democrats' idea of fair tax policy and Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. The savings from closing the loopholes and the increased revenue from increasing the rates on the 0.1% crowd should be considerable.

The numbers are crunched more-or-less by the same people so I don't think the campaign would risk pulling these numbers out of the sky. I also don't think Clark would allow it; he has a Master's in Econ after all.

[robbedvoter]

9. GOP accusing us of class warfare - they should look in the mirror!

[robbedvoter]

11. Wealthiest country in the world - you shouldn't be struggling

not right, not fair. W used the rhetoric of reform to pass cuts ti help his rich friends.
Stop taling about family values, start valuing families!

[robbedvoter]

14. Families first - it won't increase the deficit one dime!

[TexasPatriot]

15. this ROCKS!!!!

you want to see the urban voters enroll and vote for dems? this will do it...

you want to see those southern poor understand that voting for dems is in their best interest? this will do it....

this is exactly the sort of thing that could make 12-2-1 happen

i LOVE it!!!!

[TexasPatriot]

17. details on clark website links

http://clark04.com/story/65/
http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/summary/
http://clark04.com/speeches/025/

[robbedvoter]

16. Hundreds of thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty.

Simplify the code.
My satellite is freezing - would someone take over?

[robbedvoter]

21. 2 steps: close the loopholes for corporations to move HQ oversees

cites Enron benefitting from this
Second - go to familiers over 1 million per year - 5% more from income over 1 million. You don't have to read my lips, I am saying it.

[robbedvoter]

25. If that makes me an old style Dem, I am proud of it -you can come out

for me for it!
Was he addressing Karl? My satellite made me miss that.

[maddezmom]

19. taking away tax breaks from companies that do bus overseas

[Capn Sunshine]

20. He forgot the chicken for every pot

Isn't that intrinsic in this kind of proposal?

[maddezmom]

22. calling out Karl Rove

he will increase taxes on 1/10 of the population the rich

[democratreformed]

27. was just fixing to post that - from reading the speech

"So if Karl Rove is watching today, I want him to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. And if that makes me an "old style" Democrat, then, I accept that label with pride and dare you to come after me for it. Because what I am talking about today is in the best tradition of Wilson and Roosevelt; of JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton - and it is in the best interest of the United States of America!

But let's also be clear: this is not old style "tax and spend." 99.9 percent of Americans will not have to pay this extra rate. And it can only be used toward tax relief for America's working and hard-pressed families. Not a penny will go to increase government spending."

[BootinUp]

35. Homerun! He throws down the gauntlet! n/t

[dave29]

28. Hey, that's something

we can all agree upon :)

[Jerseycoa]

140. Ooops

1/10 of one percent. :)

[maddezmom]

144. thanks for correcting, can't edit :(

think I got too excited about him talking straight to ROVE! lol

[Armstead]

26. What about single adults with no kids?

I like what he's doing for families, but do those of us who are unmarried and childless get forgotten?

[dave29]

30. Dude, get with the program

if you aren't married, or popping out babies, you are not important. ;)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Yeah, what Armstead said

I read the whole plan, looking in vain for something about singles without children--a huge demographic ranging from recent college grads struggling with student loans to most gay people to the never-married/divorced/widowed middle-aged types who never had kids.

[democratreformed]

38. I really am sorry you are disappointed

Maybe there is hope for something in the future?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. The worst thing is that

it not only doesn't say that single people's taxes will go down. It certainly doesn't say that their taxes will go up. It completely ignores this huge group of people.

Is Clark unaware of the demographics of American society or are his advisors unaware or are they so eager for the soccer mom and office park dad vote that they will diss one of the most Democratic social groups?

[TexasPatriot]

46. ummm

Clark announces a plan to take money from the super-rich and distribute it to working-class and poor in the greatest need... and now this is all just pandering to soccer moms?

I'm sorry you dont feel that since you dont get a piece this isnt worthwhile policy. My family makes too much to qualify - but I think its GREAT. There are a stunning number of working class poor in this country that could use this sort of break - and they'll go out and spend the money (and ramp the economy in the process). This is exactly the sort of policy the anti-DLC types have been screaming that the dems in congress should have been pursuing rather than playing along with Bush.

This is a good thing for a LOT of very needy people - and it would do wonders for our party in the fall elections to have it as a primary part of the platform.

[bearfartinthewoods]

240. yes...plenty of working class poor who don't have kids.

does the lack of kids make you less worthy? guess so...just like always.

[KittyWampus]

54. Clark Has A Student Loan Program

Gay couples and married couples with no kids plus everyone will be benefitting from higher employment and better jobs and wages under Clark with his Economic Proposal and Health Care Policy.

[bearfartinthewoods]

219. do you have any idea for how long we have been hearing that line?

damn...now i'm getting mad. why didn't you just say suck it up.
why this crap as if married with chikldren aren't getting a break that the rest of us aren't?

[Donna Zen]

254. College

See education proposal...$6,000 grant for two years. I assume that if you don't have children, you are not paying the out of pocket expenses. Now by law, and by morale values, those children do not work. They live on someone else's ticket.

Since no one is asking you for any money to help families, why are you so bitter about seeing someone else receive a break?

Clark is asking...no demanding that millionaires in our country help pull children out of poverty. That is the right thing to do, and if it isn't costing me anything, and it can do good, then we should.

[liberalhistorian]

260. We're not bitter about seeing

someone else get a break, as you put it. We're damn sick and tired of all the breaks always seeming to go to those who are MARRIED WITH CHILDREN, and to hell with single parents and singles, who now make up slightly more than half of this country's population. And when the burden is taken off of families, who do you think is the group that always has to take up the slack?

have you EVER heard of a politican proposing any kind of "break" for those who are single, whether with or without children? You think we don't have expenses and need for financial breaks just because we're single (even though I have a child, I'm including myself in this because single parents almost never get any breaks in taxes, either)? You think we couldn't also use a "break?" You think if we have more income that we wouldn't also do our part in "pumping up" the economy? Families ALWAYS get the breaks, pal, and godamnit, we're tired of it! So, yeah, we've got the right to be bitter and disappointed, and I ain't apologizing for that!

[Justice]

270. Did You Read The Plan?

Covers singles with children.


Don't Be Bitter - Don't Be Angry -- Covered.

[thebgrkng]

39. It looks like it is covered.

I could be wrong but here:
http://www.clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/

Families Will Not Pay Federal Income Taxes If They Make Less Than:
Married:
1 kid 35k
2 kids 50k
3 kids 65k

Single
1 kid 28k
2 kids 43k
3 kids 54k

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. The category that's missing is

Single

0 kids

[maddezmom]

43. agree

hopefully he will release something on the website asap.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. I'm single, with no kids.

And money is tight for me, and I would love tax relief also, sure. Who wouldn't? But Thank God I don't have children dependent on me right now on my income. If Clark doesn't RAISE my taxes, and if he provides for a better economy and health care options, I am still ahead of the game. Dean of course has a point when he says that you can't just keep lowering taxes, and increase spending on social programs, without it blowing up the deficit, increasing borrowing costs, and shifting the liability to younger generations to pay.

So there is a balance to be struck, just like there always is. As a single tax payer with no children, I agree with Clark. One way to break the circle of poverty is to support those who must support our children who are most at risk. Don't raise my taxes, and I am fine with this.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

81. I agree. I'm married with no kids. If they can do something

to get my freaking outrageouly expensive HMO costs down, that would help greatly.

[liberalhistorian]

262. And when the tax burden is shifted

off of "families" (the worthy ones, according to the government), just which group do you think will end up having to take up the slack??? You think if taxes are lowered on families that yours aren't going to be raised? Think again, pal.

[bearfartinthewoods]

282. now i;m agreeing with you.................

on that note g'nite :wave:

[eleny]

66. You're leaving out married and no kids

Hubby and I are married 25 years, retired, bringing in comfortable pensions. But frankly, I'm looking ahead to a time when, under this plan, the deficit comes down and then we will also get some tax relief. With the closing of loopholes for doing biz as an overseas company like Halliburton does, we should see the deficit come down more quickly. Even with the new healthcare program for all children.

We've been educating other people's kids with our tax dollars forever. But as far as I'm concerned, education and healthcare for kids means they become healthy, gainfully employed tax payers of the future. This is a long term plan while deficit reduction is more the short term goal. I can live with this.

[tameszu]

293. Uh, if you support Dean

then I'd like to point out that folks in the category of "Single" who make less than $200K annually will pay less in taxes in a Clark administration than in a Dean administration.

How's that for comparative benefit?

[hilzoy]

44. From the policy at Clark04.com:

"Expanded benefits for low-income adults without children. Clark's Tax Reform builds on the existing EITC for childless adults, raising the maximum credit from $382 to $500."

[democratreformed]

45. Thanks, hilzoy. I missed that n/t

[KittyWampus]

32. Clark- Not "Family Values" But "Valuing Families"

Very good taking the GOP's empty rhetoric and putting it to good UTILITY.

[burning bush]

42. Does This Raise My Taxes By $4K?

I keep reading this, and I am not clear on the details.

It seems as if the Child Tax credit, the EITC, and the Depend exemption will be combined into ONE credit, but it also seems as if this credit applies only to those who are paying a tax.

Will familes receive the balance of this $2250 per child credit as a refund, even if they have no liability?

I regularly get about $4K-$5K per year from these combined credits, even though I have NO liability.

It sounds like I might be losing that credit!

If true, then wouldn't Clark's plan effectively raise my taxes by that amount?

Can somebody clear this up for me?

[hilzoy]

48. Here:

"Helping Squeezed Middle-Class Families: All middle-class taxpayers with children making up to $100,000 will get a tax cut. Wes Clark's Tax Reform will restore fairness to the tax code, providing a tax cut for all families with children making up to $100,000 annually. Of these families, 15 million low-income families currently receiving net tax credits through the EITC and other credits will get larger tax credits. In addition, 3.2 million low-income adults without children will get expanded tax breaks. In total 31 million families will benefit-with the typical tax cut being $1,477.<3> " -- from the policy at Clark04.com.

[burning bush]

53. Its that very passage that make me uneasy...

"Helping Squeezed Middle-Class Families: All middle-class taxpayers with children making up to $100,000 will get a tax cut..."

and

In total 31 million families will benefit-with the typical tax cut being $1,477

This passage speaks of tax payers and tax cuts. If i don't have any tax liability, how do I get a tax cut?

Sorry if I'm being overly concerned about the technicalities of exact wording.

I've been trained to parse the tax code. When wording is vague, or when it seems to say one thing, it almost never works in the favor of the average American.

[hilzoy]

57. Sorry --

The part I thought would answer your question was: "Of these families, 15 million low-income families currently receiving net tax credits through the EITC and other credits will get larger tax credits." This sounds to me as though people who are currently receiving tax credits will (a) keep getting them, and (b) get larger ones.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

76. Gee good question

How does one cut zero?

"I don't pay anything...how can I pay less?"

This question makes no sense to me.

Maybe I'm just slow.

[democratreformed]

50. I don't think so

I'm not certain, but it appears they will still be sending you money: "The government will withhold the correct amount of taxes from the families paycheck or provide them with the correct tax credit."

Still looking for further info.

