On the assertion that Clark's tax reform plan descriminates against gays:

[Mattforclark]

This seems to be a fairly popular way to attack Clark's tax reform proposal. However, it is wrong.

From http://clark04.com/articles/013/

"The right wing says that the LGBT community wants special rights. But that is not true. Gay Americans want the same rights that all Americans enjoy Ð rights to form personal, legal relationships that confer benefits and obligations. It is high time for the LGBT community to enjoy these rights as well."

Just because Clark doesn't specifically say that gay and lesbian people with 'civil unions' 'gay marriages' or 'marriages' should get the same benefits as anyone else, does not mean that he thinks they should not get the same benefits any more than the abscence of reference to interracial marriages means that they should not get the same benefits.

Given Clark's statements on equality for EVERYONE under the law, I can find absolutely no reason to believe that when he talks about (for example) a married couple of 2 people with 2 children, that this means anything different for a homosexual couple with 2 adopted children than a heterosexual couple with 2 biological children (or adopted children, for that matter).

If you can find any reason to believe that Clark's belief that full equality under the law should apply everywhere and to everyone but does not apply to taxes, please let me know. Thanks.

[Racenut20]

1. It is just an attack by the RW to try and keep the NASCAR vote from him

[Demobrat]

2. Clark's plan doesn't discriminate against gays.

It discriminates against all single and childless people.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. All of Europe gives subsidies for children

It should be obvious why. This is a non-issue.

[KittyWampus]

5. Who Will Have Their Social Security & Medicare Paid For By The Children

being lifted out of poverty.

If I was a 12 year old I'd be wondering why the heck I should pay for some old geezer to get SS & Medicare.

Of course, Under Clark's overall Economic Plan that 12 year old could look foward to help paying for his Education...

And so it goes... round and round...

I Me Me Mine

[Demobrat]

6. I'm a baby boomer who, like all of us, has paid

enough into the system to pay for my grandmother, mother and myself. I also happen to be a property owner who pays for local schools. So I am already paying for the education of the kids who will supposedly be paying for my social security. Not to mention the after school programs, free lunches etc. And of course, the prisons. None of which I actually mind. What I mind is paying more for services I don't use than the users do. And Clark wants to skew it more? This is blatant discrimination any way you look at it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. property owner who wants a tax cut?

from all the freeloading kids? Sure you're in the right party? (just kidding) :evilgrin:

[Demobrat]

8. Single property owner who thinks people with kids

should pay as much for schools as I do. Go figure.

[SahaleArm]

10. Disagree as a single homeowner - Property taxes reflect...

land and home value appreciation and go to improving more than just schools (roads, infrastructure, etc.). A strong public school system produces higher dividends in the long run to your bottom line than a tax break today.

[bearfartinthewoods]

17. and people with kids enjoy those bennies as much as people without kids

they just don'y have to pay as much for them.

please...just say 'suck it up' and don't try to bullshit about this.

three people...all earn 30,000
person A is single unmarried and pays X
person B is married w/working spouse and pays X+
person C is married with children and pays X-


i believe in progressive taxation. the more you earn the more you pay but i don't see where it's progressive to charge people extra for not having kids.

[maxr4clark]

21. Married people with no kids

...DINKs, dual income, no kids. I was one, before I had kids.
Dinks should pay more than single, unmarried people because they have more disposable income as a percentage of their gross income. It's a progressive tax that takes into account the economy of two people living in one room of one house, with the opportunity of sharing a car and food expenses and generally having a better economy of scale.

Besides which, if you're getting married and not having kids, you're not providing your country with someone who will eventually grow up and get a job and grow our economy. And you're taking another breeder out of the mix as well. You're also more likely to go skiing and hang-gliding and bungee jumping than a parent is, who has to think twice about leaving their child parentless. So you're more likely to cost taxpayers money for health benefits--at least by costing your company days of productive work, with pay.

No bullshit, no sucking up. Just rational, progressive taxation.

[eileen_d]

9. I don't feel discriminated against

I don't have any dependents and it seems pretty clear to me that I save money because of that fact. I'm all for benefits for people with children. Funny, I guess that makes me a liberal or something. :shrug:

[maha]

19. Oh, bullshit.

Your benefit is that you don't have kids.

[maxr4clark]

22. are you incapable of expressing yourself without profanity?

You could say "nonsense" or "my goodness" without changing your meaning whatsoever. Why not give it a try? You might have more meaningful discussions if you do.

