I Am Unmarried Without Kids, Yet I Love Clark's Revolutionary Tax Plan

[DoveTurnedHawk]

One of the cornerstones of organized society has always been the protection of children and the fostering of families. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes complete sense, as the survival of any species depends on the successful raising of children, and their children, and so on, and so on.

I am engaged to be married, and my fiancee and I might have kids, or we might not. We haven't decided yet. If we do have kids, we might have them biologically, or we might adopt. We haven't decided yet. Regardless, I am able to recognize that raising children in an environment as free of poverty as possible is a societal good. I am able to recognize that the cost of raising children far outstrips any tax credit for such children that families currently receive, or even would receive under General Clark's tax plan to allow a family of four making $50,000 a year or less to escape federal taxes entirely.

In recognizing these things, I am also recognizing that it is not all about, "Me, me, me." The repeal of the Bush tax cuts for those making $200,000 or more does not affect me, but it will almost certainly affect us after we get married. Nevertheless, we are still in favor of repealing those tax cuts, even though it is not in our pecuniary interest, because we recognize that we are blessed with good fortune and a good living, and that we have an obligation to our society to contribute to the welfare of all citizens, not just ourselves.

I am also in favor of the additional 5% tax increase that General Clark has proposed on those making $1,000,000 a year or more. This is a hallmark of a progressive taxation system, and I'm frankly just as excited about this as I am about the benefits to families with children, because I've been waiting for a Democrat who is willing to stand up to the super-rich, who already enjoy so many more of the benefits of our free and democratic and capitalist society, and tell them that it's time for them to start living up to their obligations as well. Whoever we support, we should all applaud General Clark for doing this, in my opinion.

The bottom line is that yes, families will receive a significant benefit under General Clark's plan, and the poor will also receive a significant benefit. The middle-class without children will not receive a significant benefit, but neither will General Clark's plan force them to pay more federal taxes than they are right now, as he is not advocating a rollback of Bush's tax cuts for the middle-class.

(It is also a complete smokescreen, in my opinion, to talk about failing to pay down the deficit or a "fake" tax cut for the middle-class due to a decrease in services and a corresponding increase in costs, because General Clark gives you the best of all worlds: the deficit is paid down, you keep your actual tax cut for the middle-class, and you also receive restored services, funded by cuts in defense and increases in taxes on the super-rich, both of which are far preferable to increasing taxes on the middle-class.)

I understand the legitimate concerns of the gay community with respect to a tax plan that favors children (even though, again, the costs of raising children still far outstrip any tax credit that people with children might receive). Yet General Clark is also a strong supporter of civil unions and adoption of children by gay couples, which some states already happily allow. Under a General Clark Presidency, members of the gay community who want to be able to raise children and receive credit for it under our federal taxation system would be able to do so.

This plan is exciting. It differentiates General Clark from the rest of the Democratic pack quite clearly, and in my opinion it also establishes him as one of the most liberal people in the race. Progressive taxation is a hallmark of Democratic principles, and I for one am glad to see General Clark taking up this fight.

DTH

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Clark loves single people too

I am also without ball and chain and still love Clark.

[bearfartinthewoods]

69. i'm not feeling the love..

if i earn under 30.000 and will still continue to pay taxes yet someone earning twice that won't because he has a child?

i'm not feeling the love.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

70. Someone Who Earns Twice as Much and Has 3-4 Kids, Maybe

That person carries as heavy a burden, if not more heavy, than you. On a more pragmatic note, that person is also raising kids who will eventually form the future tax base of our society, right around the time when you'll be starting to think about Social Security and Medicare, probably.

DTH

[Dems Will Win]

73. Get a fertile mate and get busy in the bedroom!

[bearfartinthewoods]

84. i prefer not to divorce my wife

and that's a rather course and insensitive thing for a so-called professional to say.

[Hep]

2. Clark's tax plan doesn't benefit children or foster families.

It give them some cash to pay off their credit cards. That's it. Big deal.

[eileen_d]

3. Clark's tax plan has money earmarked for credit cards?

Do tell. :eyes:

[Hep]

5. Maybe you have been vacationing on PLUTO since Bush took office!

;)

That's what tax cuts are spent on. That's what people do whenever they get a tax cut. It's pretty well documented since that's what a vast majority of people did with Bush's tax cuts. What makes Clark's tax cuts different, exactly? That is, what magical quality do Clarks tax cuts have that will force people to spend their money on anything else?

[eileen_d]

7. It may be documented, but is it legislated?

Are you proposing earmarking people's tax cuts for purposes other than credit cards? Are you suggesting that credit card purchases made by families do not go towards child-rearing?

Your argument is ridiculous.

[Hep]

25. Maybe you wouldn't find it ridiculous if you actually

understood it, I guess. Who knows. Either way, Clarks plan is basically a financial reward for people who chose to have kids. Screw tax relief for those of us who chose not to. That may be fine for you, but it isn't exactly a subscription to the liberal Ideal.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

53. People Who Have Kids Are Still Paying More Than People Without Kids

Having kids is still not a financial incentive, certainly.

You get breaks under our current taxation system for having dependents, being disabled, owning a home. I have no problems with giving breaks for those sorts of things. I'm sorry you appear do, at least in concept, for stuff like having kids.