[democratreformed]

52. More info: NO

"Like the current EITC, the new Child Tax Credit will phase-in with income. A family making $5,000 will be eligible for a refund of up to $2,000 and a family making $10,000 will be eligible for a refund of up to $4,000 annually. The refund will be capped for families with more than three children."

[burning bush]

56. ok where can I find that passage?

pop me a link?

[democratreformed]

59. Here you go

http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/

That particular passage is about midway down the page under this heading:
How Families First Tax Reform Works

and this subheading:
Incentives for lower-income families to work

[burning bush]

60. Found it, reading /nt

[democratreformed]

61. Sorry it took so long

There's a lot of info there.

[burning bush]

65. Thanks for the help!

I appreciate it.

I have to say I am cautiously enthusiastic about this program, but I need to see a more in depth presentation, and some qualified analysis as well.

But I want to restate, tentatively - looks pretty good for my bottom line!

[hilzoy]

63. Also,

in the section called 'Detailed description', there's the following passage:
"Currently the EITC does not provide any additional help for families with more than two children. Wes Clark's plan will fix that-consolidating and expanding on the EITC and lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty."

[robbedvoter]

47. Hey, karl:

So if Karl Rove is watching today, I want him to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. And if that makes me an "old style" Democrat, then, I accept that label with pride and dare you to come after me for it. Because what I am talking about today is in the best tradition of Wilson and Roosevelt; of JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton - and it is in the best interest of the United States of America!
http://clark04.com/speeches/025/

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. That's just brilliant rhetoric, in the best possible sense of that word.

It reframes the issue, puts Karl Rowe on the hot seat, connects with core democratic values, principles, and traditions. It projects strength. God, I love it when Clark takes on the Republicans directly.

[Jerseycoa]

130. Talk about reframing

I'm loving how tax reform is now a moral issue owned by the Democrats.

[helleborient]

62. Anyone notice the importance of "with children" in the plan...

I've been married for 15 years with no children...and thanks, Gen. Clark, you'll keep my unequal share of tax burden...and help promote that heterosexual couples with children are the most valuable in this country...just like the rhetoric from the right wing.

[BootinUp]

67. Surely

there are some things in Clark's overall economic plan that you be happy about. Have you looked at some of the other stuff? I am not an expert on tax code, but I am happy that Clark is for a more progressive simpler tax code.

[helleborient]

73. Individual taxes based on individual income is even simpler...

That would benefit everyone...regardless of their family configuration...but instead its cheap publicity to look "family friendly" but ignores configurations of family outside of the "traditional" model.

[burning bush]

72. Sorry, helleborient

I think the plan is great for families who have the extra difficulty of raising children, and I'm excited about the $$$, but it's insensitive to ignore a large portion of the population without a spouse or offspring.

You are right.

Whomever the candidate is (and I am pretty confident our guy will wrap it up), there will have to be some way to address single, childless taxpayers.

Everyone deserves a break.

[helleborient]

77. Thank you!

Particularly since I know I was opening myself up to be savaged here.

[KittyWampus]

164. Childless Households- Maximum credit from 382 to 500

"Expanded benefits for low-income adults without children. Clark's Tax Reform builds on the existing EITC
for childless adults, raising the maximum credit from $382 to $500."


I am sensitive to this as a single woman with no kids or plans to ever have kids.

[TexasPatriot]

75. hrm

so this redistributes wealth from the ultrarich to the working underclass... and it's a bad thing?

http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/
"And tax breaks for 3.2 million poor childless workers"

Are the republicans the 'me first' party? what happened to helping our fellow man... sometimes i wonder about people.

[helleborient]

79. To specific "underclass"...if no children...sorry.

The announcements say nothing about what happens for those without children.

[hilzoy]

78. As I noted above,

in post #57 (which was there before you posted this), Clark's plan does in fact provide benefits for people without children.

[helleborient]

84. Looks like it may provide benefits for a portion of those without children

While it's abundantly clear it will provide more money for any couple with children who make under $100,000 a year.

[bearfartinthewoods]

245. so someone with 2 to 3 times my income get's a break and i don't

wow....real progressive taxation......

[bearfartinthewoods]

224. only if they qualify for EITC

if you actually pay taxes it looks like you're screwed.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

85. Sounds like

"gee if I can't 'have it' no one else should get it."

Interesting take.

[Bread and Circus]

91. I forget, do Democrats want to help children in poverty or not?

Just asking, because I hope I still recognize the
party after King Dean remakes it.

Many of you are just being selfish. Period.

Frankly, as a doctor, my bottom line is with Bush.

Anyone here want me to vote for him?

[Bread and Circus]

100. P.S. I have no kids and I still like the plan.

What is it w/ these childless folks? They sound like
the whiny seniors in my town that won't approve a millage
for better schools yet don't spout a word about the billions
everyone else pays for their medicare.

Are we just as selfish and self-serving as the members
of the GOP? I am just asking because I pay a boatload of
taxes. Why bother if my own party doesn't have altruism
and compassion truly at heart.

We are all inter-related. Investing in children helps us all.
If we can't see that, then I could care less about what our
party stands for.

[TexasPatriot]

104. no kidding

my wife and i vote for school bonds not because we have kids (edit: because we dont) but because its the right thing to do even if it does increase my property taxes. Some of the arguments here against the plan proposed by Clark sound like something Steve Forbes would make. This is NOT the party of Steve Forbes!

[Clark Can WIN]

64. That's it! I will move heaven hell and earth to get this man in

Everything I can, from now to his innauguration.

[helleborient]

68. I hope you have children so you can benefit from this plan...

[BootinUp]

70. guess you aren't going to answer my post?

[helleborient]

80. I did...look up (n/t)

[Clark Can WIN]

286. Maybe I'll just adopt one of the children

here on the DU message board. Won't have to look far, plenty to choose from.

Pa-dum-pum.

[demnan]

69. My concern

is that is a lot of tax cuts but where are the specifics about reform of corporations paying no taxes, much less the wealthy who got tax cuts?

The money has to come from somewhere unless we increase the deficit up the kazoo.

What is Clark's position on the deficit?

Remember how good things were when Clinton paid down the deficit?

[hilzoy]

82. From the policy at Clark04.com:

"Paying for Families First Tax Reform




Wes Clark's Tax Reform will restore fairness to the tax system without increasing the deficit. The Family First credits will cost $33 billion annually - which will be fully paid for by:


A 5 percentage point rate increase on income over $1 million annually-Only impacting the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers. The rate increase will apply to families making more than $1 million annually. In tax year 2004, an estimated 200,000 tax units or 0.1 percent of tax filers earned over $1 million annually.<7> As under current law, the rate increase will not apply to any capital gains and will not apply to the first $1 million earned.


Receipts will be earmarked for lower-income and middle-class families tax reform and could not be used for any other purpose. The money from the 5 percentage point rate increase could only be used for tax reform and could not be used for new spending.


Closing corporate tax loopholes, including ones that reward companies for shifting jobs overseas. Currently the United States provides tax breaks for companies that shift their headquarters - and their jobs - overseas. Wes Clark will crack down on these and other tax shelters, endorsing the Senate Democratic legislation to close tax loopholes that will save an average of $10 billion annually.<8>


$2.35 trillion Savings for America's Future Plan. Previously, Wes Clark announced a Savings for America's Future Plan. This plan includes the repeal of Bush tax cuts that benefit families making over $200,000 annually, cutting corporate welfare, streamlining government, and a success strategy for Iraq. This plan ensures that middle class families are protected from the repeal of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts. It also increases the size of estates exempt from the estate tax from their current-law level. More details of this plan can found at www.clark04.com."

[maddezmom]

83. it's deficit neutral

Deficit neutral. Reforming the tax code should not be an excuse to increase the deficit. Wes Clark's Tax Reform will be fully paid for, simplifying and improving the tax code without increasing the deficit. This is part of Wes Clark's broader plan to reduce the deficit each and ever year, a major down-payment on the goal of eventually balancing the budget.


from http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/

[helleborient]

87. And great, I'm not a family according to the plan...or a family with...

No benefit...and I get to file tax forms, while most of those with children don't even have to file tax forms.

Yay, great!

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. The slant you are taking

will not be productive in advocating for your candidate, trust me on this one (though I doubt you will). You are best arguing fiscal responsibilities issues as it impacts on the greater economy. Or arguing that those most in need are not getting most of the help, if that is what you believe. Bad politics to seemingly display "sour grapes" over targeting relief to assist lower income people struggling to raise and provide for children.

[helleborient]

101. I get angry any time the federal government tries social engineering...

I get angry about the Republican administration making sure same sex couples can not even get a discount as a family entering a national park.

I get angry that our government can't seem to subsidize individual children...if that's who we are trying to help...instead of having to work through their parents' income. Why not tax everyone...and then pay back the money for children directly to their legal guardians to ensure every child's needs are funded? Whether they live with grandmother, or with same sex parents, or a single parent?

I'm angry that Wes Clark does not even seem to think you are a family if it doesn't have children present...not the "benefits for families"...they all have children. Elderly in-laws living with adult children are a family.

I really don't care how this reflects on my candidate...it would be huge hubris to imagine that my single opinions will carry the primaries are elections.

This is an issue important to me, individually...and I am expressing my right to speak out about it.

I would never claim to follow lockstep with Howard Dean or any other candidate...there is no candidate with whom I agree on every thing. Howard Dean is wrong on gay marriage, for one. I can find other points of disagreement, and plenty with other candidates.

On this type of tax plan, I feel insulted and feel that the "traditional" picture of mom, dad, and kids locks out far too many people in our culture from federal recognition...and larger cultural recognition, and it's time for it to come to an end.

[Tom Rinaldo]

146. OK, principled opposition. That's always cool with me.

I will again point out though that Clark does not require both a Mom and Pop to be present to call it "a family"

Families Will Not Pay Federal Income Taxes If They Make Less Than:
Married:
1 kid 35k
2 kids 50k
3 kids 65k

Single
1 kid 28k
2 kids 43k
3 kids 54k

I understand the problem with current law and it's definition of the status of Gay and lesbian couples as it relates to "families". There is much work left to be done. I do believe though that this is a watershed year in that regard with all major Democratic Party candidates moving as far as they already have to embrace legal protection of the rights of gay couples relative to straight ones.

[liberalhistorian]

280. And singles and single parents aren't

also struggling? Why do people think that if you don't have kids, or if you're a single parent, you don't have as many expenses and aren't in as much need as so-called "traditional" (more worthy?) families? When taxes are lowered on families, guess which group always ends up paying more just because the government doesn't consider them "worthy" because they're single or single parents? Everyone's always falling all over themselves to kowtow and pander to families. When have you EVER heard ANY proposal to help singles who may also be struggling? Why should they pay even more than they do now?

[BootinUp]

89. Clarks overall economic plan

is to lower the deficit each year. I think you have to look at the big picture on the deficit. We need a balance plan that does some of the magic from the mid 90's. Clark has enlisted help from some of the experts that worked for Clinton on economic stuff. With the situation we are in now, I believe some deficit spending is necessary, but I want to see the trends reversed immediately, that is what Clark is promising to do.

http://clark04.com/issues/economicplan/

[Hep]

74. Shifting the burden from those with children to those without

Because clearly since we don't have kids, we have far more money to spend.

Eyes Rolling.

