Dean considering cut in payroll tax!

[dkf]

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.

------

Dean cares about single people without kids and gays IN ADDITION to those with kids.

I hope he raises the cap at the same time. That would be excellent.

Edit: Removed "incivil" remark.

[Rose Siding]

1. This had been advocated on the original blog

as part of a 2nd phase of the economic plan. It would raise the income limit on payroll taxes so that earnings over 85 grand (I think) would be taxed and increase the amt earned on the lower end to be exempt.

It would fit with the rest of his fiscally responsible plan.

[SW FL Dem]

11. And this benefits the middle class self employed business owner - HOW

When I first started working the Social Security cap was $30K, it's now $85K and Social Security is still in trouble. What most people fail to realize is that employees pay 6.45% of each paycheck to Social Security until they reach the max. Their employer matches that amount. The self employed pay both parts. Dean is asking small business people to pay an extra 12.9% of every dollar they earn over 85K to Social Security. This plan hits small businesses hard! When will the masses understand what damage this ill-conceived plan will do to them.

[Rose Siding]

17. Maybe we should wait and see what the plan really is

before we become too convinced that it is horrible. This is just a leak of an inkling of an idea of a piece of a plan ;)

[SW FL Dem]

21. Tax Law is my expertise.

The inkling is more than a problem. Dean's ideas need major revision. Someone on his team needs to have a clue about tax laws

[LuminousX]

45. Have to wait and see the plan, but

Dean has a whole other plan specifically for small businesses. One of the things you have to realize is everyone can't get everything.

[w4rma]

55. If that small buisness owner has his payroll tax percentage cut

even though the cap is lifted so that he pays that new percentage on the rest of his income (which, for SMALL buisness owners isn't going to be much more) then that won't matter all that much.

The part that WILL matter is the fact that small buisness owners can spend less money on their payroll (or the same amount, while more money gets to their employees), since small buisness owners are then paying less in taxes, via that payroll.

[SahaleArm]

57. Can't spend less on payroll unless salaries are cut.

The extra money is meant to go into the hands of his workers. He can of course pay less on his income if the rates change.

[w4rma]

61. Yup. And note that this won't hurt struggling small buisness owners (n/t)

[SahaleArm]

62. His current tax plan does not include payroll tax changes...

Does he have a proposal on payroll tax changes or is this something floated in a speech?

[trogdor]

68. For one thing, it puts money in people's pockets.

That is, people who will actually spend the money - in your store.

[eileen from OH]

2. that's great!

but I could have done without the Clark dig. (Yeah, yeah, I know it's almost de rigeur, but really wasn't needed. And I'm a Dean supporter. Just doing my Civility Good Deed For The Day.)

eileen from OH

[blm]

3. Another change of principled beliefs?

As governor he was adamant about not extending the cap on payroll tax. He's already racked up too many flips from his beliefs as governor. I guess it won't matter if he adds another.

[Rose Siding]

5. What change?

January 01, 2003
A.1.v. Economy and Taxes: "How Does Dean feel about tax reform?"
Dean has stated that we need tax reform, not only to repeal the President Bush's tax cuts which are "a fundamental assault on the basic American ideals that we all share" (Dean, 5/28, Link), but also to make the entire tax system more fair and better able to provide for the needs of all Americans.

Dean would repeal the Bush tax cuts, bringing tax levels to where they were under President Clinton, a time when unemployment was a record lows, the stock market at record highs, and real non-management wages (the kind paid to 80% of Americans) were increasing. (Source: Economic Policy Institute, and Link). Dean does not support a national sales tax or a value-added tax, and believes that the federal government must work with state governments to determine tax levels, to avoid "the unfunded burden on states and communities." (DeanForAmerica.com Link)

[blm]

10. The reply was to the post above.

The post wished he'd raise the cap on payroll taxes. Dean was adamantly against that as governor. Of course he was FOR raising the sales tax as governor, so that would be a current change.

[AP]

12. bringing tax levels to where they were under Clinton.