DTH

Edited to clarify remark.

[Hep]

61. You think I have a problem with disabled people getting breaks?

On what planet did you get that idea? I'm sorry, but as long as you are going to jump to these conclusions, I can't participate in an honest discussion with you.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

62. Not All of Those Things, Sorry

I mean generally speaking, there are always benefits for some people that others do not receive. You appear to be opposed to that, in concept. I'm not.

I'm glad to hear you're not opposed to disabled folks receiving a benefit. I wasn't trying to imply otherwise, my careless choice of words notwithstanding.

DTH

[maxr4clark]

9. Nevertheless, there are more people deeply in debt

and close to bankruptcy now than ever before. I haven't heard Clark's tax plans yet, but perhaps he was simply responding to an issue that is on the minds of many voters in this country.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. But That's a HUGE Deal, Hep

That is helping get families out of debt, and moreover, it's out of the crushing debt of usurious credit card companies.

That is always the first debt you should pay off. If Clark's plan can do that, then more power to him!

This is a progressive tax plan that helps the poor and middle-class families at the expense of the rich and super-rich. I am full on board.

DTH

[Hep]

6. It's not helping families get out of debt

It's by no means enough money to get people out of debt. It's just a chunk of change that these people don't deserve any more than I do just because they chose to have kids.

It helps SOME poor and middle class families at the expense of ME and the rich.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. A "Chunk of Change" Is Better Than Nothing, & It's Not at Your Expense!

Unless you are making over $200,000, your tax burden would not increase at all.

And something is better than nothing. Again, I can't see how you can claim that paying down credit card debt, or even starting to pay down that ruinous debt, is somehow meaningless. It's not.

DTH

[maddezmom]

11. I'm married with 2 kids

and very close to the 200K limit, but have no problem paying my fair share. It's a good plan, not perfect, but better than nothing. :)

[Hep]

28. That's exactly what the RWers said

when they got their $400 checks from W.

[maddezmom]

31. well, I didn't get one

because we were in the midst of adopting a baby, so we got a tax credt for that which replaced the check.

[Hep]

44. Way to go, adopting!

That makes me happy. I don't think enough people adopt.

[maddezmom]

45. thanks we did it twice

and for the record, I'm no Rightwinger! :)

[Hep]

27. That's SO not true. My money goes into that tax cut for people with kids

just like everyone elses does.

And something is not better than nothing. Not when one person gets something at the expense of the other person.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. Look, Your Burden Is Not Increasing

It's staying the same, you're paying no more in real, actual dollars than you were before. Unlike under Howard Dean's plan, where you would be paying more in real, actual dollars.

Other people are getting bigger cuts (the poor and middle-class child rearers), other people are paying a lot more in taxes (the rich and super-rich), but your burden is the same.

Your taxes go toward services, defense, federal government, and other expenditures, just like always. You are not paying more just because some others are paying less. Conversely, you are not paying less just because some others are paying more. You are tax-neutral here.

The only people who should be complaining about this plan, IMO, are people making over $200,000 a year, and even more so people making over $1,000,000 a year.

DTH

[Hep]

63. Under Dean's plan, I will be spending 8 bucks more per month

until a better policy goes into effects. But I will get something for it. Not me, but society. All Clark wants to do is get soccer moms to vote for him nased on what they think he will do for their pocketbooks. It's pretty transparent, actually. Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't have kids will just not be worthy of any tax relief, no matter how much they need it.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

64. You Are Not All Middle-Class Taxpayers

Maybe your additional burden would only be $100 a year, but other middle-class families will be paying over $1,000 a year more, if the portion of the Bush tax cuts that the Democrats added in benefiting the poor and middle class is repealed.

And if Clark had truly wanted to pander, he could have done it to more than just soccer moms and NASCAR dads. He advocated for this plan because he recognizes the unique burden that people who have dependents carry for society.

DTH

[Renew Deal]

48. That chunk of change will help me pay

a number of federal student loans the same year.

My car insurance.
Anything else you can think of with my car.
Clothes for work.
Things for my house.
Fatten up my savings
and a million other necessities in my life.

[dave29]

17. If it is not shrinking the defecit

it is not helping these families. It is the appearance of helping these families while they are getting bitten elsewhere. All so that we can say the magic word "tax cut". I commend the fairness towards those at the top, but middle-class tax-cuts are effectless - unless we are simultaneously tackling the problems that are wounding our families in other ways. Those at the top can afford healthcare, a quality education, property taxes, etc etc - the middle class needs more than just tax relief, they need national debt burden relief! I don't want a few thousand bucks today so that my children owe 10,000 tomorrow.

[BootinUp]

30. Clark also addresses

the deficit. I am tired of posting the exact link. You can find it on his issues page, upper left, "economic plan".

And I agree we need to reverse the trend in deficits. You can help achieve that with a vote for Clark.

[dave29]

46. Well if

getting a middle class tax-cut were my priority then I would be taking a closer look at Clark and Kerry and Lieberman and Edwards.