[TexasPatriot]

86. Tax Breaks for 3.2 Million poor childless workers

if you're poor and you dont have kids, you'll get something.
if you're not poor, and not ultrarich, this doesnt hurt you
rolling back the Bush Tax Cut may - but this wont

[helleborient]

90. And pushing for people to have kids...through tax policy..and insulting

I don't appreciate federal social engineering

And I don't appreciate that the tax plan bullet lists "benefits for families" and seems to imply two adults are NOT a family.

That is insulting.

[Hep]

99. Amen

My family consists of me, my wife, and three dogs. But we're a second class family because I haven't had my 2.3 children yet.

[TexasPatriot]

112. my family

consists of myself and my wife - no dogs (she's allergic) and maybe one fish in the pond (i dont know, i havent seen him in a while, he may have been eaten)

if you want a tax code that is anti-social engineering, then you're saying get rid of things like writeoffs for mortgage interest(afterall, single people are more likely to be in apartments and they dont benefit from the writeoff), child tax credits, hell - wipe out EITC. Or do you not limit yourself to the taxcode... should we, perhaps, get rid of foodstamps, welfare and medicaid altogether. Pubs have made the argument before... Forbes and his 'flat tax'... they love the idea.

Do you not believe in redistributing wealth from people in the $1m bracket to families in need (including childless ones as I've pointed out) because you dont believe in the concept in general? - because the federal budget is pretty much one giant social engineering program.

[Hep]

124. The point is

It's pretty messed up to introduce a new tax policy, which is supposed to solve the issue of separating the have and have-nots, that so obviously disregards and alienates those without children.

It's a poorly thought out plan that panders to the largest demographic.

[TexasPatriot]

the children argument is bogus

i see increasing poverty roles in this country and a polarization of wealth - and poor families with kids are the ones that suffer the most. However, this helps working poor without kids - so the 'children' argument is bs.

Just because you're not working poor without kids - you're angry because it doesnt help you? Think of the millions of fellow democrats this policy would help - at the expense of who? Martha Stewart? come on! This is good sound fundamentally democratic policy.

[Hep]

142. BS again

This helps poor people without kids. But poor people without kids are not the ONLY people without kids who are having trouble in this economy. That you and most other Clark supporters here choose to ignore the MIDDLE CLASS people without kids who are struggling as much as anyone in this economic climate is what I'm talking about. It's offensive, and moreso every minute you try to defend a tax policy tyhat turns a blind eye to us.

This is not good sound economic policy. It's called SETTLING. And I don't have to settle for this half assed policy. I'd rather see NO tax cut and good schools than to see my hard earned money go to pay for the kids romp at Disneyland.

[TexasPatriot]

160. lol

priceless. Lets see.
You'll see nothing from this.
I'll see nothing from this.

so a policy that attempts to redress the injustice of the polarization of wealth through the skewed Bush tax breaks, one that helps millions of fellow democrats, doesnt sit well because it should go further - hit the rich harder and open up the recipient list up to the point it helps you.

and rather than admit that this a good step in the right direction that helps millions of your fellow democrats - they shouldn't get any help until and unless you get yours, because that's settling.

wow.

[Hep]

169. There it is again

We're having some real communication problems. I'll tell you what I told someone else. If you find your self starting a sentence with, "So you," "So Clark", or any variation, whatever follows is most likely going to be wrong. OK, now that we're past that,

This policy attempts to redress SOME problems, but as I've said a dozen times now, it's disproportionate. It leaves out a signifigant segment of the population. And there's absolutely no logic behind why it doesn't do more. It's just like what I've been saying. No one considers the struggles of a couple making $50,000 a year to be worth consideration. Yet here we are, living paycheck to paycheck, wondering how we're going to be able to afford putting our dog on seizure medication for the rest of his life if we can't afford our gas bill. No cost of living increase in three years. More property taxes. More sales taxes. No relief in sight if I look at Clarks plan.

You have to wonder why I have a problem with it?

[TexasPatriot]

188. logic?

you are struggling. given. i've been there, i know the feeling, and i'm sorry. i know a lot more people who are on their way to that feeling when their unemployment benefits run out.

But to argue that this is bad policy because you fail to grasp the logic behind the cutoff is a tough argument. Given that you are struggling, imagine how much harder a family of 5, making the same money, faced with the same job prospects, increased taxes, etc feels.

This helps them.

Now imagine the family of 2 who is working at walmart - and is making half what you make, has to pay for crappy walmart healthcare, etc. This helps them too.

This helps people in the greatest need. I know you feel you're in that group too - and I hope there are other aspects of the Clark plan that will help you - whether its the checks to states that will help offset some of those property tax increases, or the sales tax increases, etc - or job training programs etc. There's a LOT on the table from Clark focused on working lower middle class families (regardless of children) and how he wants to help them. If you feel you're somewhere between the cracks in all of this, I hope that's not true.

But this is an aggressive move to help people in this country - and it would help a LOT of them. That doesnt make it bad policy.

[Hep]

208. It's bad policy because

It's disproportionate even within the middle and working class. FAMILIES FIRST, but you aren't in a family if there aren't kids.

Thanks, Wes, for making ME out to be something less than I know I am.

[Donna Zen]

264. Jobs

When the money is in the bank account of a millionaire, there is no stimulous effect. Money in the pockets of working families does provide stimulous.

I will not receive one penny of this tax relief; however, that means that I am luckier than most. I don't pretend to understand how people with two kids living on $50,000 do it.

This board today which is heavily weighted toward Defoe devotees, is truly amazing. I support any action that moves money from the greedy to the needy.

[Hep]

313. Families of four with 50,000 incomes do it

by living in places with a very low cost of living.

[Bread and Circus]

121. Is this argument straight out of a Pat Buchanan talking point?

I mean seriously, whenever you hear targeted tax cuts, the GOP'ers
call it "social engineering" as in "socialism". It' weird
when that's the whole argument against Clark's plan coming
from DU'ers.

It's ok, we can have different opinions but I wonder if folks
here really just have a bigger problem that the plan is coming
from Clark.

By the way, a plan like this could be Political gold in
the General Election.

[Hep]

127. I don't care who the plan came from

I don't care if it was Clark, Edwards, or LaRouche. The plan sucks.

[Bread and Circus]

133. But somehow Dean raising taxes on everyone is ok even though

Clark is not lowering yours enough.

Why is it ok that Dean raises your taxes but not ok that
Clark fails to lower yours?

[Hep]

147. That's easy

First of all, he's not talking about raising taxes. He's talking about replacing bad tax policy with good tax policy. And I don't care a lick about seeing a cut from Dean's tax policy because I can see the connection between my paying taxes and his plan to provide health care, educational, and job opportunities to EVERYONE. Clarks tax policy offers big cuts to people with kids. Thousands of dollars every year for a family of FOUR making $50,000. But you know what? Schools will still suck and kids will still go without adequate health care.

I don't buy the simplified, knuckle dragging argument that Dean wants to raise taxes. It's a pretty simple minded interpretation of his policy as far as I am concerned. Dean will provide tax relief for everyone in the middle class, but he refuses to work within the framework of Bush's tax cuts. Why any D would concede Bush tax cuts, even those that benefit the middle class, is beyond me.

[BootinUp]

157. Your quite a challenge

So Clark is doing a bad thang asking this 6 figure folks to ante up?

So Clark doesn't also have education, healthcare, jobs program, and jeebus a whole heck more?

http://clark04.com/issues/

[Hep]

167. Jumping to conclusions is dangerous

I'm saying precisely wat I'm saying. A note for the future: If you catch yourself saying "So you think, So Clark is, So your point is" or any variation of such, whatever you follow it with is most likely going to be wrong. Good to catch yourself before you hit "submit".

Clark is doing a bad thing offering MY money to individual people who will use that money to pay for NFL Sunday Ticket. I can't make it more clear.

Clark may care about those issues, and he may have plans. But if he thinks there is enough tax revenue floating around to give families of four $2000 tax cuts, then either he doesn't know how bad things are in the educational system or he doesn't realize that if there's that much floating around, families of TWO making $50,000 a year deserve a little something as well.

Can I be more clear?

[thebgrkng]

172. How is it...

...your money?

[Hep]

176. How is it my money?

Are you really asking me that? It's money that the government attained by taking it out of MY paycheck. If I had a choice as to how my tax dollars are spent, it would not be to subsidize people who didn't realize that having kids COSTS MONEY and now need to be bailed out.

[BootinUp]

194. Hep - I understand your point

And it is exactly the same as "you think your share is too much." The only difference is you are saying you are not getting your fair share back.

You might very well be right! But how can we know that or I know that. Generally the government uses statistics like savings rates, debt rates to determine where the wealth is and isn't. If you had some kind of analysis that showed people without kids were getting hurt disproportionately then I would be the last one to argue with you.

But let me understand, you do consider dependents to be a drag on someones earnings, and you do see that our progressive tax code is designed to maintain a middle class. We really don't want homeless families or homeless single people dying in the streets right?

I mean your almost making the republicans case for tax policy, you realize that?

[Hep]

212. Kind of

If one group of people within a certain income range gets something back, all should. It's not fair for ANYONE to assume that if I don't have kids I don't have financial problems. We all have our own circumstances. But you know that so I won't harp on it.

I'm not making the republican's case. At least not in my opinion. I feel like Clark is, rewarding people for having kids much the same way Bush has. It's buying votes. Not so much in Clarks case, moreso for Bush. I just don't understand why having kids is the caveat here. People who have kids accepted the financial drawbacks when they made their decision. They knew (or should have known) the costs involved.

But I'm tired of this. We can agree to disagree. This doesn't make or break Clark for me. What I think, though, is that some tax revenue should be spent building No-Child movie theaters so that I can see a movie without the little bastards running around shouting and stuff. I would stop bitching right now if that would come to fruition!

[BootinUp]

143. You hit the nail

on the head. All the complainers are focusing on one part of Clark's overall plan. As if any candidate's policies are all perfect for any one person. Smacks of dishonesty.

[Hep]

150. YEah, associate our argument with Buchannan

so you don't actually have to honestly consider it. He did hit the nail on the head. I didn't use those loaded terms once, how will you blindly dismiss what *I'M* saying?

[Renew Deal]

162. You are saying that having a kid costs less than the tax break provides?

$1500.00 Tax break
-Buco Bucks Cost of having a kid
____________

Net Loss

[Hep]

170. I'm saying I don't see why I have to be

financially reponsible for YOUR lifestyle choice.

[Renew Deal]

203. Now that is a republican talking point.

Seriously, where have we heard that before? It's not just lifestyle "choice." It's money too. There is incentive to work harder because you aren't paying taxes. Wait, that's a republican talking point too. ;) Actually it is not, because Clark is giving the money to the bottom, not the top.

[Hep]

216. It's not a republican talking point at all

and saying that about my argument means you've ignored aboiut 85% of it.

I think Clarks plan is kind of a republican talking point. He wants to reward people for living a traditional lifestyle. There's this money left over for tax relief for the lower and middle class, but if you don't have kids, sorry.

I will happily accept the burden of educating your kids, keeping your kids healthy, and seeing to it that they have ample and equal opportunities in life. But I'm not in favor of bearing the responsibility for your credit card bill.

