Dean Needs to Change His Tax Repeal Plan !

[stewert]

I like just about everything Dean is saying, except for his plan to repeal
all the Bush tax cuts. He should only repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top
30 percent. The bottom 70 percent deserve those tax cuts.

What is he thinking, a lot of working class people will not vote for him if they think he
is going to take their tax cuts away.

P.S. Can we stop posting these dumb questions asking if you will vote for
this democrat or that democrat if they win the nomination. If you oppose the
nazi policies of Bush, you will do your duty to your country and vote for whoever
wins the democratic nomination. I would vote for a monkey if he won the democratic
nomination.

[goobergunch]

1. Repealing the tax cuts peacemeal is a difficult matter

especially if you still want to balance the budget.

Here's the first * tax cut. There are a few meritorious sections in here, but only a few.

[montanacowboy]

2. It's like he said last night

he needs that money for health care - and also note that I got $6 in my paycheck - so would I rather than health care? does the bear doodoo in the woods? heck yes.

[userdave2061]

8. $6 dollars here, $6 dollars there and then you're talking real money

The proverbial frog in the slowly boiling pot of water still kills the frog. Our paychecks have been shrinking every year for quite some time.

I think any chance we get to get some back should be fought for.

[virtualobserver]

3. this article by dean in the wall street journal ....

will give you a clearer picture of Dean's views on tax reform.
Don't believe the spin from the Kerry and Lieberman folks.


http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/Statement_-_Economy_-_WSJ_-_We_Can_Do_Better.pdf?docID=1462

[AP]

4. I don't feel like that's a firm enough statement

First, I think it's revealing that he decides to use the Wall St Journal as his forum for making a statement about how he's going to create a climate for economic growth. Who are the rearders of the Journal? Some of the other candidates feel that the way to stimulate the economy has more to do with economic activities that take place far from Wall Street, and I doubt they'd use the WSJ as their forum for addressing the audience whose economic circumstances they intend to improve.

As for the one paragraph on tax reform, Dean does two things. He talks about the mess that is the tax code and says thaty he'll cut out tax breaks. The thing is, the "tax mess" language is the rhetoric most heard from those people who want to simplify the tax code in a way that makes it regressive, like flat-taxers. At best, Dean is using a conservative rhetoric to assuage the barbarians on Wall Street. At worst, he believes in it.

You look through some of the other Democrats' proposals, and their plans are loaded with special tax breaks, as they should be, in my mind. I believe that the tax code should start from an overall progressive foundation, and then should encourage socially valuable behavior (like educating your children and saving for retirement) through special tax breaks which benefit only the people who can use them the most (rather than as loopholes and shelters for people who don't need them). You can't have a fair tax system with credits and deductions for some people.

Granted, Dean does mention corporate abuses (briefly) and then makes the statement every democrat should make that his "tax reform" (and, significantly, he says 'reform' and not 'relief') should be "targeted at the average American struggling to make ends meet," and not the well-provided for (note, that he doesn't say the rich, leaving it open to interpretation who is well-provided for in America).

So, all things considered, I'd say this isn't firm enough. It can be interpreted as saying a lot of the right stuff, with a doff of the cap to the middle class and a wink at middle class tax relief, if not outright progressivity. Or it can be interpreted as a subtle message to Wall Street that there will still be money to be made if Dean becomes president (eg, he wont' be shifting tax burdens dramatically, and the government will be spending money on projects off of which Wall Street can get rich).

[AP]

10. Nobody wants to discuss this?

C'mon???

[sangha]

15. I'll expand on the tax "reform"

Simplifying the tax code is inherently unfair. Though the concept of simplicity is an attractive one, our tax code is complex for the simple reason that a simple tax code would be unfair. After all, what are you going to simplify/eliminate?

Tax rates? Simplified tax rates either are, or are close to, flat taxes, and that is as regressive as can be. Besides, taxes aren't complex because of the rates. All you have to do is look up your rate in a table. The complex part is determining your income, and your expenses, and your profits.