I'm all for simplifying the tax code, and I'm glad Clark has taken a stab at it - but the amount of debt this country has just can't carry the burden of these kinds of tax-cuts right now. I take that back - it can carry the burden, but it is not the fiscal policy needed in thee dire times. It is somewhat fiscally irresponsible (although it pales in comparison to what Bush has done). Trust me, I know fiscal irresponsibility first hand. I thought my own debt situation was bad until I looked at it from the federal perspective. People need relief in the form of dramatic reform in Washington. We need to shore up and streamline the New Deal programs Democrats fought so hard for - and Republicans are on a mission to destroy in their effort to privatize absolutely everything. We need balanced budgets in a major way - only then can we truly be prepared for the future. And we don't have to raise taxes to do it. Everybody always welcomes a check from the Government - but if that means we're gambling with our own and our children's futures for an extra few thousand dollar handout - count me out.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

54. Only Clark and Kucinich Have Advocated for Cutting Defense

That's where Clark is getting some of his money to pay down the deficit. Why isn't Dean doing the same? Why did Dean promise to keep defense spending at current levels? Isn't he interested in paying down the deficit even more?

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

71. PLEASE>>>my wife and i ARE A FAMILY

please include the phrase 'with kids' when refering to people who will benifit from this. my wife and i are the only family we will ever have but don't dismiss us as being something other than a family. the same thing goes for my best friend and his lover. they are also a family. she-bear's parents are a family as well.

kids in the house are NOT required to make a family and i will thank you to adjust you usage of the word.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

72. I Respond a Lot Better to Requests, Than Demands

:eyes:

DTH, Who Notes "Family" Can Mean Different Things to Different People

[bearfartinthewoods]

76. i said please..........what does it take for you to consider it a request?

in fact i said please twice and thank you.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

80. Hmm. I Guess You Did.

Sorry, your tone led me to believe you were shouting at me.

I will try to be more clear in the future.

DTH

[KittyWampus]

10. You're Engaged?

Darn... I mean congratulations :)

Those kids we'll lift out of poverty will be paying the childless & seniors social security and medicare.

It's all a part of a circle.

[OrAnarch]

12. Of course you like it...

You're a clark supporter. I know you state your rationalization, but honestly, and supporter of any candidate will bend their mind around any rationalization to justify a policy. Hence, another reason all this debating is inevitably useless, aside from strengthening your own conviction in the one you support.


All aside, I personally think its a bad idea from what Ive seen. Not that I do not like the concepts of progressive reformation, I just feel they are applied all wrong here. Not an ideal reformation, IMHO.

[eileen_d]

13. Well, golly, OrAnach --

I guess we should all pack up and go home. Gawd forbid someone post a sincere positive review of their own candidate. :eyes:

[OrAnarch]

18. Sorry for such a critique...

But it gets progressivly more ridiculous every day when one candidate states a position and the only supporters of such are inclusive to that candidates campaign anyway. Its getting to the point that no one judges any argument or complaint on merit, by rather on who it supports or attacks. Sincere may not be the word...and after 3-4 threads started by Clark supporters regarding this, is another needed to intrepret a plan in an allready biased viewpoint?

From a very neutral viewpoint, other than the fact I just do not like Clark, I feel that I would have disdain for this plan from anyone, and most normal thinking people here should with the nation in the state that it is. This is a no-brainer, and hence, why I had to make that remark. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, so right on, go ahead and review positively.

[eileen_d]

20. I would post an intelligent reply

but I'm having my "Clark Supporter Robot Brain" upgraded to the 2004 version. Cheers: :nopity:

[OrAnarch]

23. This isn't just about Clark...

If Kerry or Dean suggested such, you could just about gaurentee only the supporters of each candidate would support it, and you guys would be against such. In this case, I think being against such is entirely merited, but as with all things, the beuaty of tax cuts are in the eye of the beholder. Excuse the response of a non-committed robot brain.

[TexasPatriot]

34. not true

i liked the aspect of Kerry's economic plan the other day where he wanted people to be able to know if they're dealing with an overseas outsourced person when they're conducting business on the phone. The rest sounded like stuff i'd seen from half a dozen candidates (not that that's bad).

I dont think we have an obligation to be closed minded about the policies of our candidates or those of others. When Clark came out in favor of the flag amendment, lots of us pitched a fit publicly.

[OrAnarch]

38. Perhaps a broad generalization none the less...

And its good bout the flag admendment dissent. :)

There are definately some people who such a term fits to. Im still shaking my head on this issue, no matter who it came from. Good concept, bad implementation.


There are many sides to a candidate, between their policies, and their public image. I believe this general trend happens when their public image is a stronger pull than their policies. Clark fits such a mold IMHO.


In such a case, by no doubt, this is a positive campaigning attribute, but in my opinion, not a great presidential attribute. I want a changed country of free thinking liberal, open-minded people, driven by policy over publicity.

[BootinUp]

37. The positive point

people might be missing, is this plan is deficit neutral, and Clark also addresses the deficit in other parts of his overall plan. But you are right that taxes is an eye of the beholder issue.

Actually I would support another candidate with this plan. Recently there was a poll on DU, asking what was the major issue right now. And the number one response was disparity of wealth. Thats what I voted for. Over the last couple of decades, the disparity has gotten much much greater.