[Hep]

97. Rolling back Bush's tax cut will not hurt me

But I don't see Clark's plan to help those of us who chose not to have kids. Look at the language of the policy:

"Families of four"

"All taxpayers with children"

I'm not a poor childless worker. I'm a middle class childless worker who lives paycheck to paycheck. I guess Wesley Clark figures if I'm smart enough not to have kids, I can do well for myself. He's wrong though. I could use a tax break as much as the next guy. Unfortunately I never got one.

I mean, good god! It's called "Families First". What better way to send a message that I'll be taken care of whenever Clark decides to get around to it, if ever.

[BootinUp]

113. Look at the other pieces of the economic plan

http://clark04.com/issues/economicplan/

There's a lot more there. This is just one piece.

[Hep]

129. There's nothing in there

about tax relief for working families of TWO.

[BootinUp]

155. Not correct

Isn't Dean's big thing that he would return money to the States to reduce help reduce other taxes and fees? Well Clark has the essentially the same thing. Have you looked at the Turnaround plan for America? There's quite a bit there.

If you are looking for something in this family tax plan then the only thing you'll find is a progressive, deficit neutral, tax code, that doesn't raise your taxes.

[Hep]

158. What I'll find is a plan

that disproportionately benefits people for making a lifestyle choice and punished those who don't. That's messed up policy.

It's also pandering in the worst way, because he sucking up to one group AT THE EXPENSE of another.

[BootinUp]

165. We'll have to disagree then

This money comes from the 6 figure folks.

There are other parts of his plan that will have a positive effect on people in your situation. You may ignore this again if you choose.

[Hep]

171. The money doesn't come from 6 figure folks

Taxes don't work that way. The money comes from EVERYONE who pays taxes. It's not like the IRS sits back and says, Here's Ben Affleck's tax money, since he's rich, we'll give his money to the family of four making $50,000 per year. Here's Hep's taxes, let's build a school with it!

That's ludicrous.

[thebgrkng]

174. You are saying...

...That the U.S. gov't cannot determine if people earn over a million bucks, tax those people 5% more, and see how much more money they take in than had they not taxed an extra 5%?

[Hep]

179. For the third time,

If you have to guess what I mean, you're going to guess wrong. Ask me what I'm saying if you don't understand, don' try to TELL me what I'm saying. I already know.

The govt can, but they don't choose to spend each individuals tax dollars based on how much that individual took in. That's not obvious? All the money goes into a pool, and from that pool it gets spent. The same 5 cents from my paycheck goes to that family of four as the 5 cents that came from yours.

[BootinUp]

182. What difference does that make?

I don't get it. I think the issue is how much you put into the pool. I understand you think your share is too much. That makes you an American I think.

[Hep]

185. I don't think my share is too much

I was just giving a refresher to whoever it was who suggested that it isn't MY money going to that family of four.

My share isn't too much. I just wonder why Clark thinks there's enough to go to struggling families of four but not enough for struggling families of two. My point is that you don't solve our economic problems by singling out who gets relief based on a lifestyle choice.

[thebgrkng]

189. Im sorry...

I was trying to ask what you were saying. You said something that doesnt make sense to me, so I tried to make sense of it. You have to meet me halfway if we are going to be able to discuss this.

My point is that the gov't can look at the different amount it takes in taxing the 1000000+ people an extra 5% vs not taxing them an extra 5%. They can then use that extra amount of money for specific purposes. All well within the realm of possibility.

[sfecap]

175. Jim...

Serious questions...

There are many, many "six figure folks" who aren't going to be too crazy about subsidizing others who will pay NO taxes. Regardless of your disdain for them, those "six figure folks" do pay a lot of taxes now. (In some cases up to 45-50% of their income in Federal, State, and local taxes.)

How do you think the "under 50K with kids pay no taxes at all" is going to play with the public? Won't we hear cries of "something for nothing/welfare, yadda, yadda?

I think Wes has got some good ideas here, but it's going to be a very tough sell.

[BootinUp]

178. Do you really think

the "under 50K with kids" PAY NO TAXES?

that would be a tough argument to make. I understand Clark addresses this in his speech. I was going to wait and watch on CSPAN at 3:45. But you can read it at his site.

[Hep]

180. Did you read clarks policy?

"No families of four making under $50,000 will pay income taxes."

[BootinUp]

184. There are other taxes

besides fed income tax. Theres SS, Medicare, Sales Taxes, Property taxes, and the (shit I can't think of any more taxes but i know there are more taxes.)

[Hep]

186. OK

I see your point.

[sfecap]

191. Yes there are other taxes...

And the six figure folks pay a whopping share of them. And they don't necessarily want to pay more. I certainly don't have all the answers, but this sure smells like class warfare to me. At least that's how it's going to be spun.

But like I said, there's some good stuff in this.

Good for Wes!

[sfecap]

187. Well, that's what it says:

See the original post above:

Excerpts: "Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform, a family of four making up to $50,000 will pay no federal income taxes and all taxpaying families with children making up to $100,000 will get a tax cut.

As one who will evidently be subsidizing this, I have to tell you it's going to be a tough sell.

There are a lot of Democrats who are "six figure folks".

[thebgrkng]

195. You would have to be a ...

...seven figure democrat to pay for this.

[BootinUp]

204. Thanks for the correction

7 figures is correct.

I was slightly unbalanced by some of the arguments around here.

[sfecap]

205. Actually, no.

Read his proposal again.

[thebgrkng]

209. Then I am confused

I read it. As I understand it, only people who make over 1 million will have their rates raised.

Im not sure if your quote here:
Excerpts: "Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform, a family of four making up to $50,000 will pay no federal income taxes and all taxpaying families with children making up to $100,000 will get a tax cut.

is where you getting that you will pay? all that says is people who earn under that ceiling are elibile for the benefit. If not, could you point me to the text you are talking about?

Thanks

[bearfartinthewoods]

267. you forget about the part about not having kids...

wait till the boomers hear about this.

[thebgrkng]

288. no i didnt.

only people who make over 1,000,000 dollars have their rates increased. only people with children may be eligible to for lower taxes.

everyone else is not affected. Please give me an example where this is not the case.

[poopyjr]

215. It'll be an easier sell than Dean's "I want to raise taxes on everybody"

[Hep]

243. Bertrand Russell wrote the best response years ago

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

[Cocoa]

96. its amazing how relevant the Simpsons remains

just last night they had a new episode satrizing the conflict b/w people with children and people without. God it was funny, a mob of the childless side goes on a rampage across town, destroying child-related things, Moe turns the backwards 'R' at Toys-R-Us around. Great stuff. :-)

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

119. Lets look at that statement

Lets say one has an income of $50,000, is single w/no children. $50,000 divided by 1= omg...$50,000. Could spend all of that on necessities I suppose. Might even be able to throw in a luxury here and there.

Compare that to an income of $50,000, married 2 kids. $50,000 divided by 4= $12,500.

Which of these would you think might have more to "spend" on necessities? And which one might be able to grab one or two more "luxuries"?

[Hep]

173. That's the worst math I've ever seen

You didn't subtract taxes. You didn't account for the money I spend on my family, canine though they may be. BTW, pet expenses for me topped $5000 easily this year.

You also ignore the tax breaks that people with children ALREADY get, the extra tax cuts they got from Bush and the proposed tax cuts from Clark.

Unbelievable. You divide $50,000 by two and act like I see all of that money. Is that the turnip truck that just drove by?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

287. So Sorry

I wasn't attempting to be a financial wizard here...just keeping it simple. Next time I'll be sure and say "take home".

LOL

[liberalhistorian]

283. Excuse me, but there are plenty

of singles and childless married couples who have major expenses, i.e., they may be caring for ill parents, siblings, etc., or they may have an illness that's expensive to treat. Many of them are the sole caregivers for ill parents because "they don't have kids, so they have more time and money", which is bullshit. I'm sick of people thinking that if you don't have kids, you don't have any expenses and financial obligations.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

289. Didn't imply there wasn't

I AM dealing with major expenses due to illness.

I AM the sole caregiver.

I have NO deductions for kids.

So please don't presume to tell me what bullshit is, ok?

Now...what is your real problem with this tax plan...or are you just pissed because someone said they thought it was a good one and it wasn't your guy that thought of it?

[liberalhistorian]

304. No, actually I've been leaning

more towards Clark than anyone else these past couple of months, so please don't try to tag me with the if-it-didn't-come-from-Dean-I-hate-it-and-it's-no-good label.

My real problem, first of all, is with the name, FAMILIES FIRST. Families are all well and good, but it appears that I'm not considered a REAL "family" because I'm a single parent. And childless couples I know are not considered a REAL "family" because they don't have kids, even though they may have major financial obligations, like taking care of elderly or ill parents or spouse, etc.

I've been single my entire adult life, and I'm tired of the government's and society focus just on the NUCLEAR FAMILY, the only "true" family, apparently, especially since singles are now slightly more than half of the country's population. And I'm going to say this one more time, when the tax burden is shifted off of one group, another group ALWAYS has to take up the slack, and just who do you think that group usually is?

Why don't we EVER hear about a tax break for them? Why is that everyone expects them to just go along ALL of the time with things like this, calling them selfish if they don't? Most don't mind paying their fair share, recognizing that when children and society's needs are taken care of, everyone benefits. But they don't like never getting ANY break and having to ALWAYS pick up the slack, and having it being taken for granted that they will do so.

[Hep]

314. Be careful or they'll call you selfish

for not being willing to give them money on top of paying for their kids educations and health care.

[liberalhistorian]

324. LOL!

Oh, I'm already hearing that. My favorite is when people tell me I need to get married for my son's benefit so that we can be a "real" family. Well, maybe they'd like to find me a husband, since single mothers in their late thirties who live with their parents and who are very liberal aren't that appealing to many men in the area, even if I do have a college degree.

Or when singles I know are told they should get married and, for those young enough, have kids so that they can really "join and contribute to society."

Never mind that they never get tax breaks and married couples with kids are the only ones the government seems to ever pay any attention to. We don't mind paying our fair share at all, including for education, health care, public services, etc., etc. But there comes a time when they get a little tired of being taken for granted and never getting ANY breaks and then being told to just buck up and suck up because they're not worthy anyway.

[Hep]

326. We should consider ourselves lucky that we haven't been shipped to

some kind of breeding huts. We should be glad we haven't been arrested for Felony Failing to Procreate.

[liberalhistorian]

329. LOL!

Shhhhh!!!! Don't give them any ideas!

[markus]

88. Kids v. No Kids

for those who complained here (and in another threard) about the extra benefit to those with kids:

You have not been "subsidizing my children". You have been, to some extent, subsidizing the education, etc. of the people who are going to pay for your Social Security and Medicare.

Families with no kids have a hell of a lot more "disposable income" than I do, and won't get a lot of sympathy. It would be nice to take a couple of vacations a year, always drive a late model car, etc. the way my DINK acquaintences do.

Hell, we decided my wife would stay home with each of our kids when they were very small. We choose to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars in income to do this.

[helleborient]

92. See...Wesley Clark's tax plan divides us...instead of bringing us together

And your comments are insulting...I know plenty of adults with no children without much "disposable income"...and I know plenty of families who take lengthy vacations.

Your blanket assumptions are just as insulting as the blanket assumptions made in the tax plan.



What is so difficult about reforming tax structure to be fair to EVERYONE????