I hate hearing that. It's such a misleading way to explain the complexities of tax policy.

Why does Dean have so little regard for the intelligence of his audience that he says this like it makes sense?

[Hep]

48. Heh

Yeah, damn him. Giving us all this power in his campaign and thinking we're stupid!

Can't be worse than idiots who proclaim that repealing Bush's stupid tax cuts is tantamount to a tax increase.

[bearfartinthewoods]

37. without digging up my records, it appears that if he rolls back the bush

tax cuts, our taxes increase by 13%.

[SahaleArm]

39. Try these calculators for a simple guesstimate

2000: http://www.mgcpa.com/calculators/y2000/fm1040ez.html
2003: http://www.dinkytown.net/java/TaxEZ1040.html

Assumes married filing jointly with income total of $50,000:

2000 Tax Liability: $5561
2003 Tax Liability: $4460

For this case tax liability would go up - almost 20% or $1101 under Dean.

[flpoljunkie]

47. Dean will "treat everybody with respect, if I win." Priceless!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57289-2004Jan5.html

Dean has a reputation for stubbornness, especially after being criticized about his positions. But he told a group of Iowans on Sunday night that if he wins the nomination he will repair relations with the "Washington Democrats" he frequently ridicules as weak-kneed, and the centrist Democratic Leadership Council he recently lampooned as the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party."

"What I really want to do is create a different kind of Democratic Party doesn't exclude all the people who've been very happy with the Democratic Party for years," Dean told a small group of Democrats in Toledo, Iowa. "We'll treat everybody with respect if I win."

<>Although Dean insists it is too early to declare himself the clear front-runner, he increasingly acts and sounds like a candidate marching toward victory and concerned about limiting the damage.

In doing so, he is providing voters a preview of how he plans to repair relations with critics and transform himself into a centrist candidate who can defeat President Bush. Dean, here on Monday, highlighted as evidence of his electability the latest CNN-Time poll, which shows him faring the best of any Democrat against Bush. The other major Democrats repeatedly raise that issue, saying he has neither the temperament nor the experience to be president. Dean is hearing the same question from voters.
_______________________________

The caucus and primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire need to take a second look at Dr. Dean, who has waged a dishonorable and divisive campaign.

[farmbo]

4. Bravo! It's Been rumored for weeks now...Great move!

The payroll tax is Bush's forgotten tax. Its the most onerous tax on workers by far, yet he never considered cutting it since such a cut would only benefit poor and middle class workers...In fact, Bush (and his tax cutting buddies) seldom even mention it, since the payroll tax in its present form is extremely regressive...its capped after $65,000 of salary.

But not for long. I believe Dean's plan will remove the regressive cap and start taxing executive salaries...while earmarking significant reductions for poor and middle class workers.

Bravo!

[flpoljunkie]

42. Payroll tax cap for 2004 is $87,900, up $900 from 2003.

[SahaleArm]

43. SS is capped - Medicare is not capped n/t

[bain_sidhe]

6. Good one.

There's no such thing as too many good ideas for making the tax code more progressive. The whole problem has been too few ideas! Does he have any time frame for announcing it officially?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. will Dean drop the cap on Social Security?

Because if he did, I'd be really happy. Don't raise our retirement age, just stop the special break for "high income" people.

[Rose Siding]

8. How?

As soon as it becomes a program that is exclusionary, the aristocracy will cease to fund it at all.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. then we'll string them up

by regulations and laws I mean. It can be done, it will take a fight though - Dean's a fighter right?

[Hep]

49. That's exactly what he proposes to do.

He says it all the time.

[flaminbats]

13. If Dean does this, I say the hell with the Democratic Party!

With the baby-boomers about to retire and Social Security on the brink of a crisis..such a plan will drive a stake into the heart of that program. Democrats played politics and passed shrub's taxcuts, they worked with shrub to create a worthless department to duplicate the Defense department's job, they backed two wars that have piled thousands of dead to the incompetence of 9/11, they drove a stake into the heart of Medicare with Tom Daschle's help, and now they wish to destroy forever the single best accomplishment of the New Deal.