If Clark can be the one to work on this problem then I support him. If one of the other candidates also unveils a similar plan I support him/her.

[Bread and Circus]

43. I posted the survey and the two top issues were wealth disparity...

and foreign affairs in the runoff poll

Clark is on top of both of those and Dean has no
experience in foreign relations. It seems to me
that Clark is a clear choice, not to mention the
electability issue.

But hey, why go for substance when you can tap into
ANGER!

[democratreformed]

21. Perhaps that is what fundamentally

separates the supporters of each candidate. I can certainly see how people would be drawn to a candidate who has policies thay support. More and more, all this makes me wonder how so many different views can be in the same party. Maybe it really is time for a big split.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be ugly - just trying to understand b/c some people are so far apart on certain issues that it makes no sense to me.

[OrAnarch]

32. Very true....

But then again, charisma and character attributes that draw people are not indictative of a candidates actual policies. For example, many people like clark because he is a charismatic white southern 4 star general, but in no way does such indicate policy similarities. Yet people will bend their own beliefs so they can coincide with his proposed policies once policies are introduced. Just as Howard's straight forward independent outside the beltway act does not indicate what his policies always are. People attracted to that type of appraoch are not neccessarily going to initially like what he has to say about how government should be ran before he says it, but only after when they must defend his policies.


Charisma is a big deal here, along with backgrounds. I feel that is especially true with Clark, whos statements and policies appear anew and estranged from his professional background here. Many people like him not because he is a politician (which he never was), and they must reconcile his policies as they are created with how they are drawn to his personality and background. Ussually personality and background will win, forcing each person to then uphold such policies, no matter what they are.

[democratreformed]

35. So all politics is just a bunch of crap?

Seriously, this is very discouraging. Makes me want to go crawl under a rock and join the "apathy" crowd sometimes.

[OrAnarch]

39. LOL...most of the time, yes.

Cept when you have a lesser evil to vote for, and then you can neverertheless become an advocate of evil in some form. :) (which Ive actually never done--not sure I ever will)


Not always. There are men with policies and ideas, men of great vision for the progression of America and the human race. But then again, they probably are not politicians. :)


Just make sure your in the camp of supporting the ideas and policies before the candidate, and reach out and change your friends minds. Think...do not decide on an issue because CNN/your candidate/or your teacher tells you thats the answer. Politics, in terms of electing a public image, is crap. Politics, in terms of inciting social progressive revolution and new schools of thought, is priceless.

[democratreformed]

40. Sigh, I guess you're right

After all, when my daughter first told me she might be interested in politics, I had a little fit. I told her all the reasons she really DIDN'T want to do that.

[maxr4clark]

118. So are you saying you've never voted?

Cept when you have a lesser evil to vote for, and then you can neverertheless become an advocate of evil in some form. :) (which Ive actually never done--not sure I ever will)

This is the line I'm trying to understand.

Politics, in terms of inciting social progressive revolution and new schools of thought, is priceless.

I could use some interpretation of this one, too. I see the ideal political situation as a stable one, not a revolution. John Rawls talks about concepts of justice and philosophy that underly a stable democratic system. Revolution is a nasty, bloody business. Even socially progressive revolution. Only gradual political change is bloodless; that's what I see as the value of the American democratic system, the checks and balances that keep us in a system that doesn't foment or slip into revolution after revolution. You can say what you like about how America isn't where it should be, but there aren't any other developed countries that have been as free, as long; a pretty strong argument for gradualism in my book.

[Cocoa]

22. it's absurd

the whole advocacy of candidates is kind of backwards as well.

Instead of thinking about the various issues and then deciding on the candidate, it seems some people pick the candidate first and then base their opinions on taxes or whatever based on what their candidate proposes.

That's very broadly stated, but it's pretty much true.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

55. I'm Not Quite as Cynical as You Apparently Are

I believe in fair-minded discussion, and I believe I am fair and objective, at least relatively speaking. You should feel free to disagree, of course; it's no skin off my nose.

DTH

[BootinUp]

14. Honestly, I don't understand

the outrage on DU about this tax plan. For decades there has been in our tax code reductions for parents, so that people with lower income jobs can afford to raise kids. These days how far does 50K take a family of four. Not f'in far.

The level of outrage in particular is disturbing. But this is a free country of course. If people don't like progressive tax policies they have an alternative, vote for a different candidate than Wes Clark.

[OKNancy]

26. Oh, everyone knows why there is "outrage"

It's not outrage at all. It's a fake outrage because their candidate didn't think of it, or they are resentful of the positive coverage.

Progressive taxation is the foundation of liberal thought, and how anyone could be against it is what is outrageous.

[bearfartinthewoods]

74. may i be outraged?

if 50 grand doesn't take a family of four very fucking far how far do you think 25,000 takes a family of two?

yet we "2" families will continue to pay so the "4" families don't have to?

btw...i DO believe in progressive taxation.

the more you EARN the more you pay.
punishing people who don't have kids has nothing to do with progressive taxation.,

[DoveTurnedHawk]

75. How Much Do You Spend on Diapers, Baby Food, Teen Clothing

Extra doctor and dentist visits, allowances, maybe saving for a college education fund, etc. etc.