How and when do you have to realize and report income and profits? What's a legitimate expense? These sorts of decisions are made by various regulatory bodies, and are complex by nature. Given the wide range of transactions we engage in, it's impossible to make anything simple out of it.

Some would eliminate or reduce tax deductions and credits but IMO it's unfair to tax two people at the sane rate if one has huge medical bills while the other does not. And the same goes if one has a mortgage. After all, don't we want to encourage home ownership? When a person has invested their house, they have invested in their community.

We could get rid of business deductions, but even they serve a legitimate purpose. I know several people who have gotten small busines loans from the govt, and it does make a difference. Isn't this what our govt should be doing? And sure, you could just eliminate deductions like the three martini lunch, but then you haven't made the tax code any simpler. You've just changed the rules from "yes, you can" to "no, you can't"

At best, "simplifying" the tax code is empty political rhetoric, like cutting govt waste.

[AP]

16. Right on. I'm so down with that.

And I'd like to point out that Dean put this empty rhetoric of "simplifying" the tax code BEFORE he made any mention of tax burdens for hardworking middle class Americans (and he was only willing to say that he'd 'reform' their taxes, whatever that means).

[paulsbc]

19. this is completely wrong

and plays into the Republicans' hand, IMO.

simplifying the tax code and removing deductions is the true way to have a real progressive tax. The poor to middle class have very little to no deductions, the people that benefit from the deductions are those with the most money and, in particular, those with the most diverse ways of brining money in. For the truck driver making $30k/year on a W2, owning a small home with 2 kids, there is no deduction wizard they can do to reduce their taxes, they are what they are. For the truck company executive running the company, he can deduct mileage, meals, entertainment, computer and equipment costs, etc., etc and hide his income/expenses in the company. How is that fair?

The best, and most fair, tax code would be a simplified tax code that is progressive, but fixed. A fair percentage based on income from whatever source, with no corporate taxes, no tax deductions, no loopholes for what is or isn't "income", and a return to an understandable system that all Americans know and trust.

[AP]

20. If you believe this, you haven't been paying attention to the debate

over taxes for the last 40 years. Sangha has it exactly right. And if you want to see how that truck driver can benefit from credits and deductions, you need to look no further than the other Democratic candidates' tax plans.

[paulsbc]

21. in my example and

imho, the truck drive should pay no taxes, nor should he receive any government assistance.

what democratic plan has that simple concept? none.

and i've been paying attention to the debates, i just haven't been impressed by any level of detail by any candidate at this point, especially Dean's raise the tax on the people who can least afford to have their taxes raised...

[sangha]

24. Most of the Dems plans

would have their taxes at or close to zero

[paulsbc]

25. bullshit

dean's tax puts that person right back where they were last year.

[sangha]

27. Boy, you're awfully sensitive

try reading what I wrote. I said "most" Dems, not all. So you found one Dem you dont like. Join the club

[paulsbc]

29. so sorry

with all the Dean love on the board, I just made the wrong conclusion about your point, my apologies...

i will revise my statement to read "most, if not all, of the Democrat candidates today will still make a $40k/year, 2 children family pay more taxes than they should". how is that?

[sangha]

30. Not much better

Not only is it not true, but your plan is still both unsupported and unsupportable. Like a Republican politician, you promise a lot, but deliver nothing.

And then there are the blatant untruths, like how eliminating corporate taxes is "progressive"

[paulsbc]

35. basic economics

and you are getting it wrong. corporations should not pay taxes, period. there is no reason for a corporation to pay tax. none.

true progressive taxation comes when you progressively tax people MAKING MONEY. people make money, corporations do not. when a corporation makes a profit, who benefits? the corporation? it is a non-reality-entity. PEOPLE take the money. When they take the money, you tax the money, and you go it in a progressive way such that a $50 million /year CEO pays $25 million / year in taxes. Whether he gets a bonus, a stock grant/exercise, a divident check, or a salary makes no difference in my plans.

[sangha]

22. Not true

Middle class people with mortgages and/or high medical bills get big deductions, and complaining about tax deductions is not only the equivalent of being against crime, it's also been used as a cover to increase those tax deductions while eliminating the deductions that do help the middle class.