Democrats may succeed, but I will not help them. :nopity:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. Social Security isn't on the brink of a crisis, it's solid for another two

generations! What are you talking about?

[flaminbats]

16. That's a great Kerry line!

It allows him to justify his payroll taxcut..:crazy:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. I wasn't being sarcastic

Oh, this is too serious to joke about - can't we just raise the cap? Any attempts to privatize or otherwise hurt Social Security will get a straight-up boycott from most Democrats.

[flaminbats]

19. neither am I...

"Any attempts to privatize or otherwise hurt Social Security will get a straight-up boycott from most Democrats."

I used to agree with this view after the payroll tax increase in the eighties and Clinton's surpluses in the 90's. But with the passing of Shrub's tax-cuts, which would not of happened without Democratic votes, and the passing of his Medicare plan..I have growing doubts. My fear is that Democrats will cut the payroll tax, and when the boomers retire the crisis will hit us. Then the re-pukes will propose privatizing Social Security as the silver bullet solution, DINOS will complain but ultimately compromise.

This is becoming an all too common trend for the party, compromise first..whine about the consequences later!

[w4rma]

58. Remember when Gore was talking about a "lockbox" for the payroll tax?

The reason he was talking about one is beause the payroll tax hasn't been used to fund ONLY social scurity but as a general fund similar to the income tax.

IMHO, the payroll tax should never have been instituded and social security should be paid for from the income tax.

[flaminbats]

82. No payroll tax is a miserable idea.

But what about using the Medicare tax to fund the military, the Social Security tax to fund the other government programs, and the income tax only for Social Security and Medicare for everyone?

I could support this! :thumbsup:

[farmbo]

15. It could be revenue neutral...with fat cats paying for worker cuts...

But your point is well taken. This must be done responsibly.

[JVS]

20. Do you realize that since reagan raised the payroll tax it has been...

raided for the General Fund each year?

In other words Reagan's tax cuts for the rich were paid for by raising the most regressive tax. This is a good move. This is where the taxcut in 2001 should have been. To the poor income tax is negligible, the payroll tax is where they are hit hard.

[flaminbats]

27. Yes it has been raided, and thus we had surpluses in the 90's.

Had it not been for Reagan's tax-cut, which Gephardt supported..we would of had surpluses in the 80's and no tax hikes in the nineties.

I only support dipping into the Social Security fund to pay off government debt or for bailing out the Medicare trust fund. Any other reason is immoral. But remember this, if the payroll tax had not been increased..then the deficits would be higher and less money would be available for candidates in cutting taxes on the middleclass!

[w4rma]

59. Or the income tax would be increased instead. Taxes are taxes. (n/t)

[flaminbats]

79. I disagree.

The payroll tax, when F.D.R. started the program, was to be used only for Social Security. It was part of a great social contract with the people! What was left usually went to minimizing massive debts built up during the Second World War. To use income taxes to fund Social Security should only be considered as a last resort, not as a means of cutting the payroll tax!

Income taxes were increased, but when Clinton logically suggested removing the income cap on the payroll tax..the Democratic Congress screamed murder! Clinton quickly dropped the issue, and it never became part of his five-year budget plan.

[lastliberalintexas]

80. Why do you say that?

"To use income taxes to fund Social Security should only be considered as a last resort, not as a means of cutting the payroll tax!"

Because that's the way it's always been? That's silly.

Ideally, the entire federal budget would be funded with the most progressive form of taxation we have in this country- the income tax. Payroll taxes are very regressive and hurt our workers. Why should we continue to use them when we could obtain that funding from a more progressive and worker friendly source?

[flaminbats]

83. Sales tax is regressive, a payroll tax with no income cap would be flat!

"To use income taxes to fund Social Security should only be considered as a last resort, not as a means of cutting the payroll tax!"

Because that's the way it's always been? That's silly.