[maddezmom]

95. nothing

but that's not Clark's plan at this point. And that's why we have the primaries, so you can vote for your guy. :)

[abburdlen]

111. Clark vs Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens and Gays

It's all over now! There goes the endorsement Clark was trying to get from SSCCATAGAPP (Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples And Teens And Gays Against Parasitic Parents)

<if you aren't laughing you didn't see Simpson's last night.
http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-146/epid-242858/

[maddezmom]

115. someone posted about it earlier

turning the R around on Toys R us. LOL

[Hep]

122. I missed it

I adore the simpsons, and just didn't get to see it last night. The wife failed to record it.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

128. What's wrong with giving credit where credit is due?

It's not Wes' tax plan that divides...its people who would rather whine about not getting a perfect world right out of the box.

The tax plan isn't going to help me either. Just me & my husband...living off his small disability check.

So I'm supposed to slam a program that can help millions of others because I'll get nothing out of it?

What kind of twisted rational is that?

[Hep]

131. A perfect world?

I'm not asking for perfection. I'm asking for my share. How can you possibly find fault with that?

[tameszu]

299. Because you are asking for more than your share

Other people's children will pay for your social security and medicare.

Your dog won't pay for theirs.

[Hep]

316. Asking for my share=asking for more than my share?

How does that work again? You proclaim to know more anout me than I do? What's my middle name?

I'm paying for my own social security, thanks. BTW I won't be getting back as much as I put in, so other people's kids won't be doing Squat.

[BootinUp]

98. Interesting take

thanks for that post.

[Hep]

105. I call BS

I AM subsidizing your children, because those TAX CUTS go to YOU.

Put it this way. I would rather be taxed and have that money go to schools and other social programs designed to give all kids educational opportunities than to be taxed so that you can have a big tax break, the bulk of which goes to pay off your Christmas credit card debt.

If you didn't want financial burden you should have used a condom. Under no circumstance should I feel bad about how much disposable income you don't have because you having kids was your choice, and if you have any sense at all you knew it was going to be financially burdensome.

BTW, I don't have kids, but I have a family. I spent over $3000 on surgery for one of my dogs, who I love as much as you love your kids, and I don't get a damn cent for my trouble. I don't even get insurance. To simply ASSume that because I don't have kids I'm sitting pretty is as insulting as Clarks policy is.

You made a choice to give up your financial stability to have kids. How can it be possibly fair to BURDEN me with the responsibility of subsidizing YOUR choice?

[thebgrkng]

108. Do you make more than 1,000,000

If not then the money isnt coming from you.

I don't understand how people can be getting upset at taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor/middle.

[Hep]

116. Try to understand

Family of two, making $50,000, and I didn't get SQUAT for a tax break. Net gain from these illustrious "middle class tax cuts" = $8 per month. Of course, state sales taxes went up a point, and my employer hasn't given a cost of living increase for three years. But screw it. If I don't have kids I don't deserve any relief, right? I'm sporting a Lexus SUV and taking my private jet to the French Riviera thanks to my deciding to not force children into this quagmire we call earth.

[SahaleArm]

261. Not counting your deductions - 2003 versus 2000 brackets?

Married filing jointly with taxable income between $47,450 and $114,650 in 2003 pays 27% versus 28% in 2000. Add to that the fact that the 2001 marriage penalty reduction will stay in tact. Combined with the income tax reduction you should see close to $1,000 dollars in total. A thousand dollars in the hands of the middle class will help spur economic growth.

Reduce or eliminate the marriage penalty for millions of low-income families. The 2001 tax cut ended the marriage penalty for millions of middle-class families but left a marriage penalty for low-income families. Wes Clark's Tax Reform will fix that injustice- reducing or eliminating marriage penalties for millions of low-income families.

http://www.clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/

[BootinUp]

109. This is just too much

sour grapes for me. Clark has a complete economic plan that does have benefits for all Americans, but you chose to attack this plan which as far as I can tell does not raise your taxes. If we want to have a healthy economy we need more than just tax breaks, and Clark has offered a lot of other progressive programs. This plan is deficit neutral, and Clarks overall plan begins to reduce the deficit.

At some point we all have to choose a candidate, you have made yours. If you hadn't attacked a DU'er like you did, but just expressed your reservations your argument would carry more weight.

[Hep]

117. Just sour grapes huh?

Way to dismiss outright the plight of middle class workers who didn't get any benefit from the middle class tax cuts everyone wants to protect so badly.

I guess if it doesn't affect you then screw it, right? Unless it's really poor people. Well, I'll let you know when I become really poor, subsidizing everyone else's Kids 'n' Consumption, so that you can pretend to care.

[BootinUp]

123. I think you ignored everything

I said. Its easy to convince yourself you have been harmed then. The sour grapes has to do with your whole tone which is getting offensive.

[Hep]

136. MY TONE?

LOL. That's rich!

I don't have to convince myself that I've been harmed. I already pointed that out. I don't have to be harmed. My point is that I deserve relief too and Clark isn't offering it to me. He's holding up thousand dollar bills to my face and then handing them off to other people. To pay for education? Nope. To subsidize health care for kids? Nope. To pay down the credit card that bought the Christmas XBox for little Johnny? YUP.

And me taking offense and speaking frankly about it is offensive sour grapes.

Fine. Believe what you want. Sorry I questioned your Great Leader.

[BootinUp]

151. yes, it gets louder every time doesn't it

For the final time, you can attack this one part of Clark's economic plan, but its highly suspect from someone who refuses to discuss the other parts of his economic plan that you most likely will benefit from.

[Hep]

181. It only gets louder because people stick their fingers in their ears

and shout "LA LA LA" at the top of their lungs.

[Hep]

183. Make a thread about his whole economic policy

and we'll talk about it. This thread is about his Families First plan.

Could he have picked a name for his policy that proves my point better?

[returnable]

110. Um, how would you be "burdened"...

...by Clark's plan?

Are you pulling in 7 figures annually?

[Hep]

120. What?

So I have to actually feel an increased burden to have a legitimate problem with people who have kids getting the lions share of tax relief? The fact that people with kids get a disproportionate amount of relief under CLark's plan isn't supposed to bother me because my taxes MIGHT not actually go up?

Out of curiosity, at what point do I get some help? I mean, my income is about to drop as my wife returns to school full time, but since I don't have KIDS, I'm SOL. Guess I'll just have to go after the welfare checks since even the D's who are supposed to care about my struggle choose to marginalize what this economy has done to me.

[returnable]

141. Again...

Hey, you said you would be "burdened" by Clark's plan:

"How can it be possibly fair to BURDEN me with the responsibility of subsidizing YOUR choice?"

I fail to see where Clark's tax plan will be burdening you. It's deficit neutral, and will be bankrolled by the wealthiest 0.1%.

"Out of curiosity, at what point do I get some help?"

I dunno. But it seems to me your real beef isn't about tax breaks in principle - you're just steamed you don't qualify for a break yourself.

That's understandable.

But I've looked up and down Dean's tax plan, and I didn't see anything in there for you, either.

So why all the rancor at Clark?

[Hep]

156. The burden is further shifted to the childless

Basically, my taxes stay the same while people with kids get tax cuts. That shifts the burden to ME. That means my taxes go to your credit card bill.

Dean's tax plan doesn't offer me much, but Dean's tax plan offers more than a check and a "good luck" for people.

If you want to throw money at people with kids, throw it at their schools and their doctors on their behalf, don't throw it to the family who's going to use it to make a Ford Expedition Payment.

[returnable]

163. "That shifts the burden to ME."

Not necessarily. Show me where in Clark's plan that the tax burden is shifted to you. You won't be any more "burdened" than under Dean's plan which doesn't offer you any break either, but that plan doesn't seem to bother you.

Under Clark's plan, the real burden is shifted to those making seven figures a year.

"If you want to throw money at people with kids, throw it at their schools and their doctors on their behalf..."

And Clark intends to increase funding for education and health care through increasing the taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That's where the "burden" is being shifted.

I'm for progressive taxation. This is getting us there.

"...but Dean's tax plan offers more than a check and a 'good luck' for people."

Please explain. What exactly do you think Dean's plan offers that'll benefit you directly?

[Hep]

190. The reason Dean's plan doesn't bother me

is that he isn't offering one segment of the population huge tax cuts while completely ignoring another segment which makes the same income based on a LIFESTYLE CHOICE.

How much taxes do we expect the rich to pay, BTW? 80%? I mean, come on! Clarks going to find out that there isn't enough to give those tax breaks while funding schools. Then what happens?

Dean's plan doesn't offer me much directly. But I know I will benefit when everyone has access to healthcare and education.

How much money will Clarks tax break cost us, already stuck in a quagmire of deficit spending? How much more revenue will we see when we increase taxes on rich people? How will Clark improve education while giving all this money away to people who don't deserve it any more than I do?

[TexasPatriot]

197. ummm

in one argument you're mad because the cutoff doesnt include help for you - that it doesnt go far enough

now, with a program that will increase revenues to the federal coffers by more than Deans rollback of the entire bush taxplan, the argument is 'where do we stop, do we just keep soaking the rich?'

my god - have you seen how polarized the wealth has become in this country? it's not getting better - the disparity between the expected salaries of jobs created in the next 3 years vs jobs lost in the last 3 is substantial. Working men and women of this country are getting hosed - Clark increases taxes on the Uberwealthy - and you use hyperbole to make a case that there wont be any money in the kitty to fund education?

:smoke:

[Hep]

217. Working men and women are getting hosed

and the only ones getting bailed out are those with kids. I guess I'd better get reproducing then, huh?

[returnable]

200. "a quagmire of deficit spending?"

I guess therein lies the crux. Clark's plan isn't deficit spending. It's deficit neutral.

"Clarks going to find out that there isn't enough to give those tax breaks while funding schools."

Have some figures for that?

I mean, I've read the plan. I've seen the figures. By rolling back the tax cuts on those making more than 200k, and increasing the tax rate for those making a million+, closing the corporate gaps, cutting defense spending, etc., it looks to me like there will be funds there.

Show me where the numbers are flawed. The deficit won't disappear overnight, but no one else is offering an immediate cure, either.

"How much taxes do we expect the rich to pay, BTW? 80%? I mean, come on!"

I expect them to pay a huge chunk, actually. I'm a progressive :)

And that's why I like Clark's plan. It's the closest thing in this field to progressive taxation.

You obviously disagree. That's cool. That's why we support different candidates :toast:

[Hep]

218. Why is there enough money for peopls with kids but not enough

for people without?

[returnable]

230. As I posted earlier...

...I understand your beef about only families with kids getting a break.

And I don't think it's a flawless plan. I think it'd be great if folks without kids got some kind of break, too.

But they (you) are NOT getting saddled with new tax burdens. In fact, Clark's plan expands the EIC for those without kids.

It's not much, but it's better than nothing.

You keep lamenting that Clark's plan will give you no tax relief, and that's probably true.

But neither will Dean's plan.

You still haven't explained that discrepency. You're focusing all your attention on an aspect of Clark's plan that is also absent from Dean's plan.

For me, the Big Picture is that Clark's plan attempts to increase the tax burden to the wealthiest. That's progressive taxation. That's something I strongly support. That he throws a bone to middle class families with kids is a side bar.

I asked you if you had some numbers or analysis that suggested Clark's plan will tank or fall short of its stated goals, but you haven't provided me with any.

As far as I can tell, you're just upset that you won't be getting a tax cut.

Fair enough.

But then you should condemn Dean's plan, too. Because your "burden" will be the same under either plan.