And there are plenty of middle-class people who are self-employed and have as much opportunity to cheat. And catching those who do is a matter of enforcement, and not relevant to the issue of complexity. Going after tax cheats does nothing to make the tax code more simple.

And your last paragraph is the most confused one. For one thing, there is no such thng as "fixed" legislation. Legislation can be repealed. Even constitutional amendments can be repealed. Nothing is permanently "fixed".

Even more absurd is saying that the elimination of corporate taxes is "progressive", specially after saying that I've played into the Republican's hands. All you manage to do is repeat Republican rhetoric of "loopholes", "simplification" (with it's hint of RNC "deregulation") and a "return" to something that never was.

[paulsbc]

23. i don't want a return to what was

unless you are talking back to the early days of the union, perhaps :)

corporate taxes are completely stupid, IMO, as all the do is force the business to push that cost onto their products and services, we end up paying one way or another, the massive 'hidden taxes'.

here is my solution. you repeal all corporate taxes. period. including FICA matching, etc. you take income from ANY source that an individual takes in, salary, stocks, bonds, interest, alimony, tips, whatever.

you make $0 - $40,000/year, you pay $0 in federal taxes. Nothing, nada, zip. No FICA, no Medicare, nothing. $0.

you make >= $40,000 < $70,000, you pay 20% of all monies >= $40,000. No deductions

you make >= $70,000 < $150,000 you pay 25% of all monies >= $70,000 + $14,000. No deductions

you make >= $150,000, you pay 50% of all monies > $150,000 + $20,000 + $14,000. No deductions.


No one pays any FICA, Medicare, Medicaid, whatever other federal tax you may pay now or what the government collects now. The government is then forced, BY LAW, to spend only within the monies taken in from the previous year's figures. No estimating future income 'potential' based on rosey figures, polices, etc., etc. Live within the means.

This structure is fair and would allow for single payer health care for all Americans, would allow for a safety net of jobs and unemployment should a person need it, and would allow funding of government programs at a sufficient level for the military and other spending (which should be cut in many areas, truthfully, especially foriegn aid to countries like Isreal...)

[sangha]

26. That's a very simplistic economic argument

that no one knowlegeable in economics would dare use.

corporate taxes are completely stupid, IMO, as all the do is force the business to push that cost onto their products and services, we end up paying one way or another, the massive 'hidden taxes'.

For one thing, there's nothing "hidden" about it. The income taxes a self-employed worker, or a small unincorporated business pays is just as "hidden". Also, you have the choice of not paying that so-called "hidden" tax by simply not buying the product. Finally, businesses aren't free to raise their prices as they see fit. There's a little thing called competition.

And your claim of lower, simpler taxes with ample benefits has an all too familiar ring. Could it be what Bush* was saying in 2000?

[paulsbc]

28. Bush is a moron

and doesn't realize what he is saying 1/2 the time, just like more Republicans that don't know shit about economics and true fair taxation.

as for your "knowledgable in economics" line, i'll ignore that and attempt to debate on the issue, should you care to continue showing me your "superior knowledge"... To date, your example of the "simply not buying the product" and "competition" misses the entire point and argument, doesn't refute the facts in the least, and attempts a typical taxation ploy that doesn't wash. Feel free to try again, if you'd like.

[sangha]

31. But your plan is the same as his

Tax cuts for the middle class, no corporate taxes, and plenty of cash left to pay for everything.

And as far as the theory goes, one doesn't need to be an expert to realize that corporations can't just raise their prices whenever they feel the need. Their unincorporated competitors don't pay those corporate taxes, and if the corps raise their prices, their competition will eat their lunch.

[paulsbc]

34. what?

show me the 50% tax rate please in Bush's plan...

show me the $0 in taxes under Bush's plan or any Dem plan for that matter. show me the specific tax rates that ANY Dem is pushing for, it won't stack up to mine.

Corporations do not really pay taxes, they pass the cost on. if you can't figure out this basic tenet of taxation, you aren't very knowledgable about how business operates.