And you call me silly? If there was no separate tax to fund established retirement assistance, then only a token amount would be given to the disabled, the elderly, and to Medicare. Medicare would become like Medicaid..underfunded and always vulnerable to more cuts, and Social Security would be treated like welfare by the politicians..not as a contract with workers who pay in, but as another welfare program.

And there would be no means for workers to pay the tax, while building up the necessary Social Security credits to become eligible for benefits after retirement or if they became disabled.

[lastliberalintexas]

84. Do you even understand

how the payroll tax works? Right now, the first $85,000 or so that you earn is subject to this regressive tax. Let's use that info in an albeit simplified example.

John Doe earns $40,000 a year, while Fat Cat earns $1.5 million a year. EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY PENNY that John earns is subject to the payroll tax, such that 100% of his income is subject to this tax. Only about the first $85,000 that Fat Cat earns is subject to the tax, or about 5.7% of his million dollar income is made subject to this tax!!!! 100% vs. 5.7%.

That is the very textbook definition of a regressive tax. What many Dems and progressives have argued for in the past is for a floor to exempt modest income from the payroll tax, while subjecting the entirety of higher salaries to the tax. For example, the first $30,000 earned is exempt, and the remainder subject to the payroll tax. That's about the only way to make this form of taxation more progressive.

I understand the concerns with funding SS and Medicare out of the general revenue funds. But I don't think that those concerns alone mean that we should continue to fund them from regressive taxes that hurt our workers and can stifle economic growth. Looking for a better, more progressive way to fund the programs should be a Dem priority. No matter which candidate is arguing for it, and no matter which candidate you support (or oppose).

[flaminbats]

86. Let me repeat my opinion,I support lifting income cap from the payroll tax

but I oppose cutting the payroll tax for any reason. Taxes do not exist as a means for tinkering with the economy or "stimulating growth", they exist to raise the necessary revenue for government spending. The payroll taxes raise revenue for Social Security and Medicare benefits, and income taxes raise revenue for all of the other government programs. The means of reducing the damage done by taxes is to make income taxes progressive, by removing the cap protecting any earned income from the payroll tax, by only electing officials who pledge to invest our dollars wisely on human capital for a long-term return, and by fairly reducing the percentage of our tax dollars wasted yearly..only for servicing the national debt and to pay bondholders.

[Kahuna]

87. A-men! Would mean insolvency for Social Security and

Medicare. Grandpa and Grandma will have to eat catfood.

[flaminbats]

91. Cat-food will become much too expensive...

it is more likely they would go even further into debt just to pay their medical bills, basic expenses, and for prescription drugs. In the end, a society shall be judged on how it treats its youngest, oldest, and its most vulnerable members. Not on how many military victories or defeats it has, but on how many more centuries it shall survive and thrive.

[robbedvoter]

22. Along with the lyrics from Outkast, the Southern accent, the "I would

have caught OBL" - yet another attempt to catch up with a certain candidate...The Christmas thingy didn't teach him anything. Oh, well we'll take it as flatery.

[farmbo]

26. Check again...Clark does NOT address the Payroll tax

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


This taxcut is a different breed o'cat.

[SahaleArm]

31. SS/Medicare tax changes will be a tough sell...

There are tricks that can be played including dropping the bottom and increasing the cap to offset the effects. Still it's all talk right now, something floated by the Dean campaign to see if it's viable. The timing is awfully suspicious.

[Renew Deal]

23. If Dean cares about all the people you mention

why does he want to jack up all their taxes? Does not compute.

[Polemonium]

32. spoken like a true conservative

Taxes are what allow us to have clean playgrounds our children can play in and recreation facilities that everyone can afford. Taxes allow us the potential to collectively improve our situation. The government can have my $600 dollars back, the place is better that way. In the long run without my $600 (shrub tax cut) otherthings become more expensive, and I'm actually paying more for the same services than I would have. http://www.bushtax.com/

[SahaleArm]

33. Federal income tax pays for local playgrounds?

State taxes will not be repealed and the only thing we'll see is Dean balancing the budget on the backs for those who can least afford it. I don't think that's anything to get excited about.