[Hep]

244. Dean's plan doesn't pretend to help people that it won't help,

and Dean's plan doesn't treat me like a second class citizen because I chose not to have kids.

But Dean' plan does offer me something. The chance to not have to fill out forms anymore. And healthcare that I can afford. And job opportunities. Clark offers those things, but they aren't all tied together the way Dean's policies are.

[returnable]

251. We'll have to agree to disagree

"Dean's plan doesn't pretend to help people that it won't help."

That's not how I see it. I think progressive taxation and debt relief will help a lot of folks, yourself included even if indirectly.

But you have your candidate, and I have mine. That's why we vote :toast:

[tameszu]

295. No, the burden on Hep will be HIGHER under Dean's plan

Both Dean and Clark plan to increase spending on services for Hep in a similar manner.

But Clark's plan, in toto, would maintain the SAME level of taxation for Hep as right now (unless he earns little enough to qualify for an expanded EIC), whereas Dean's plan would (at least at first) RAISE taxes on Hep. How does Clark pay for all of this? Easy--he raises taxes by 5% on those makking $1 million and up.

Is that the sound of Dean supporters who are horrified that Clark might actually be more progressive than Dean?

[Hep]

317. I'm not worried about who is more progressive

And my burden will not be higher under dean. You base that solely on the fact that he wants to repeal all of Bush's cuts, completely ignoring the fact that his tax policy STARTS there.

But believe what you want.

[Hep]

318. I'm not worried about who is more progressive

And my burden will not be higher under dean. You base that solely on the fact that he wants to repeal all of Bush's cuts, completely ignoring the fact that his tax policy STARTS there.

But believe what you want.

[thebgrkng]

166. This isnt the same thing as....

...Deans tax plan. Dean's tax plan is to rollback all of bush's tax cuts and use the money in other ways.

Clark has a similar plan that would be a better comparison. He rolls back the tax cuts for people making over 200k which ends up being the bulk of the money. He also plans other cuts (such as the military) to make up the difference. Then he takes that money and uses it in other ways. (Similar to Dean; healthcare, deficit, education, first respoders, etc)

[Hep]

192. What separates Dean's tax plan

is that it isn't based in any way on Bush's tax cuts. It takes away the dead wood and rebuilds our tax code on a stronger foundation. It doesn't mean no tax relief for the middle class, it just means less jibba jabbain the tax code.

[thebgrkng]

199. What Dean tax plan are you talking about...

...The only one i know of is the repeal the bush tax cuts and use the money for other stuff like healthcare, first responders, etc. Is there another plan?

[Hep]

220. You need to read his website

Because what you appear to know about his plan is based on someone elses interpretation of his plan.

[democratreformed]

149. I guess that's much worse than getting no tax relief at all n/t

[Hep]

193. I'll let you know when I actually get some tax relief

I have yet to see any. Why that's perfectly OK with so many people here is beyone me.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

196. You know Hep

You & I had a pretty sane discussion on another thread the other day about taxes & I enjoyed it, but I've got to be honest with you your "poor me" attitude here is really getting on my nerves.

Your, "I have to actually feel an increased burden" & your "my income is about to drop as my wife returns to school full time," is a bunch of bull pucky.

I'll tell you what a friggin burden is...Our income dropped over a year ago because I left work to take care of my husband who has terminal cancer. I'm a licensed optician & he worked his ass off with hard physical labor in warehouses for over 34 years. We raised two kids & NEVER made over $50,000 a year. Our small savings (on which we currently earn a whopping 1% interest) is now under $2000. We live off a small disability check and we do NOT take welfare.

And you want to cry like a friggin baby because your income is going to drop because you wife is going back to school full time...I would assume she's doing so in order to further her future earning capacity...but even if that isn't the reason she HAS A CHOICE. Some of us aren't that fortunate.

You want to bitch because there are people out there who "get" a little something you won't?

Excuse me...I have NO sympathy for your argument...NONE. I get sick of folks who's main concern seems to be "ME, ME, ME, what's in it for me?"

I shall now remove myself from the soap box...you have no idea how furious I am...and I need to get centered again before I say something I shouldn't.

I wish you well Hep...maybe someday you'll find a perfect Utopia where you get all the fairness you feel you deserve...but if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath.

[democratreformed]

202. Bless you, Pam

I'm sorry b/c I don't know what else to say.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

242. Thanks democratreformed

Blessings are always welcomed.

:-)

[Hep]

225. You think it's about POOR ME and I think it's about POOR PEOPLE WITH KIDS

Except I think EVERY hard working, middle or working class family deserves relief, and I don't put any kind of caveat on it. I don't know why having kids has to be the litmus test for tax relief and no one has yet to explain it to me. Perhaps it's on your nerves because your frustrated that you have no reasonable response. WHo knows?

Get all annoyed if you want, but you aren't addressing my point. I'm not even sure you GET my point. You seem to think it is about me, and that's a pretty narrow view you put on it.

People shouldn't be rewarded just for having kids. Bottom line. It's a choice they make. It's a burden they understand.

Look at it this way. Uncle Sam has my tax dollars in his hand. Nest to him is little Johnny. Now I'm cool with my tax dollars going to little johnny's school. And to his doctor so he can have affordable health care. I'm fine with it going to after school programs so Johnny doesn't get himself into trouble. I'm fine with all of that. But then Uncle Sam takes what's left over and hands it to Johnny's parents so that they can afford new tires for their H2. There's the rub. The problem I have with the current middle class tax cuts is that they don't benefit the middle class proportionately. And I would believe that whether or not I was the one benefitting. And that's what I don't like about Clarks. It's not about me. I can get a second job if I have to put my wife through school. It's the idea that some people don't measure up because they don't have kids. That's messed up. We work just as hard and struggle just as much.

BTW, please don't ever marginalize my position and then tell me you wish me well. That's about as insulting as you can get. You can't spend an entire post telling me you don't give a rats ass about what I'm going through and expect me to believe that you give a rats ass about how I fare in life.

[democratreformed]

246. There is no reasonable

response when two people's beliefs just do not match.

[Hep]

247. Load of crap

I have one underlying problem with Clark's policy, and it's summed up by the name. Families First. Why am I to be looked down upon just because I don't have kids? Because my demographic isn't vast enough to represent a voting block worth pandering to?

Everything else aside. Why are hard working, middle and lower class people without kids not worthy of tax relief? Just answer me that and I'll set aside all other differences of opinion.

[democratreformed]

259. Of course they are worthy

of tax relief but this plan does not provide "enough" (can't say none b/c of the one small part). To me, that does not negate its value. If it does to you, that's okay.

[Hep]

319. The only reason it does to me is that

we're talking hypothetically. When coming out with a policy, why not put out the very best idea you can? Why make concessions in this phase?

[robforclark]

248. You tell me how a family of four...

...making only $50K could possibly afford "new tires for their H2" and I'll concede you your point.

You see, every point you make is really some sort of latent, anti-parent resentment plea.

You think all these people are "stealing" your money, essentially, to go out and get themselves tickets to St. Barth's, new sex toys, and all the accoutrements of the upper bourgeoisie. What you fail to understand is that with children, their lifestyle is inherently limited by the extra expenditures on food, utilities, larger living space, clothes, hopefully (and I stress hopefully) the ability to invest in higher education for the children, etc.

You say that is their choice. I say you are selfish and care naught for the future of this country. I know my parents would take this money, double their current pre-tax investment in my little brother's college fund, and maintain their lifestyle status quo. Then my brother will be able to contribute to the tax rolls after college with more income -- benefiting you, I might add.

But maybe I've been too harsh. Your dog is, of course, very important for the future of this country. Getting your dog anti-seizure meds will go a long way toward paying for your old age.

[Hep]

250. It was an analogy

I use a different example every time. No matter what it is. The point is that I don't understand why having kids puts people into a special category by which they are more deserving of tax relief than people who don't have kids. The money these families will get in tax relief is fine as long as schools are funded and healthcare is provided. But then one still wonders, if there's enough money left over to give a huge tax break to families, why does anyone have to restrict the definition of "family" to people with kids and ONLY people with kids?

You need to understand that people who have kids CHOOSE to forego their financial freedom in exchange for having their kid. That doesn't by default conjure up great feelings of sympathy on my part. They know what they are getting into, they know the expense involved. As I've said, I'm happy to help pay for their educations, their health care, any a myriad of other opportunities. Apparently that's not good enough.

The big question is, if we can provide good cheap education and health care, why must there be such a lop sided tax break on top of it?

To say that I'm selfish is to ignore 99% of my argument, and frankly, it's pretty unfair. It makes me wonder why exactly my willingness to subsidize all these things = me being selfish at all. I eagerly await your argument there.

Getting my dog anti-seizure meds will be a hardcore expense for my family for a long time. And considering the financial problems caused in my state and in my family, it will be devastating. But once again, those who chose to have kids get all of your sympathy and screw me if I think disproportionate distribution of wealth is unfair.

[liberalhistorian]

285. WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!

Jesus, I am SOOOOOOO sick of hearing people call the legitimate complaining of Hep and those like him "selfish and uncaring", and throwing bullshit like "you care naught for the future of this country" at them. BULLSHIT!!!! W

HEN are you people going to realize the shaft singles and childless married couples get in this society? WHEN are you going to realize, and how many damn times does it have to be said, that the tax burden always falls more on them, and even myself as a single parent, because families are the ones who always get pandered and kowtowed to, and who get most of the breaks?

When the tax burden falls on one group, mainly married couples with kids, it is then shifted to another group, mainly singles and married couples without kids. And how easy for those of you who are married with kids to so blithely, casually dismiss that because it doesn't affect you and, what the hell, you're getting the breaks and the relief anyway, so what the hell do you care? I'm sorry, but that is just a bunch of total bullshit, and I'm goddamn sick and tired of it!

[tameszu]

298. No, Clark's plan CLEARLY demonstrates to where the tax burden will shift

in real terms: to Americans who make over $1 million, as their taxes will increase by 5%.

Everyone else's tax burden will stay the same.

And to figure out whether singles and married childless couples really get the shaft, we have to figure out the average cost of raising a child and then compare it to the difference the two groups pay in taxes. If the cost of raising a child is more, then single families aren't shafted.

Oh yeah, for you to accept this, then you would also accept that the cost of having a child is not a choice like buying product or owning a dog is. And it isn't, as it is absolutely necessary for the continuation of society to have children (2 per family in fact, not counting immigration). You do not need the extra resources that low and middle income earners with children who are performing this socially necessary task do.

By the way, Hep, common law and the dictionary say that you and your marital partner are not a "family," as you are not related by blood and you have no children.

Rather, you are a couple. Just as loving and as a valuable in a psychical sense, but not as necessary for the survival of society as a whole.

[liberalhistorian]

306. You have GOT to be kidding me!

Well, there we have it, folks, the truth is finally laid out for everyone to see, those of us (like me) who are single parents, singles, or childless couples are not nearly as important to society and are not worthy of any further consideration.

Jesus, thanks for that most enlightening post that shows how we are really viewed and "valued" (not!) Maybe you'd like to find a husband for me so that I can finally be considered a "real" (i.e., worthy) family and a "real" (i.e. worthy) American.

[SahaleArm]

308. How do single parents not benefit?

Single folks and married couples benefit by keeping 2003 tax brackets. Those who have children, including single parents benefit with a lesser tax burden.