There is no need to tax GM. There is a HUGE need to make sure that if GM pays the CEO $50 million or that CEO makes $50 million on stock options, that the CEO should pay close to $25million in taxes to the government. My plan accomplishes that, and is gauranteed to accomplish that. What does the CEO pay in YOUR PLANS or any other plan out there today, by Bush or any Dem candidate??

[wuushew]

36. There is a limit to the degree that corporations can pass on costs

Higher corporate taxes have the effect of spuring internal investment which is good.


Also if corporate taxes are so dangerous why doesn't Europe resemble an economic wasteland?

[stickdog]

38. No. Some corporate taxes are passed on to American consumers and

some are not.

[AP]

42. The "corporations pass on taxes argument" (which McClintock repeated

in the CA recall debate) is such BS.

One reason is that the logic of it should apply to individuals too. If I'm being taxed to harshly, I should be able to pass on my desire for more profits to the person buying what I'm selling. I should be able to go to my employer and say my profit margin isn't high enough, so I'm going to sell my labor at higher price.

So what if corporations pass their taxes on to consumers. Employees, or the self-employed, or whomever, should be able to do the same damn thing. And the truth is that the marketplace dictates prices and profits as mush as anything, whether it's the labor market, or the market for goods.

And the real issue is that money has to be taxed where it changes hands. If you stop taxing it someplace where it changes hands (whether its earned income, corporate income, or whatever) you'll see that the rich and powerful will transfer money that way.

So if you have no or low corporate taxes, and then throw in low dividend income taxes, while you then leave earned income rates high, you'll see that a lot of income will change hands by being earned by a corporation and then paid out as dividend income. DUH! Meanwhile, the poor will continue to be employed and pay high rates on earned income.

[paulsbc]

56. did you read what i posted?

all income is taxes at the same rate, if a corporation pays a dividend, it is taxed as income, just like a salary, or a stock optino exercise and sale, or any othe mechanism which increases your take home

your "so what if corporations passes taxes on to consumers" shows that you at least understand that it happens, the next step is to understand that it doesn't NEED to happen, and a much fairer, and simplified tax system can be created.

[AP]

65. Uh, corporate income needs to be taxed. If it weren't,

corporations wouldn't pay out dividends or salaries anymore. You just form a corporation and cash a check written by another corporation in exchange for some de minimus service. All money would pass that way, and nothing would ever get taxed.

Listen carefully: the key to tax law is that all money gets taxed a little where it changes hands. If you don't tax it even in one little form, then ALL money will start changing hands in the untaxed form. Do you have any idea how much wealth is going to change hands by wills over the next few years? It'll be a ton.

If corporations didn't pay any income tax, I predict that 70% of all wealth would change hands that way.

And, in fact, the de facto rate of taxation on corporate income is about 2-3% (despite top rates of over 30% which almost 90% of corporate income must fall into). And at least they have their behavior slightly modified by the fact they have to come up with quasi-legitimate deductions and credits to achieve that.

If you didn't tax it at all, they wouldn't even bother with credits like, oh, say, pension plans for their employees, or, say, health care plans, or perhaps, raises for workers.

Do you want to rethink your proposal?

[paulsbc]

68. wrong

people have to take the money, the corporation can't pay for the house, the car, the vacation, the golf membership, etc., etc. without reporting it as income for the corporate person. wills and inhertience is taxes as it is income under my plan.

so, no, i'm not 'rethinking' my proposal, as you haven't said anything that would require that. you need to wake up and realize how my plan simplifies the issue, and makes everyone pay their fair share WITHOUT LOOPHOLES! The government would CLOSE all the loopholes you mention, should the exist, and require compliance with the laws by corporations.

your "plan" is the status quo, and the status quo sucks ass.