[OrAnarch]

4. If your looking for Tax cuts...

Bush's plan is much more inclusive if your not poor.


If your looking for balanced budgets, public services, and funded liberalism, look elsewhere.

[funky_bug]

12. Let's not forget

Many gay men and women have children they claim on their taxes. They have children in school, and children heading off to college. Why are we assuming they don't?

[HFishbine]

11. It does descriminate

But no more than any tax proposal that affects married people. Because gay marriages are not recognized, the married couple with two kids is going to be treated differently than the homosexual couple with two kids.

The descrimination is built in to the current system. Clark's proposals add no new descrimination. So, to answer Mattforclark's question about Clark's views on equality under the law and the tax code, we need to ask, does Clark support legalized civil unions for homosexuals. That's the only way a homosexual couple with kids will ever be equal under the tax code to a married couple with kids.

[funky_bug]

13. Explain

One of the gay parents will be claiming their children on their taxes. How are they being discriminated against? My best friend is the father of three. He claims them one year, the maternal mother claims them the next. I'm a heterosexual, divorced and remarried. I claim one of my kids, my their father claims the other. How is this any different?

[Mattforclark]

15. Yes

"So, to answer Mattforclark's question about Clark's views on equality under the law and the tax code, we need to ask, does Clark support legalized civil unions for homosexuals."

Yes.

There is semantical nonsense about 'marriage' and 'civil union,' but he quite clearly supports full equality of rights for homosexual couples, which is what 'civil unions' or 'gay marriage' are (in the context of 'gay marriage.'

I fully realize that there is built in discrimination in the current system. The point I was trying to make is that Clark is against that discrimination, so it is unfair to use that built in problem against his plan. When he talks about married couples, there is every reason to believe that he is talking not just about heterosexual couples but also about homosexual couples. He realizes that 'marriage is between a man and a woman' violates the 14th amendment.

[KaraokeKarlton]

14. What about a single parent with 4 kids

It seems Clark doesn't think kids matter unless they are raised by two parents in the home. Sorry that my ex husband beat the shit out of me and I chose to divorce him to get my kids away from the violence, Wes. Way to ignore the most vulnerable kids of all...the ones in single parent households.

Oh, and as far as I know, Vermont is the only state that lets gay people adopt children...thanks to Howard Dean.

[Mattforclark]

16. Single parents with 4 kids

Get the same as single parents with 3 kids. Clark expands the maximum # of children for whom one can claim the child tax benefit 2 to 3.

He doesn't ignore single parents at all, in fact single parents qualify for no federal taxes at even lower income levels than married couples. Check out his website.

BTW, Sorry about your ex.

[KaraokeKarlton]

18. I'd rather pay my share of taxes

and have my kids' schools get proper funding, have decent roads, see everyone get the great health care benefits my family gets (Thanks to Dean) and have the budget balanced and defict eliminated so my kids don't have to pay for what I got when they're adults. Thanks, but no thanks.

I don't trust Clark and he has never won any election in his life. I'm sticking with my ex Governor who I KNOW I can trust and depend on to represent me in a way I can be proud of.

[Mattforclark]

24. Contradiction

In your first post, you complained that Clark was not giving you a tax break. Now that you know that he is giving you a tax break, you are complaining that he is giving you a tax break. That seems inconsistent to me, if inconsistency is deemed to be a bad thing.

Support whoever you want. The purpose of this thread is to correct misperceptions about Clark's plan, not to force you to vote for someone you don't want to.

[KaraokeKarlton]

25. The point is that this country CAN'T afford any more tax cuts

We can't afford the ones we already have, either. They all need to go. The tax loopholes need to be plugged up and then there should be tax reform for everyone else so the middle class isn't bearing the brunt of the tax bill. There is a specific process that must be followed in order to prevent economic devastation, and Clark's idea of trying to win votes by offering even MORE tax cuts is not only irresponsible, but it's got a Bush stench to it.

[TexasSissy]

20. I believe it'd be as under current tax code, which is:

I believe you qualify for child credits and the like if you have a MINOR DEPENDENT. Doesn't matter if you're the parent. That's the language usu. used, 'cause that's usually the case.

But grandparents are raising grandchildren, and I believe they get child tax credits, etc. Same would apply to gays or other adults who have minor dependents.

[maxr4clark]

23. Amen, Sissy