[Hep]

321. We benefit by things staying the same for us.

OIC. We're better off because we're not worse off.

[liberalhistorian]

325. LOL!

Yup, that's the way it is and always has been. Nice, huh?

[Hep]

320. Are you freaking kidding?

Getting a dog is a choice but having a kid isn't? What the hell kind of screwed up thinking is that? How many people think that having a kid will be free? Or did you think that maybe when my dog gets sick I actually take a week to see if I want to go to the expense of treating it? I hope to GOD you aren't a pet owner with that kind of approach.

If being related by blood is the definition of a family, then Clark's Families First plan is a misnomer.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

263. LOL

Actually I do "give a rat's ass though it seems you would never believe it. Because I disagree with your position doesn't indicate I care less about your human condition.

I wonder why anyone would feel they don't "measure up" because they don't have kids? Have you just come to this conclusion since Wes brought out his plan? Is it that you feel somehow he, alone is saying this? Or is he & his plan just a convenient punching bag for your frustration? If so, it's highly likely you'll be just as frustrated with the tax plans put forth by all the candidates. Life, and the tax codes, aren't fair. But to say what you're saying, that somehow Wes is dissing people who don't have kids with his proposal is going a bit over the top.

I also sincerely hope something like this, "What I think, though, is that some tax revenue should be spent building No-Child movie theaters so that I can see a movie without the little bastards running around shouting and stuff. " was said in jest. I would guess it was.

I didn't need to "marginalize" your position Hep. If you feel disagreeing with it is marginalizing it I hope you will take another look.

Peace...even if you don't believe I mean it. :shrug:

[Hep]

322. You wonder why people without kids feel they don't measure up?

Because they're constantly being told how important procreation is by our parents, grandparents, and now you and wesley Clark. Why else?

Nice. You support a policy that give special treatment to people with children and then wonder why people without children feel slighted. It's the best of both worlds and all you have to do is sell your soul.

And no, read your post and tell me that I should feel you wish me well. Damn. Best of both worlds again. You get to be demeaning and insulting and then act like you weren't. Reminds me of someone.

[Justice]

268. Empathy For You

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing your experience. I made the same response in a later post on this thread, but it did not have the same emotional impact yours did, because I am very fortunate with family and health - and was speaking for others, not myself.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

277. Thanks Justice

I apprciate your response.

Life isn't always fair...I've learned to deal with that. Most of us do.

Peace :-)

[liberalhistorian]

284. He's "burdened" the same

way myself as a single parent and all of the other singles I know and millions more are being burdened. Our taxes have gone up these past few years because the tax burden on MARRIED COUPLES WITH CHILDREN has gone down, and there's no relief in sight.

Whenever taxes are reduced on one group, another group has to make up the slack, and who do you think that usually is and almost always has been? And how easy for you to dismiss how we're feeling on this because you yourselves will benefit, as families usually do, so who the hell cares about the 100 million or so singles and single parents who won't, and who may even have a higher burden now?

Because we don't dance for joy and throw flowers at Clark's feet for ignoring one of the largest demographic groups in the country and even calling his plan "Families First" (boy, that really says it all as far as the national hierarchy of a person's importance, doesn't it?) that's supposed to be "sour grapes?" Maybe we have a bitter tone because we're fucking sick and TIRED of the tax burden always falling on us because we're either single, single parents, or married without kids, TIRED of watching everyone always falling all over themselves to pander and kowtow to families, and DAMN TIRED of always hearing the phrase "sour grapes" whenever we dare to express ourselves on it.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

290. So you don't consider

you and your child to be a family?

How odd.

Never dreampt a plan to cut taxes would end up pointing out that there are a lot of people who "talk the talk" of compassion but get bent out of shape if they have to "walk the walk".

And don't give me any crap about not knowing what it's like to be in the "not getting anything out of this catagory," because I don't get a durn thing out of this tax plan.

Express yourself all you want...maybe the repukes will take pity on you...who knows?

[liberalhistorian]

307. NOW who's twisting words?

OF COURSE I CONSIDER MYSELF AND MY SON TO BE A FAMILY!!!! It's the rest of society that doesn't, and I'm tired of it.

[tameszu]

294. Raising children is a societal obligation

You know--a replacement rate of 2 being necessary to keep the entire human race from falling into extinction and all that.

Having children is not merely a choice, not in any way like having a pet is a choice. Society could continue if no one had dogs as pets or even if--as some of my Asian cousins are wont to do--we ate them. The same surely cannot be said for children. I don't want to have children because of the extra freedom being childless gives me, but I'm sure not going scream about fairness if society gives those who do decide to have children an extra benefit for shouldering this burden.

[Hep]

323. I don't see a law on the books

Keep your laws off my body, lest I brand you fascist.

[bearfartinthewoods]

269. what about a family of two who has never earned more than 30,000

think we take many vacations? what about us is less deserving of a tax cut than someone earning a hundred thousand dollars a year?

oh...i forgot....we don't have kids so we don't deserve a tax cut like those poor suffering people who earn three times what we do.

[Hep]

328. I celebrate the occasions in which we agree.

Prost!

[bain_sidhe]

125. Whoa! Look at the swarm..

of Dean supporters buzzing like angry bees over this plan! Gee, you'd think somebody kicked over their nest or something.

[maddezmom]

137. buzzzzzzz

LOL :)

[slinkerwink]

126. this isn't fair to single women who make a lower salary than their male

counterparts in the office. So we have to work to give those women with children a tax break, when we don't even get any tax break? It sounds like a tax raise on single women like me, and it's a implication that we should get married and have children to avoid a tax raise.

Also, since I'm bisexual, and gay marriage isn't legalized......so basically, if my partner and I have children, we would still be penalized with a tax raise because we don't have the legal benefit of a tax cut for our children since our marriage is not legal. We'd be essentially paying tax cuts for straight couples with children and that is not fair.

That also goes to childless married couples, seniors, and gays...

[bain_sidhe]

132. Just so I'm clear

you're pissed about Clark's plan because it doesn't give you a tax cut, but Dean's plan that recinds the (admittedly small) tax cut you got from Bush is just fine and dandy by you?

Ok, I get it.

Oh, wait... no I don't.

:eyes:

[slinkerwink]

152. I really never got a tax cut, my college tuition and health benefits went

way up as a result of those tax cuts. What Bush did was slip me $300, and take $8,000 out of my pocket due to all the extra expenses I have to pay for his stupid "bush tax"

[SahaleArm]

207. So you'd rather add to your tax burden because Bush is stupid?

If you have dependents it's a lot harder to live on the same salary as being single. Hence the adjusted tax bracket when filing as married or with dependents (children). Do you have any idea how the tax code works?

[JPJones]

148. Married or single parents count

Don't think that single parents are left out. My impression is that it doesn't matter if you are a married or single parent.

OK, so if you don't have kids, you don't get the tax cut. But think about how expensive kids are. And kids are, without a doubt, the future of our country. And - those people who have children now lose the tax break when the children hit 18. They are back in with the rest of us who don't have kids.

[slinkerwink]

153. I'd rather that my taxes go to schools, jobs, and infrastructure

than a tax break so married or single parents can cover that latest holiday expense...

[JPJones]

159. OK, you're right

Wes is going to lose the anti-child vote.

Schools - most of this money comes from property taxes. No one is talking about reducing NEA funding. Wes is talking about reducing military spending.

Jobs - middle class spending, home ownership, health insurance all lead to more jobs (eventually), if we can fix the migration of jobs oversees

[bain_sidhe]

168. Actually, if I'm reading it correctly...

it's closing corporate loopholes and the 5% raise on people making more than one million that will be earmarked to cover the tax cut. The "old" taxes (such as the one childless people like you and me pay) plus the repeal of the upper income tax breaks (people making more than $200,000/year) will go to the economic proposals for health care, education, jobs, etc... (see here: http://clark04.com/issues/)

I could be reading it wrong, of course, but this section seems to indicate that:

The entire proposal is offset by closing corporate loopholes and by a 5 percentage point rate increase on income over $1 million a year. The rate increase will only reach the income-over $1 million-of the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers.

Here: http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/

**edit 'cause I left out the upper income tax breaks part)

[Renew Deal]

222. Actually that is part of the plan too.

Check his economic vision. It is very detailed and should address your concerns.

http://clark04.com/issues/economicvision/

[robforclark]

232. Latest Holiday Expense My Ass

Before I begin my mini-rant, let me first state that I am 24, unmarried, without children, and not even engaged. I just graduated from college last Spring. I've been living on my own since last summer and have a brother who is 12 and a half living at home on Long Island with my parents.


Combined my parents make 87,000. So you know how much this will help them finance my brother's education? All this bullshit about "payments on the Ford Expedition" and "latest holiday expense" is all veiled anti-Breeder bullshit. So you don't have kids. Look, they'll be paying for your social security. It's not like my parents will be going on a spending spree...in fact, quite the opposite. Now they will be able to double the amount they invest before taxes to pay for my bro's college expenses down the line, and JUST maintain their current standard of living (which includes a 3-bedroom house on Long Island, a 96 Ford Taurus and a 2000 Ford Focus -- not quite Shangri-La). So please spare me all this sour grapes brou haha. The vast majority of families will take this tax break and reinvest it in their children's, and by extension, this country's future.

By extension, since you seem to care so little about supporting the future of American society, you must also be anti-environment, because after all, what do you care? It's not like you are leaving anyone behind after you are dead. And don't pretend to care about education and then deplore a tax cut aimed at those trying to raise those children who stand to benefit from any improvements in education. What a bunch of whiny hypocrites. Good god, I hope they make single-sex marriage legal damn soon. Maybe then more gay couples would get married, adopt kids and feel some sort of investment in the future of this country beyond getting themselves a TiVo with more storage space.

[BootinUp]

234. Nice Rant, and Welcome

to DU robforclark!

:hi:

:yourock:

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

278. Woah...LOL

You go girl!

I love your spirit.B-)

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

279. Ooops

Sorry about the "gender" mixup there...sigh.

Teach me to check profiles before opening mouth.

[tameszu]

296. Remember that Clark endorses civil unions on the basis of equal rights

Which means that gays and bisexuals would get all of the same rights and legal benefits that traditionally married couples do under the tax code.

[demnan]

145. I don't think it's a good idea for three reasons

1. It doesn't help us pay off the deficit (we're in a war for Christ's sake, we don't have the money to give this kind of tax break to anyone but the very poor).

2. It's based on life style as much as need. I think need comes first.

3. Implementing this would be difficult for the most experienced of administrations, and I'd hate to see our side make big promises and find they can't keep them (because if you do that the Republicans wil never let you forget it.)

[JPJones]

154. Reply

1. A tax increase on the poor and middle class is a bad way to pay down the deficit.

2. Believe it or not, the future of our country are our children. And don't think that marriage is a requirement. If you are a single parent, you get the same tax break.

3. No. It is a three line tax form if you have children and are poor or middle class. Name, number of dependents, total income.

[KittyWampus]

177. Based On Need- Poor Single Households Benefit Also & Get More EITC

"Expanded benefits for low-income adults without children. Clark's Tax Reform builds on the existing EITC
for childless adults, raising the maximum credit from $382 to $500."