[AP]

73. You don't know what you're talking about. Listen:

If corporate income weren't taxed, and dividend inocme were taxed at 15%, three things would happen:

- all the behaviour corps engage in for tax benefits (like pay out their profits in salary) would disappear because there'd be no need to write off anything from corproate income, and

- corporation would just pay out their profits to shareholders in dividends, whieh are now (I believe) taxed at a lower rate than the lowest personal income rate,

- partnerships would disappear overnight. Everyone would engage in professional activities as corporations. In fact, individuals would form personal service corporations, have their salaries paid to the corporation, and they'd take out money in the form of dividend payments. So little money would be cirulated in any other form, and the few people left paying income tax would have to take on the full burden of paying for the government (until they inevitably raised sales tax, which would kill the middle and working class too).

[stickdog]

37. Exactly! Every loophole and accountancy trick serves the greater good

of all mankind.

I say let's make the tax code far more complicated and therefore far more acceptable to the truly liberal minded!

[dsc]

47. Why should I pay more simply because I rent?

Due to a variety of circumstances, many my fault, other not my fault, there is no way I can afford to buy a house. Thus you are taxing me at a higher rate than I otherwise would have to pay to cut Bill Gates' taxes. On what planet is that fair taxation?

[AP]

49. Becaue it's good to encourage home ownership in America.

You're not being penalized. Home ownership is being encouraged. If you were treated uh, 'fairly' in your mind, we'd have a society that totally rewarded large property owners and discourage the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the middle class in the form of property ownership.

[dsc]

52. Yes I am being penalized

There are x dollars needed to run the government. Those x dollars have to come from the tax payers. If you cut person A's taxes (homeowners) then person B (renter) has to take up the slack. I am paying more so Gates can pay less. It is that simple.

[AP]

60. Encouraging home ownership creates more wealth. Trust me.

It creates wealth among the middle class.

Encouraging renting creates wealth for people who can afford to buy rental properties, and companies which own condos and apartment buildings.

The economy does better when you give wealth to the middle class rather than sending up the wealth ladder. (John Meynard Keynes.)

[dsc]

72. even if you are right

Over and over again you have chastized me for looking at broader effects of less progressive tax policies than you expouse. Here you are advocating exactly that approach. No matter what economic activity this break may encourage as a matter of just looking at the taxes colllected it is regressive. In all honesty I don't have much problem with this break but using your standard you should.

[AP]

74. I've said elsewhere that I believe that the tax code should

start with a progressive foundation, and then it should be filled with credits and deductions which promote socially valuable behavior.

Home ownership is sociall valuable.

In any event here's nothing terribly regressive about tax breaks for mortgage payments. Rich people tend to take out smaller mortgages than poor people. They tend to roll over the profit from their previous home into their new home.

The bad thing about these tax breaks, is they tend to encourage people to take on more debt than they can handle, and create profit for banks in the process, but the solution to that is better regulation of the lending industry, and, perhaps finetuning the law -- but you wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Encouraging home ownership is good.

I think I'm being consistent here.

[redeye]

57. Why?

What if I don't want to own a home? And what if I think that owning a home ties me down in a way I don't want to be tied down?

[AP]

62. Don't be tied down if you don't want to be. But please be smart.

read my reply to the post just above.

[AP]

17. Oops. Just caught a couple mistakes

I meant to say:

You can't have a fair tax system withOUT credits and deductions for some people.

(and if I could edit a few other things, I would...I was on the way out the door and in a big hurry when I wrote that, ugh!)

Another point: We should be REFORMING the way we tax big businesses/rich individuals, and, we should be RELIEVING hard working regualar Americans of their huge tax burdn.

[plindner]

5. Hold your horses...

His statement today shows what is to come..

We need to lead the country in a whole new direction with economic
policies that lift Americans up, not tax cuts that trickle down.
Most important, these 93,000 Americans and the three million others
who have lost their jobs under George Bush deserve a better deal.
They need a president who will balance the budget, make taxes
simpler for working Americans, and invest in creating jobs again.

"make taxes simple".. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[AP]

6. My problem isn't a balanced budget and simpler taxes.

My problem is a deficit that's a give away to the rich rather than an investment in the future, and it's financed by a tax code which shoves the entire burden down to the middle and working class.