I don't think I've ever seen this level of "me-me-me"-ism on DU before. Or this level of hostility toward the concept of raising children.

I wonder if we'd be seeing this hostility if it had been proposed by a Democratic President, as opposed to a Democratic candidate for President?

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

82. excuse me but no one is compelled to have children and

the consideration as to whether or not someone can afford diapers and teen clothing should be a part of that decision.

there is no way around it....

a family of 2 and a family of 4 have the same income.
the family of 4 requires two times the infra-structure as the family of 2 yet they pay less to support said infrastructure.

and the reason you have never heard this level of outrage from me before is because it has never been put forth in such an outrageous manner. nobody under 50,000 dollars pays taxes UNLESS they don't have kids.

that means someone can earn TWICE what i do and pay no taxes because they are "working poor and shouldn't have to but i continue to enjoy the privelege. ?

how is that progressive? and how can anyone say i am not subsidizing somebody's kids?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

83. Because You're Not Paying Any More Than You Were Before

It's the rich and super-rich who will could be argued to be subsidizing the children of the middle-class, and to a lesser extent all of the working poor.

As for your bit about choosing to have kids, IMO that's a bit of a conceit, as it certainly doesn't always work that way. Accidents happen. Undereducation happens. Abortions are not available in 85% (or more) of counties across the country, and for some that is not a viable choice either.

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

85. strawman to the arguement you ducked

how about the rest of my post.

convince me that taxing people who make 25,000 to support people who make 50,000 is progressive.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

89. Not Ducking at All, I Addressed it Head-On

$50,000 can have all kinds of different amounts of buying power, depending on how many dependents you have, where you live, whether you have special needs or disabilities, etc. etc.

I have zero problems with helping out a middle-class family with kids, more so than a middle-class family without kids, because the reality is that the burden of the middle-class family with kids is significantly greater.

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

95. you consider 25,000 for two people middleclass?

convince me that taxing people who make 25,000 to support people who make 50,000 is progressive

[DoveTurnedHawk]

96. Honestly, If It Was Me, I'd Go Further Than Clark

I'd make our tax system even more progressive than Clark is proposing. That said, Clark's plan does not have the family without kids paying any more than they were before. That couple pays the same, or even less if the income level is low enough to qualify for the EITC.

So to answer your question, I'd rather give some tax benefits to families with children, than no tax benefits to anyone.

Rather than speak in such generalities, how much does a family without children making $25,000 pay in federal taxes anyway? I don't think it's that much.

And again, if we compare apples to apples, a family of two making $50,000 and a family of four making $50,000, I think the fairness is clear. It's only the inherent unfairness of our PRESENT system that creates the (false) impression that Clark's plan is somehow unfair. The answer is that it's more fair than our present system.

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

100. ok...don't answer again

i'll put it as plainly as possible. decent thinking people should be willing to pay their taxes. i don't even mind paying a little more than people who have kids even if we both have the same income.

BUT....when you tell me i have to pay to help support people who make twice, even three times what i do i cannot see how that is either fair or progressive.

convince me that taxing the working poor to support the middle class
is progressive

[DoveTurnedHawk]

101. So You Are Essentially Criticizing Clark for Not Going Far Enough

What other candidate goes further?

Clark's plan is a start. And I think it's a good start. But you can't easily compare apples and oranges, and that is exactly what trying to compare a family of two making $25,000 and a family of four making $50,000 is, IMO.

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

107. i'm saying he did it wrong...................period

any tax plan that is this slanted to families with children that it will tax a person who makes 25.000 @ 10% and tax another person who makes 50.000 @ 00% is just plain wrong.

you can call it apples, oranges or fruit salad for all i care.

taxing the working class to support the middleclass is ass-backwards.

[SahaleArm]

109. A person and their dependents - Divide by 3.

$16k/person is not a whole lot for a husband/wife/kid making $50k.

Effective Rate is even less if you include EITC: http://www.finance.cch.com/sohoApplets/TaxEZ1040.html

[bearfartinthewoods]

114. 25,000 for two is 12.500 each ....even less and your point was????

that my wife and i are doing better at 12,500 each than the family of three at 16,000 each? yet we, with the lower figure will pay 10% and the family with an extra 2,500 hundred per person pays nothing....

like i said..your point was?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

110. For the Millionth Time, You're Already Being Taxed

Clark just didn't cut you a benefit that others who raise kids will receive. Sorry that pisses you off so much; IMO your position smacks much more of jealousy, however, than anything else.

This is a progressive plan. It may not go as far as I'd like, but it sure as hell is a start. It will also be very easy to sell to the American public.

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

111. it's not jealousy, it's equity

and taxing the poor while eliminating taxes for the middleclass is not progressive. geezus....it's like bush...giving bigger cuts to the rich than to everyone else....not progressive

[DoveTurnedHawk]

112. So Again, You Criticize Clark For Not Going Far Enough

And again, no other candidate is proposing anything better, including (especially) Dean, and your own candidate.

I still love this plan, and while you claim your objection is based on equity, there is a clear undercurrent of jealousy running through the content of your posts in this thread, IMO. No offense, just calling it like I see it.