So single middle class families will see no change in their taxes but WILL recieve OTHER benefits in Clark's overall Economic Plan.

Also, those children that will be lifted out of poverty will be paying your Social Security and Medicare benefits someday.

[SahaleArm]

229. That's Earned Income Tax Credit for the 1040 impaired

This year I get to fill out even more forms.

[Renew Deal]

213. 1. Because he is not Dean.

Actually it is part of a larger package that will be saving 2.35 trillion over 10 years.

http://clark04.com/issues/economicplan/

Don't need and lifestyle correlate? I mean, if you are making less than 28,500 and have a kid, there is lifestyle and need. There is no incentive to have more kids because the cost of kids is higher than the break. Also, it still requires you to have a job. It is not free money. You have to work.

You are worried about implementing a "difficult" plan? We are the Democrats. We did Social Security, Medicare, WW1 and WW2. This can be done.


Lastly, as I read it now, it does not eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit. If that is the case, it blows away your need argument.

You make good points, but I think we need to be more open minded on this. Imagine reducing a tax for to 3 lines. I like the idea.

[poopyjr]

214. You don't think it's a good idea because it's not Dean.

period

[SahaleArm]

210. Complainers - How many of you make over a $1 Million dollars a year?

Single people under $200,000 won't pay anything more than they do today including the lowered tax brackets. If you make more than $200,000, then anything above that threshold will be taxed at a higher rate (Clinton-Level). Tax brackets below $200,000 were lowered thanks to those cockroaches in Congress. I can't believe the number of people complaining about a tax increase that affects 0.1% of the population, is this board Enronville? This plan was the first reform that targeted working people with children, but anyone with dependents will be helped by the combined increase in tax credits.

[poopyjr]

211. Well, I've found my candidate.

And it's Wes Clark.

He actually wants to LOWER taxes on the middle class!!!!!

Clark would win in a landslide.

[democratreformed]

223. Me too!

:) :) :)

[Killarney]

226. Bottom Line

This is a tax plan that can win a general election.

First and foremost, I want Bush to lose in November. Above all else.

Ideologically, Dean's plan works for me... I'm willing to pay more in taxes... but it will not work for swing voters and independents. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no Democratic candidate has ever won on a platform of raising taxes on the middle class, right?

That's why I think this is the best plan. Because it will win the GE vs Bush.

[SahaleArm]

228. Why the almost Hooverian zeal to balance the budget?

I've always found this to be a strange attraction between Dean and a balanced budget. He's run a very worker-centric campaign but his tax repeal will place a majority of the burden on those making less than $150,000. I've heard about the state budget theory, but in reality only economic growth will fix that problem; property taxes go up when state revenues are down. My tuition went up every year from 1992-1996 when times were good and inflation rose. Is it better to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class or let them keep more income to stimulate demand. It's a trade off that Dean seems willing to stick by.

[poopyjr]

231. Agreed

Clark's tax policy is a policy that will WIN in November.


We've gotta get mobilized first though. We gotta help him out in NH.

[TexasPatriot]

233. yup

this is swimg-voter mana

even if bush comes out with a tax-cut proposal - there's no way he'll do it on the backs of the wealthy... which means he'd just create bigger deficits.

Clark could crush Bush with this. It could be stunning.

[BootinUp]

236. Of course they have their talking points too

lets see...

Raising taxes will stifle the recovery!

Look at these programs! They'll blow the deficit throught the roof!

CLASS WARFARE!

something like that

[TacticalPeek]

238. I just can't get enough of this communist, tree-hugging dissent-lover. :)

This move is very pro-growth (healthy growth) because it enhances the leavening of the economy.

:kick:

[BootinUp]

239. He's a beautiful man...eh inside I mean :-)

[Lefta Dissenter]

252. by the time I got done reading replies

and now typing my own reply, I'm sure there are tons more responses that may address the little points I'm going to make... however...

My husband and I are middle-income, our kids have moved out. So we don't benefit from the 'kid' part of Clark's entire tax plan. However, there are so many other facets of his whole economic plan that will help us personally and as a society. Yes, as someone else said, we still vote for increased budget for schools in our district, because we feel a sense of commitment to our community - not just because our kids attended school here, but because my husband and I both benefitted from public schools growing up, and now it's our turn.

I feel that this plan targets those who are in the greatest, most immediate need. The more we can pull kids out of poverty, the better off our entire society is. I don't feel like something is being taken away from me, I just feel that I'm not in the target group. So what? I don't get senior discounts (yet), but I'm not part of that target group. Big deal. I don't feel that something more is 'owed' to me, other than trying to strengthen our country as a whole, not just 'me, me, me...' I look at Democrats as being 'bigger' than 'me, me, me...' that's the Republican attitude that I can do without.

I simply can't see why the Dean supporters are so thrilled to roll back all of the existing tax cuts and are so upset that a target group in need is receiving some benefits that are being paid for by those earning over $1,000,000.

Now I've forgotten the rest of what I was going to say! :(

[Jerseycoa]

253. I admit I too am confused

By the negative responses from Dean supporters. Aren't we supposed to help society? Isn't that what makes us Democrats? :wow:


Lordy, we need a new thread.

[SahaleArm]

258. It's the leave no millionaire behind lobby n/t

[Justice]

255. This Thread Has Been Very Enlighting - All About Me

Wow. I cannot believe the things I've seen posted on this thread.

Dean's campaign is "Dean for America" It is not Dean for this select group or that select group. Dean says that we need to get everyone on healthcare before we can reform the system. I believe that the system will suffer when it is overloaded with everyone, and that those of us with healthcare will see a decrease in the quality of healthcare as the current system takes on more people. It will be 10 years at best for the system to absorb new people, adjust to the burgeoning ranks and then reform itself in a way that provides quality health care to all. But do I say - that is a terrible plan because what is Dean going to do about me - my healthcare - me me me? I have great healthcare today, with access to the best hospitals and doctors. My healthcare will suffer so that all can be covered. Yet, I find it in my heart to believe that healthcare for all is a worthy goal - even at the expense of myself.

Then I come on this thread and read vicious posts by people who are concerned about only one group - themselves. Not only do they vehemently protest that Clark's tax plan does not cover them - but they also go on and on about those "people" -- you know the ones who have children, -- and then they go on and on about those "people" you know - the ones will no self restraint and interest in bettering themselves -- they will just take their tax savings and go to disneyland, or pay credit card bills or cable TV bills because they have no self restraint or interest in doing better for themselves or their family. WOW.

I honestly am stunned at the enormously self centeredness and selfishness I have read in this thread. Clark's plan will not do anything for me - I make too much money. But I have the common decency to think that people who are poor will make choices that enrich their lives - choices such as education, housing and medicine for their families - instead of using their tax breaks to go to disney or charge up a storm.

Look at yourselves in the mirror - Howard Dean may not be my first choice - but let me tell you - Howard would not be very happy with how you look right now.

[MidwestMomma]

297. Some responses remind me of what people say about welfare recipients

You know, those welfare queens that sit around just having kids so they can milk the system for free handouts. You know, the ones that take all that government money so they can get their nails done, buy new cars and live the good life just cause they have kids.

<PLEASE NOTE: I am citing an example of thought in our society, I DO NOT believe this.>

The loss of respect for people with children in this country is alarming to me. It appears to me that some people think that people with children are nothing but a drag on society as a whole. Used to be that people were respected for raising children and it was recognized as a difficult but worthwhile endeavor. What has happened?

I will not benefit from this tax plan but I would be thrilled to see anybody who needs help get it. Will it benefit everyone in society directly? No. Will it benefit everyone in society indirectly? I believe it does.

[liberalhistorian]

309. "Loss of respect for people with kids?"

You've gotta be kidding me! I've been a single parent for thirteen years, and single my entire adult life (I'm 39) and it's been my experience that it's the other way around, that people WITHOUT kids and single parents like me are the ones who always experience a "loss of respect", and who aren't considered nearly as worthy as what the government, and hence society, considers a "true" family, the nuclear family.

[liberalhistorian]

256. Well, that's all well and good for

families, but does he realize that more than half the country now is single? Why are politicians and legislators always falling all over themselves to kowtow to families and to hell with the 100 million or so Americans who DON'T have children and/or spouses?


I'm a single parent. I'd like to know why my single friends should have to pay more in taxes just because they don't have what the government considers a "family." Because, let's face it, folks, when the tax burden is shifted off of one particular group, another group always has to pick up the slack. I think it's time to start thinking of other groups besides families.

[tameszu]

300. Yes, we better start thinking about people making $1 million+

and corporate tax evaders, to whom Clark would shift the tax burden to pay for his cuts to families.

And, yes, as you have a child, you would get a tax cut under this plan, assuming you make under $100K. If you make more, then go ahead, accuse me of class warfare if I don't feel so sorry for you.

[liberalhistorian]

310. Actually, I barely make a quarter

of 100,000 ($25,000/yr.), so please don't pull that "better feel sorry for millionnaires" bullshit on me. I'm struggling as much as many "real" families are, and I know plenty of singles and childless couples who are struggling as well (caregivers for parents, ill spouses, etc., etc.).

[curse10]

265. I'm disappointed in Clark on this one

I will likely never get to take advantage of this. I'm not particularly keen on having children.

And what about single moms and dads? They might only have two children, are they now left out? That seems unfair too.

[Justice]

266. Read It

Single parents are covered.

[returnable]

271. How can you be disappointed...

...if you haven't even read it?

"And what about single moms and dads? They might only have two children, are they now left out? That seems unfair too."

Single parents are covered.

And the EIC will get a boost for folks without children.

[SahaleArm]

275. Single Parents are covered.

Families Will Not Pay Federal Income Taxes If They Make Less Than:

A simple three-line form determines who pays federal income taxes. Under Wes Clark's plan, families will only need to fill out a simple three-line form to find out if they need to pay federal income taxes, providing their income, number of children, and marital status. A simple table will tell them whether or not they need to pay any income taxes:

Number of Children for Single (Head of Household)

1 - $28,000
2 - $43,000
3 - $54,000

[arewethereyet]

276. lame, try Edwards for quality over vote buying.

help people get into a home, good, help kids get into college, good.

just don't tax them and hope they don't just upgrade the entertainment center (made in Korea) with whatever they might save, lame.

its old, its tired and everyone knows it.

[SahaleArm]

305. Huh? n/t

[snyttri]

291. This tax simplification sounds very fair and should be popular

[dkf]

292. All you single people w/o kids...Dean considering reduction in payroll tax

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57289-2004Jan5_2.html

A top aide said Dean is considering a tax reform plan for the general election that includes a reduction in payroll taxes. If Dean rolls out such a plan, it could offset what many strategists see as a big liability: his support of what amounts to a nearly $2 trillion tax increase by calling for a repeal of Bush's tax cuts.

===
Now that is something we can ALL benefit in.

I hope he makes this revenue neutral or revenue producing by lifting or removing the cap also.

Wow wow wow.

[democratreformed]

315. Could you please post a link to the policy?

Or the proposal? I'd like to take a look at it.

[knight_of_the_star]

327. This should help him A LOT on the campaign trail

I would like to see Bush TRY to top this one! Clark has already put forward the idea, so there is no way that Bush can really counter it without Clark saying that he stole the idea. That and I'm sure there are a LOT of families everywhere in the country that are going to hear this idea and love it! This beats the Bush tax cut hollow.