Improve the economy and the defecit will shrink. Improve the economy by taking the yolk of regressive taxation, and privatized public monopoly pricing of energy, and ridiculous debt off the middle class. Give them a chance to work, start businesses, and educate themselves. Stop treating people like they're profit machines for huge corporations. Stop giving all my money to rich corporations and the rich people who run them.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi plindner!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[w4rma]

13. "make taxes simple"

If Dean could better streamline our tax system, that would be worth electing him right there.

Our tax code is so complicated you need an accounting degree and a law degree to understand some parts of it. (Which is good for money launderers, btw)

[AP]

14. This is a right wing mantra, usually used to justify a flat tax

If you don't have deductions, use the 1040-X. Nothing could be simpler. If you have deductions, there aren't many other ways for a middle class person to make 2 or 3 thousand dollars in 2 hours, so you'd be stupid to want to get rid of deductions and credits.

[w4rma]

32. Do you have *anything* good to say about Edwards, AP? (n/t)

[AP]

45. I cared about progressive taxation long before I knew who Edwards was

and, man, does he understand progressive taxation. Have you read Real Solutions for America??

[redeye]

58. Flat or proportional? There's a very big difference

And besides, taxes can be both simple and progressive.

[AP]

66. Dean doesn't mention 'progressive' at all, and, sure, taxes

can be simple and progressive. However, did you read sangha's post above? They're the MOST fair and MOST progressive when you target breaks and credits for people who need them the most.

[wuushew]

7. I wish Dean adopted Kerry's tax plan

Kerry has a lot good things to say on a variety of topics, too bad he is warmonger

[ModerateMiddle]

12. Yes, of course a President Kerry

would have taken us to war in Iraq.

:eyes:

[redeye]

59. Sure he would

He voted as if everything Bush said was true, so I presume he'd have done the same had he been the president.

[ModerateMiddle]

11. I agree in principle but not on your percentages

You don't need to hit the top 30%. Kerry is in favor of repealing only those tax cuts that effected folks earning over $200,000 as an individual.

[AP]

18. Why isn't anyone trying to defend Dean???

Are the Dean fans losing their appetite for defending Dean, or I they just hoping that, if they ignore this problem it will go away?

(I'm talking about the longer posts up above -- the thread with Sangha's post.)

[w4rma]

33. It's been defended. There really isn't much to say.

Dean wants to repeal *all* of Bush's tax cuts and use about 1/3 of the money for universal health insurance which will give more resources to the middle and lower classes than all of Bush's tax cuts do. And we are running a deficit, so the rest of the money will go to balance the budget and/or pay down the deficit to prevent future generations from having to pay higher taxes to pay it down.

That's it. Nothing more to say. That's the whole argument.

[AP]

40. Why isn't Dean on board with progressive taxation?

That's the issue here.

[dsc]

48. He is and you know that

but I have pointed this out many times, and yes in posts you have responded to. Clinton's rates, the very same rates that Dean wishes to bring back, gave us the following three things simultaniously: high enough growth that we had 'full' employment and real wage increases, low interest rates, low deficits (which became surplusses). If we don't take enough in, in taxes and thus run high deficits we can't have both high growth and low interest rates. If you don't believe me look at history. With the exception of the immediate aftermath of WW2 you can't find a time when we had high debt, low interest rates, and high growth rates. And that had the most pent up demand in history plus heavy handed government action on rates which would be utterly impossibe today.

The typical home owner (150k mortgage) sees an increase of over $2000 a year when rates go up by just 1.5%. In addition that homeowner gets nothing for it. Balancing the budget, which is what Clinton did, was the biggest tax cut the middle class has gotten in the history of the universe. And it cost the government not one red cent. The middle class and poor did better under Clinton than under any President since Johnson. Returning to that record is about as good an idea as I can think of.

Edit alterted title to reflect post I was responding to.

[AP]

50. Dean wants rates a Republican congress approved? This is his opportunity

to argue for what he really wants. Does he really want to settle for something that was the result of compromise, or does he want real progressivity.