[Polemonium]

35. Ahh I'm daring to dream

Been living abroad for a few years, and most countries have a larger tax burden and take care of their people better. That we might dare to consider moving in that direction is indeed exciting.

[SahaleArm]

36. You can't have that without making taxes more progressive n/t

[Polemonium]

38. or something along these lines

The New Social Contract I am proposing will include fundamental tax reform to ensure that every wealthy American individual and corporation is paying their fair share of taxes and that the tax burden on working families is reduced.

http://beta.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/index.html?type=news&id=11077

[SahaleArm]

40. Yeah but it's broad strokes - Where's the fine print?

As of right now I hear repeal everything, not make it more progressive.

[HFishbine]

34. So that your children

are not saddled with debt in the future.

Watch this 30 second clip and you'll understand:

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/01_small.shtml

[LuminousX]

50. I fought against those tax cuts, didn't you?

Or were you eagerly awaiting your share and now are growling like a junkyard dog when those tax cuts, those awful knee-capping, curbstomping, tax cuts are taken away?

I know as a single 30k wage earner, I got jack shit, and even if I did, I'm intelligent enough to know that it comes with a cost. Is the NEA being funded at appropriate levels? Are we still buying up plutonium and uranium from the world markets? Are we funding the program to dismantle and destroy Russian nukes? Are the homeless shelters getting the federal assistance they normally got in the late 90's?

[Leilani]

24. Is the timing suspicious?

Or just opportunistic?

[SahaleArm]

29. No plan - Just political mumbo-jumbo...

In an attempt to deflect attention from Clark and string along a few of his supporters; at least if this thread is any example.

[Hep]

51. Actually

He's been talking about this since June. Probaqbly earlier than that. In the midst of all the pure BS being spread about by his opposition, sometimes he has to remind people that this is about policy.

[SahaleArm]

53. Show me his proposal - The devil is in the details n/t

[Hep]

65. His proposal is at dfa

But you should talk to some of the guys at Economists For Dean:

http://econ4dean.typepad.com/econ4dean/2003/09/welcome_to_econ.html

Let me know how your discussion goes!

[SahaleArm]

66. His DFA proposal rolls back the Bush cuts not payroll taxes...

Has he specifically outlined a proposal for payroll tax adjustments? I haven't seen that anywhere.

[Hep]

67. He's all about raising the cap

on payroll taxes. I was wrong to assert that he will lower payroll tax rates. But raising th cap on payroll taxes is well documented. Check the other website I gave you.

[SahaleArm]

69. Again it's not in any of his official proposals - conjecture

I can't assess off the cuff statements because that would require unfair speculation. I'll wait until there is something official.

[Hep]

71. Whatever

just call Dean a liar and let's move on.

[SahaleArm]

73. No I'm just saying it's not been officially proposed...

So we're talking about broad strokes.

[Kahuna]

88. Clark got his plan out there first. Of course, Dean will

run ads saying, he is the ONLY democrat running who has offered a detailed tax plan. :eyes:

[Hep]

90. Clark got his plan out first?

Wow. Clark released his tax plan before he even decided to run for office?

Are your facts always this credible?

[eridani]

25. Kucinich has already introduced the legislation

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/tax_cuts.php

On Dec. 8, 2003, Dennis Kucinich introduced in Congress the Progressive Tax Act of 2003, a bill that reforms the tax system to provide needed relief to workers and families.

The 2001, 2002, and 2003 Bush tax cuts have created a tax system that favors the wealthy over the working class. These tax cuts have complicated the tax code with more loopholes and have saddled the federal treasury with record deficits.

In response, Kucinich has introduced a bill that creates a more fair, simple, and adequate tax system. The Progressive Tax Act of 2003 gives $87 billion per year to people with modest income and families in the middle class. The bill collects an additional $107 billion per year from the Bush tax cuts, corporate tax loopholes, and other tax giveaways. The bill therefore raises a sum total of $20 billion per year that remains available for deficit reduction or new spending.