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

115. given my opinion of your vision on this issue

i'm not surprised....no offense.

and since you have looped back to repeating a post i have already answered, i'm done with this. if you can't see that it's wrong to tax the working poor to exempt the middleclass, we share no common ground.

[BootinUp]

92. I am all for tax reduction

For someone in the situation you describe. At 25,000 and family of two I am curious what the fed income tax comes out to. It would most likely be done on the 1040EZ form. I could research it, but I suspect the amount of Fed income tax would be outweighed by other benefits such a family will get by the other economic initiatives in the Clark plan or another candidates plan.

Progressive taxation is based on the ability to pay, I simply reject the notion that a family with 3 dependents and income of 50,000 has the same ability to pay as a family of 1 dependent and the same income.

As for a family with an income of 25,000, I would have to check as I say, but I suspect the amount of tax is quite low already. And we can help these families better with healthcare and education programs. I could be wrong, it is just a thought, and I don't have a tax table in front of me.

[bearfartinthewoods]

97. again, you act as if the family of two @ 25,000

should be grateful for all these other benefits as though the family of four@50,000 doesn't also receive the same bennies.

no kids means tuition programs are not an issue. and i have healthcare thank you.

this plan has nothing to offer me but the priviledge of paying taxes to help support someone who makes twice as much as i make and pays none.

convince me that having the working poor support the middleclass is progressive.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

98. YOU ALREADY PAY THOSE TAXES

And no Democratic candidate has proposed that you not pay the taxes you already do, either!

You are not paying one cent more under Clark's plan, and in fact if you qualify for the EITC, you will pay less.

It is the super-rich and the corporations who will subsidize American families with children under Clark's plan, not you!

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

105. if people who make TWICE the income i do, pay nothing

yet i pay 10% then the working poor are taxed to help support the middleclass.

there is no spinning the inequity.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

106. It's Not Spin...You Are Paying NO MORE Under Clark's Plan

It's just other people getting a benefit that you are not. That's all it is. It happens all the time under our current tax system, it's already happening vis-a-vis children, and it happens for homeowners, the disabled, people who own certain types of vehicles or have solar energy, etc. etc.

I'm sorry you aren't going to receive every benefit ever proposed by every candidate. I'm sorry you feel it's unfair.

But it's not all about you, I'm afraid.

DTH

[BootinUp]

99. I think we need some more facts here

I don't know if the way you characterize it is correct. Obviously, if I could see two scenarios and the bottom line, and what you say is correct, that the lower income family pays more tax then I agree that this is not right. But what would the tax be for 25K and 1 dependent? It should be next to nothing, if not nothing.

Then how much tax relief do you provide the family with two additional dependents? I don't think you can have full agreement on this issue.

[bearfartinthewoods]

102. even if it were 1000.00 income tax,

is it fair for the 25,000 for two to pay to help support the family OF 3 @ 50,000 who don't pay at all?

[bearfartinthewoods]

104. can you download a pdf file?

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=109817,00.html

i think this has a link to the tax table but i can't open pdf's

it does say:..(this includes the bush tax changes)

The new law extended the 10 percent rate to cover the first $7,000 of taxable income for single persons, $14,000 for married couples. It also lowered the tax rates above 15 percent to 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent. This is a drop of two percentage points for each rate except the top one, which went down 3.6 points.

The new law also raised the standard deduction for married couples to $9,500 and extended their 15 percent tax rate to $56,800 of taxable income. Each figure is double the number for single taxpayers. The changes reduce the “marriage penalty” – the difference between the tax couples pay and the amount they would have paid as two single persons

so it looks like i'll pay about 10% on 15,000.

if clark gets his way, i will pay but someone making twice what i do won't. do you agree to this?

[BootinUp]

108. Personally

when your paying SS and Medicare taxes, and two people living on 25K, then I would be in favor of reducing the Fed inc tax. I'm a liberal and I think living on 25K would be tough for two people. You probably have a valid point. The thing I would tell you is more changes to tax codes are possible, this is just a campaign position. It may look different once it goes through both houses and conference.

cheers

[bearfartinthewoods]

117. thank you....i feel like the guy in the bible who was

sent into sodom and gamorha (sp?) to find an honest man and i found one.

sometimes just having someone agree with the fact that you are getting screwed helps a lot.

as to how we get by, we do ok actually. it's harder now, since my stroke but she-bear sqeezes an extra penny out of every nickel so we do ok.

thank you again for the conversation.

[janx]

15. I am now single with three kids, and I don't like it at all.

n/t

[BootinUp]

24. No explanation?

[SahaleArm]

42. It didn't come from Dean? n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

77. oh yeah...i'm a dean supporter....that's why i'm pissed

yeah....right

[DoveTurnedHawk]

81. He Was Talking to Janx, Not You (eom)

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

91. ooops...sorry...dean supporter is not a label i want unless i;m forced to

[SahaleArm]

87. Settle down - I was referring to the empty post above n/t

[Renew Deal]

49. If you make less than 54,000 you pay nothing?

What's not to like?

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

[bearfartinthewoods]

121. what's not to like

is making 25,000 and still paying while people making twice that don't.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

56. Why? (eom)

DTH

[Jerseycoa]

68. How would it hurt you, Janx?

I'd like to understand. I know you are a fair person.