[dsc]

51. You need to learn basic facts

Clinton's tax plan was passed in 1993 by a DEMOCRATIC House and a DEMOCRATIC Senate. He got not one, single, solitary, vote by any Republican. This is a basic matter of public record. Gore broke the tie in the Senate. To call it a compromise with Republlicans is baldy, totally, utterly and completly revisionist history. You should know better.

[AP]

55. Tax code is made up of new legislation every year. Was '93 the

year that Clinton added new brackets? That was about the last progressive thing that happened to the tax code. Republicans took over congress, and that was the end of it. In fact, in 97 or 98 when LTCG got new lower rates, one could say that progressivity went out the window.

The budget battle of 1993 was not the last time a tax law passed in America up to 2001.

You need to get some facts, dsc.

[redeye]

61. Define "progressive"

Most economists define that as a tax that gets higher as a portion of one's income as the income itself increases, as opposed to a proportional tax (same portion) or a regressive tax (lower portion the higher one's income is). In theory, a proportional tax on everything above the first 500 dollars a year is proportional, too.

[AP]

64. Progressive taxation takes into account the fact that

your value of an additional dollar is a function of how many dollars you already have.

To equalize the tax burden, the tax rate has to reflect that fact. That's why we have different marginal rates for people with different total (earned) income levels.

Fact is, the value of an additional dollar doesn't remain steady for all income over 300K (which is where the tax code thinks it stops). The way the tax code works, the richer you get over 300K earned income per year, the lighter your tax burden. (And forget about unearned income -- dividends and LTCG and CG are all taxed at flat rates now, which is totally regressive, and a big boon to people who get their income that way -- and those are people how were super rich and already benefitting from from the flatness of the top rate band.) And don't even get me started on corporate tax. The effective rate of taxation for corporate income for businesses ranging from 1 million to infinity annual income ranges from the startlingly low 2% to a high of 3%. If that ain't defacto flat, I don't know what is (and we wonder why huge corporations are running America.)

[stickdog]

39. Because it's bullshit.

Everything was just fine under Clinton.

Perhaps the middle class could have gotten a modest tax break, but the money would have been better used to shore up social security, invest in the US infrastructure, help wean the nation from its oil addiction and, most importantly, get healthcare costs and the huge uninsured population under control.

Better to roll back all tax cuts and then tax inheritances and the top 2% MORE if we need to. Bush has bankrupted us but good.

Bribing people for their votes with a pittance is a Republican strategy. And with the mess Bush will be leaving to his successor, we won't be able to afford it.

[AP]

43. Clinton's tax code was definitely not progressive enough, and he

would have improved it had Congress not been controlled by Republicans. Why does Dean prefer a tax plan that was satisfactory to a Republican Congress? I understand being realistic about what you can get. However, I'd hope the candidates would aim higher -- that they'd aime for a more progressive tax code.

[dsc]

53. You are baldly wrong as I stated above

Clinton's tax plan was passed with 0 Republican votes and by a Democratic Cognress in 93.

[AP]

54. That was the budget battle for FY 94. The tax code is something else

that evolves every year. I believe it was 1997 when a Republican Congress passed a new rate for capital gains which meant that the rich would receive a huge percentage of their annual income taxed at a rate almost as low as the lowest earned income rate. That, along with many other regressive taxes, were pushed through by Republicans in congress.

[dsc]

71. Yes and no

Only certain kinds of capital gains were covered and they had to be held for long periods of time. Both of those cut the regressivity. The types were houses and stocks and the length meant that many of the gains were inflation based. While I still would have opposed it it didn't do what you are saying and in no way did it undo Clinton's taxes.

[AP]

75. One progressive achievement in 93, negated by rapid rise in incomes for...

rich by 2000. I bet by 2000 more people were in the higher bracket (and farther out from the bottom of the bracket) than there were in the highest bracket in 92, thus negating the degree of progressivity achieved by adding the new brackets.

However, the regressivity barbarians have numerous achievements, the LTCG reduction being a big one.

DSC, do you remeber how people started getting paid huge sums beginning in, oh, about 1998? Stock options ring a bell? You know what that long period of time was that you had to hold these assets? ONE FUCKING YEAR.