First, the bill provides a refundable $1530 Payroll Tax Credit for people who work. This tax credit is simple, targeted to relieve a high tax burden, provides a stimulus effect, and encourages work.

Second, the bill provides a refundable $2000 Simplified Family Credit. This simplifies the tax code by consolidating the EITC, Child Tax Credit, Additional Child Credit, and exemption for children into one Simplified Family Credit. This tax credit will provide greater transparency, provide extra work incentives, and a stimulus effect.

To raise federal revenue the bill will close corporate loopholes and set tougher penalties to prevent corporate tax shelter abuse. In addition, the bill will roll back most of the Bush tax cuts in the past three years that benefited the wealthy.

"Our tax system is in need of desperate repair," said Kucinich. "Tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent of Americans do not create jobs and do not increase wages for working people. The only way to real economic strength and security is to provide real tax relief to those who need it most, workers and families. This bill enables real economic growth and progressive tax reform while providing fiscal responsibility."

[Paulie]

44. Dennis is on the ball!

I wonder if you would call his bill would be concidered "Revolutionary"....

It sure is a good plan!!!!

[JNelson6563]

28. I'd like to see this happen

I think that would be a good thing.

Julie

[Zynx]

30. That is much more important to lower income people than the income tax.

The payroll tax hits people on the lower end the hardest and brings in more revenue than anyother tax out there. A cut in the payroll tax would be a major boost for not only most of the Americans who pay federal income tax, but also for the half of the country that doesn't.

[robbedvoter]

41. Sure! Considering that I live on Social security and pay tax on my savings

and that HD's repealling of the tax cuts will take away my child credit, I'll be helped plenty. Pass.

[LuminousX]

54. So Bush made your life better.

Without Bush's regressive totally irresponsible tax cut, your life would be awful?

Wow. I guess you better support Bush then.

[SahaleArm]

64. Child credit is one of the cuts Dean blathers against.

Thank the cockroaches for that.

[cryofan]

46. dean won't raise payroll cap. That's "progressive". Dean is conservative!

Dean's past history as Vermont governor shows he dislikes taxing his rich buddies. For example:

from http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040112fa_fact

"Dean inherited from Snelling a sixty-five-million-dollar budget deficit. Just about anywhere else, this would have been chump change. But during a recession, in a tiny state with a paltry industrial-manufacturing tax base, it represented, per capita, a full-blown crisis. Fortunately, Dean also inherited a blueprint for a solution. Snelling and Ralph Wright, a liberal Democrat who was the Speaker of the House, had cut a deal that combined progressive tax increases with reductions in social spending. Not only did Dean adopt Snelling’s plan in toto but he also retained most of Snelling’s cabinet and staff, as well as his economic advisers from the Republican business community. During his first years in office, whatever criticism Dean endured tended to be from the left, from exasperated Ben & Jerry’s types. The Snelling income-tax increases had five-year sunset provisions, and after they expired Dean made certain they weren’t resuscitated. (Wright took to consoling his troops: “At least he’s our Republican.”) "

Also:

read Dean's own words:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Most of the Democrats in the legislature rebelled against Dean over the budget cuts, and he ended up depending on Republican votes to pass most of his proposals. At the time, a local Vermont newspaper wrote, "The biggest items on Dean’s agenda for next year are likely to provoke more opposition from the Democrats than the Republicans. Nevertheless, Dean said he feels no particular pressure to deliver the goods to his party or to promote the Democratic agenda."15

In the mid-1990s, Dean even aligned himself with the likes of Republican Newt Gingrich on his stance on cutting Medicare. He opined at the time, "The way to balance the budget is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut everything else."16
....
The Rutland Herald described how one protestor, Henrietta Jordan of the Vermont Center for Independent Living, "said it would be much fairer to raise taxes on people with expensive homes and cars, children in private school and a housekeeper at home than to cut programs that helped the 66,000 Vermonters living with disabilities."17 Dean responded callously, brushing off the pleas of Vermont’s most vulnerable by saying, "This seems like sort of the last gasp of the left here."18"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


The rest of this article is here:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml

[Hep]

52. Just say Dean is a liar, a dishonest person.

That's gonna make it particularly fun for Dean supporters when you're forced to vote for him.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. Is that article your sig line?