[David__77]

16. As a gay person...

I think that my spouse and I should be able to choose to jointly file is we so wish. I strongly support policies that are aimed at promoting the welfare of children, including in terms of taxation policy. I think that it's also important though to express this in with regard to the expenditure aspect of fiscal policy. We need money directed at programs that help ensure the success of children. Making bigger tax credits for dependents alone is not the answer. It's important to target your goal as closely as reasonably possible.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

66. I Agree 100%

Thanks for an excellent post. Clark also supports universal healthcare coverage for children and easier access to things like higher education, so I think he's on the right track.

:thumbsup:

DTH

[evil_orange_cat]

19. progressive taxation = awesome

5% tax increase on $1,000,000 or more... GOOD!

[imhotep]

29. whats with the pretentiousness?

Calling him "General" 10 times is laying it on a bit thick don't you think for one post?

[funky_bug]

33. It's a title

Just like "doctor." He earned it.

[bearfartinthewoods]

78. frankly speaking, being reminded that he's military is not a plus with me

[dkf]

36. Well of course you love this plan. Sounds like you are on track

to take full advantage of Bush & Clark tax cuts.

Looks like you're getting married.
Bet as a lawyer you make decent money.
I'll bet your fiancee has a pretty good job too.
I'll bet you eventually have kids.

Don't fool yourself, you're voting your own financial interests here.

Of course when your kids come along they'll be stuck with the Bush/Clark "birth tax".

[KittyWampus]

41. Actually His Kids Will Be Paying YOUR Social Security & Medicare

It's really that simple.

[dave29]

47. You're presuming those

programs will survive

[SahaleArm]

57. They will survive if we elect a Democrat n/t

[DoveTurnedHawk]

60. Of Course. I'm Also Presuming There Will Be No Nuclear Holocaust.

We have to operate under some basic assumptions when discussing plans like these, no?

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

59. Actually, Clark's Tax Plan Will Harm Us Financially When We Marry

Please see above. I am still full on board.

We might eventually get a benefit if we have kids, but that is not for years down the road, and I bet the benefit will be small compared to the hit we will take on the higher marginal rates of our income that Clark proposes to tax more heavily.

DTH

[Larkspur]

50. You forget that we have a HUMAN OVERPOPULATION problem

One of the cornerstones of organized society has always been the protection of children and the fostering of families. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes complete sense, as the survival of any species depends on the successful raising of children, and their children, and so on, and so on.

Children born in first world countries, like ours, are actually a detriment to our global environment because they consume 5 times more resources than those born in third world nations.

From World Overpopulation Awareness web site http://www.overpopulation.org/ Facts page
The world is adding about 78 million more people every year, the population of France, Greece and Sweden combined, or equivalent to a city the size of San Francisco every three days.

Birth rates are falling worldwide but death rates are declining even faster.

World Population Gradually Slowing but Total to Hit 9 Billion in Next 50 Years US Census Bureau Jan 1999

The richest 20 percent of humanity consumes 86 percent of all goods and services, while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3 percent.

Only 17% of the world's population lives in industrialized countries...

There has been more growth in population since 1950 than during the 4 million years since our early ancestors first stood upright. Richard Estrada

We should be giving tax breaks to those who choose not to have kids.

[Renew Deal]

51. This is a weak argument.

How does it give incentive to people to have kids. It costs far more to raise a child than the amount people are not paying. Also, you actually have to work. This is not free money.

[Larkspur]

65. Nature has much crueler ways to deal with an imbalance of population

disease, mass starvation, and violent chaos (war, riots, etc.) to name a few.

The Lessons of Easter Island http://www.primitivism.com/easter-island.htm and Easter Island's End http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/042.html should be required reading for politicans and policy advisors.

[BootinUp]

67. Is the poulation problem

in the US really? I think we need to have trade policies and other aid policies to help raise other countries standard of living. But if these same countries have the highest birth rates, thats where it should be addressed IMHO.

As far as natural resources and the environment you are right these are concerns. Its time we take back the government and start fixing.

[Larkspur]

122. The US consumes a disporportionate amount of resources for its population

It's the overconsumption of resources and the waste created with that consumption that is the problem in first world nations, like the US.

[Boo Boo]

116. A "Human Overpopulation" problem, eh?

That's a good one. We can't help people with limited incomes in America raise their families, because there are too many people in Bangladesh.

Makes perfect sense.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

58. This is RADICAL folks!

n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Okay, here's what bugs me about the plan

I acknowledge that families with children need a break, although there are plenty of non-parents and older people whose children are grown who need a break, too. We're not all rich.

We can argue about that for thread after thread.

HOWEVER, how can the details of this plan go on and on and not even acknowledge that childless taxpayers exist? I want to know the following:

1) Will childless people be freed of IRS paperwork in the same way that parents are under this plan?

2) WHAT will happen to the taxes paid by childless people? Will they go up? Go down? Stay the same? Or haven't Clark and his advisors thought through this part of it?

If I'm not going to get a tax cut or if my taxes will go up, would they mind mentioning it to me?

The complete lack of acknowledgment of my large and mostly Democratic-leaning demographic group irks me far worse than the prospect of not getting a tax cut.