I've seen you post it so often...:shrug:

[revcarol]

89. If the foo shits, wear it.

This blanket statement of Dean, that he has been backtracking on continually, gives us insight into Dean's thinking

AND is applicable when we examine his proposed policies, policies of all sorts.

The devil is in the details. Don't like him, don't trust him, but will listen WHEN he comes out with a concrete proposal.

Or is this just a stalking horse?

[w4rma]

60. "… look at reasonable options for expanding the ceiling on payroll taxes."

…
The actions of this President and this administration are threatening the soundness of our Social Security system and of our private pension systems as well. By creating the largest deficits in history and adding irresponsibly to the federal debt, he has given Americans worried about their retirement even more cause for concern.

As President, I will be committed to preserving the integrity and long-term stability of the Social Security Trust Fund. I will oppose privatizing the Social Security System. And I will pursue a responsible economic agenda, and under my plan we will never have to consider raising the retirement age.

The long-term future of Social Security and financial security for all of us in our retirement years depends on ensuring a healthy rate of economic growth over the next several decades. Even a modest increase in long-term growth rates will ease the burden on the Social Security Trust Fund. If we do need to bring more money into Social Security, then I'm prepared to look at reasonable options for expanding the ceiling on payroll taxes.

The best guarantee for our Social Security, therefore, is an economic plan with three basic principles:

First, we must create economic growth and jobs new jobs, more jobs, and better jobs for Americans;

Second, we must return to fiscal sanity, for the sake of future generations, yes but also for the sake of our very national security. We cannot be a world-class country if we are the world's largest debtor;

Finally, we must reform our tax system. When I am President, I will work to repeal the top heavy Bush tax cuts, and replace them with a system that is fairer, and simpler, and places less of a burden on working Americans who live off their paychecks.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7343

[lifelong_Dem]

85. "dean won't raise payroll cap"

So, if Dean does come out in favor of a payroll cap increase, will you come back here and admit you were wrong when you said that he's a "conservative" who "dislikes taxing his rich buddies"?

[TexasSissy]

63. You mean the Medicare & Social Security taxes we pay? LOL LOL.

Those programs are in serious need of more funds, not less.

Those taxes will double in the next 10 to 20 years, thanks to the new Medicare bill. Unless, of course, federal funds for Medicare are cut back drastically (which is what Dean wanted years ago when he supported Newt Gingrich's bill to gut the Medicare Act).

Not that he should care. He and his family are rich...always have been. He can't image what it's like to be 65 years old and ill, unemployed and w/o any way to get medication or decent medical care. You say his "universal health care" plan will take care of that? Then he's not really "cutting" taxes, is he, since he will have to raise other taxes to pay for the health care plan.

And then there's Social Security, of course. We already know that years ago Dean supported a Republican proposition to raise the retirement age to 68 and beyond.

[lastliberalintexas]

70. Wow

I never thought I'd see people on DU arguing *against* a payroll tax cut. I guess if Dean started arguing against the Iraq invasion, DUers would change their minds about that too. Oh, wait. ;)


My how things have changed here. And I don't just mean the incivility. We've always had the flamefests (Dems v. Greens anyone?). But now we argue FOR the repub positions on issues too? Wow.

[SahaleArm]

72. I'm trying to figure out if he had an actual proposal? n/t

[cryofan]

74. your post seems self-contradictory. Can you clarify?

Dean is calling for a tax cut in SS-medicare taxes. Some here are for it, and some against it. I am against it. Taxes are used to support the social safety net. Yes, Dean is more a repub than a dem. He wants to cut the tax, just like the repubs.
But your post is self-contradictory.

[lastliberalintexas]

76. No, it isn't

The payroll tax is an *extremely* regressive tax- one of our most regressive forms of taxation. In fact, it can probably only be argued that sales taxes are more regressive. Dean's overall tax proposals have been to lower the (regressive) payroll tax and replace it with higher (progressive) income taxes. Why is that something that a liberal would oppose? We would have more federal monies available for social programs, but that money would come from more progressive taxation. Those with the greatest ability to pay taxes should be paying more than the current rates (and I say that as part of a 2 person household that makes good money).

Payroll taxes also actually impede economic/job growth, since they tend to stifle an employer's ability or willingness to hire more workers. An employer will simply force some of its employees to work overtime hours (without additional payroll taxes being due) rather than hire 1 new employee since it would then have to pay higher payroll taxes. And if Shrub has his way, the OT hours route will be even more attractive, since OT pay will no longer be required.

The payroll tax ideally should actually be ELIMINATED and replaced with higher marginal income tax rates on those making more than a million a year. It does NOTHING good for our workers, since the funding for SS and Medicare could be obtained through more progressive forms of taxation. Other than a sales tax, it is the most intrusive form of taxation in a market economy. BTW- the least intrusive form of taxation in a market economy is the income tax. Throw that info at repubs the next time they start crying about income taxes.


I never said that SS and Medicare funding should be cut. But we will have to look at different methods of funding the programs over the next couple of decades as the Baby Boomers retire and my generation (who are far fewer in number) take up the responsibility for funding them. I just happen to believe that the vast majority of federal tax revenue (if not all of it) should come from the progressive income tax.

I'm sorry that you support the payroll tax. This is an issue we will just have to agree to disagree on, because I will NEVER see such a regressive form of taxation as something that a liberal pinko like myself should be in favor of.

And so you know, repubs would never support a cut in the payroll tax, mostly for the reasons I listed above. When a repub talks about cutting "taxes" you can almost bet the farm that s/he is ONLY referring to income taxes, which just happen to be our most progressive tax. They NEVER speak about cutting payroll/FICA, sales or property taxes (unless in a state like mine that has as its most progressive tax the property tax). They seem to think that income taxes are the only taxes Americans pay, and too many people buy into their framing of the debate.

[cryofan]

78. I would agree with you--better to fund everything through income taxes

However, I think Dean's past shows that he wants to cut social safety services. I have shown that in his own words. Why believe him now?

[lastliberalintexas]

81. I'm not asking you to believe Dean

if you choose not to. My original post wasn't actually a post in support of Dean, but rather a post in support of more progressive forms of taxation, since many posters upthread had said they actually supported this monstrous form of taxation. It just seems that *some* people here lately can't agree with a good idea (ie, lowering regressive taxes) if certain candidates are the ones arguing for it.

Bash Dean all you want. But don't turn into someone spouting RW talking points *in favor* of regressive taxation to do so. Admit when he's right on an issue and criticize him when he's wrong. That's all I ask.

[PATRICK]

75. To all such critical posts

The type I mean. Of course these details are legitimate but what is the real thing that will happen? It is is which candidate will successfully face down the Congress and deal for the best deal to make things work. Trying to blow up a single issue detail like this into the end all has no more weight than expecting to defeat Bush by telling people he will destroy social security(he will try, we know). The point is taken but why put dean in front of the firing squad? I am afraid to say it does not matter. As much as knowledgeable people hate it you have to swallow that lump and ask which man can get "the job" done and not who has the purist positions to join the pantheon of past vanquished Dem champions.

Does that answer the policy proposition critique? No but it does answer the parallel leap to "aha, Mr. Dean, I have you now!".
I think it would be better even to try to piece together some of the really great policies of the candidates. I think Dean has those crafted to politically challenge the GOP while the others might just be easily shrugged off. In that he has some of Clinton's governor type savvy, as admirable as the unrequited legislative dreams of Gephardt and Kerry are.

[mzmolly]

77. This is excellent!

The money is ours to spend each week *stimulating the economy year round* (so it's economically sound) and we can still accomplish our other goals.

It's also brilliant political strategy, in spite of all those that say Dean should never listen to "the people" and make decisions accordingly. All of our candidates should box themselves in and never budge from their initial positions dontcha know?