[SahaleArm]

86. At the same level of salary - those with dependents must...

be given priority as they spend more money on basic necessities. If you're single and you make less than $50,000 dollars the 1040-EZ reduces your 1040 to one page. If you want itemized deductions then you have to fill out extra schedules, regardless of filing status. As a single person in the middle-class, would you want the 2003 tax rates or the 2000 tax rates? Under Clark's plan you will be paying 2003 tax-levels which includes the lowered marginal tax brackets and increased EITC.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. I don't see that anywhere on his website.

:shrug:

[SahaleArm]

90. Economic Plan raises taxes to FYI-2000 level for those making > $200,000

Recapture revenue from the provisions of President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest families-those making over $200,000 annually: $1.1 trillion. Wes Clark would propose a tax reform package to make the tax code simpler, fairer, more progressive, and more pro-growth. In the process, this reform would recapture the revenue from the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts that go to families making over $200,000 annually, either by repealing these provisions or making other changes to recapture the revenue. Wes Clark's plan would protect the estate tax repeal for small businesses and family farms and would ensure that middle-class families get the benefit of lower taxes on dividends.

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

[Boo Boo]

119. Paperwork is minimal for anyone...

who doesn't make enough to owe anything. Clark has simply proposed creating a new group of folks who don't owe anything.

This plan doesn't do anything, directly, for me, but life in America is not all about me. I think it's a good idea. It means one less major bill to pay for people that have to make some really tough financial decisions---like whether or not to spend money on their children, or pay their fucking taxes. Of course, it is also a major fiscal stimulus; that money is going to get spent, on everything from orthodontics to piano lessons. Not to mention... FOOD.

If there are cracks in the plan that allow deserving people to slip through, those cracks can, of course, be fixed. Any such plan would have to go through Congress, after all. The main question right now, in my view, is a political one: How will this plan play in Poughkeepsie?

It is unquestionably a politically brilliant move, IMO. You better believe that Edwards is wishing he'd done this. Southern politicians just love to talk about them Family Values(tm)---Wes Clark just put his (our) money where his (the Democratic Party's) mouth is.

[bain_sidhe]

93. A point no one has made yet

... at least, I don't *think* anybody has. People with no kids have been saying that they pay the same amount in taxes as people with kids, so they should get the same tax breaks. This might fall into the Republican trap of counting ONLY income taxes. I can't find the study to back it up, but I'm sure I read recently that *on average* families with kids pay more in sales taxes (more of their income goes to taxable goods to feed and clothe their children, more in gas/excise taxes (ferrying kids around) and (generally) more in property taxes (more interested in homes with bigger yards, plus homes in better school districts).

Anybody know a source where I could find this out for sure?

But, at any rate, it might not be that families without kids pay the same in *total* tax burden than families with kids. Worth looking into, anyway, IMHO.

[SahaleArm]

94. Of course they do - Dependents aren't free...

People with dependents require a lower burden than those with none, the counter argument is specious at best.

[Bread and Circus]

103. Very interesting point...

[Donna Zen]

113. Try it...

When my daughter was two and a half, she was hospitalized for a month and a half with pnenumonia. Try it. One nagging ear infection can put you behind in you bills.

BTW, my husband and I decide to have only one child because of concerns about zero population growth. So even we child bearers are far from reproducing bunnies.

Oh and as for college costs, her tuition is $34,000 a year, but having the good fortune to rear such a wonderful woman, more than half of that is paid for with scholarships. If you think about it, we blew out any tax benefits that have been mentioned on this and other threads, by the time she was three.

I will receive no tax benefit from Clark's proposal, in fact this policy will not affect me in anyway, but I love seeing a real Democrat in action. Thirty one million families will be affected because finally someone is talking about need before greed.

[in_cog_ni_to]

120. I just finished reading Clark's tax plan and

guess what? I have 1 child and we will get no benefit from this either and guess what? I am HAPPY for the families it DOES help. It helps the ones who need it the most. This plan is incredible. If they earn under $50,000 they will pay NO federal income tax! Can you imagine a tax form with only 3 lines to fill out????!!!!! THAT, in and of itself is incredible. LOL! THIS is definitely what the Democratic party represents to me. "A rising tide lifts all boats."

<snip>Wes Clark's Plan is Fair. Under President Bush, typical families have seen their incomes fall by nearly $1,500 - while President Bush provided an average tax cut of $128,000 to taxpayers making over $1 million. Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform:

A married couple with two children making $50,000 would get a $1,583 tax break.
A married couple with three children both earning the minimum wage, or $21,000 annually, would get a tax break of $2,287.
A married couple with two children making $85,000 would get a $975 tax cut.
31 million working families would get tax relief, with the typical family getting a $1,477 tax cut. </b>

<snip>
Wes Clark's Plan is Responsible. The plan will provide $33 billion annually in tax relief for working families. This will be paid for without increasing the deficit by:

A 5 percentage point increase in the tax rate only on income over $1 million per year. This surcharge, which could be used only for working family tax relief, would not apply to the first $1 million of income or to any capital gains - so it will not affect 99.9 percent of taxpayers.
Closing corporate loopholes, including the ones that Enron took advantage of to unfairly cut its taxes. <snip>