That meant rich people were gettting paid in stock options valued on the day they vested, then they got Arthur Anderson to help them lie about the value of their company for 366 days, and then they sold their options, paying a rate of taxation lower than the tax rate paid by their companies' janitors.

Yes, that's regressivity for you.

[poskonig]

41. HE SHOULDN'T! Look at the polling data!

When voters are given a choice between health care and the Bush tax cut, the numbers are 65/25 in our favor everytime.

In addition, when voters are asked if there should be more money spent on health care, even if it means RAISING TAXES, the numbers are the same, 65/25. Go to pollingreport.com if you don't believe me.

This is a *massive* advantage we just cannot throw away. If there is trouble, Dean should always bring up health care, and occasionally the more important cost of Iraq.

[AP]

44. This isn't an _either_ health care _or_ Bush tax cuts question.

This is opportunity for the candidates to talk about their vision for taxes. You can have progressive taxation, a more competitive larger economy, and a better funded social safety net (including health care).

However, Dean is talking about 'reform' rather than redistribution of the tax burden in a more progressive manner. Why?

[poskonig]

63. It is a "flush the federal government down the toilet" question.

The Republican ideologues are using the tax cuts and the war to bankrupt medicare and social security.

Something has to give; I'm siding with Dean with social security and medicare.

[AP]

67. Did you read the Krugman interview at liberaloasis.com?

The economy is in such a whole that not giving these tax breaks to the middle class isn't going to plug the gap at all. And, considering that, it's strange that Dean would take a stand against something I see as super-critical, considering the upside isn't very big.

You have to wonder, who's this guy running for? The upper-income, white, privileged anti-war liberal, or the coalition that Democrats like FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton put together -- working and middle class people of all races who are just trying to get ahead on a level playing field.

Krugman said that the democrat should be talking about what they're going to do to make the economy grow, rather than whether they're going to keep these breaks for the middle class. Krugman said the tax code can stand to be more progressive.

I say a progressive tax is going to be part of the recipe for a growing economy. It will give more middle and working class people more economic power, and therefore more opprotunities, and more political power.

[salin]

46. Has anyone read Franken's most recent book - chapter (play)

about Ws tax plans? Waitress and Tax Lawyer?

The Tax Lawyer very clearly shows the Waitress that her tax cut is meager (under $400), but the cuts in services cost her a great deal more. In the end the waitress is much further in the hole due to the tax cut.

Nonsequitor: Regarding using the $ saved for healthcare (universal - not just care for those who are not insured) - imagine the difference in wages for many jobs - if the employers were not footing the escalating costs of health insurance? I believe that in the next ten year more business interests will be pushing for larger scale health/insurance reforms (even possibly universal coverage) for this very reason.

[jafap]

69. I have said the same thing many times

but I use the 20-80 split, which is, of course, nothing but an edjumacated guess. It says that if you reverse the tax cut for the top 20% you get 80% of the money back. Conversely, you have 80% of the population who are potentially not going to dislike you for raising their taxes.
For example, Bush's first tax cut created the 10% tax bracket for the first $5,000 of taxable income. This saves $300 for everyone from Bill Gates to the average truck driver. On the other hand the reduction of the top rate from 39% to 33% saves people like Mr. $100 million Nike-boy about $5 million.
It is pretty easy to explain the cut-off since the tax brackets are well established - for a single person only the TI over $297,350 is taxed at the top rate. So a struggling "middle class" person making a TI of $350,000 is not going to lose all of his/her tax cut only the last $3,159 (6% of the amount over $297,350).
The top 20% probably is those incomes above TI $66,550 which is basically the top three tax brackets. Once again, remember that a TI of $68,000 does not lose all of their tax cut under the JAFAP plan, they only lose the amount over $66,550.
Why antagonise people by costing them money. Even someone at my income level ($13,000) is not seeing alot of government services. So you will have a hard sell explaining to my siblings that they have lost more in services than they have gained in tax cuts.

[Larkspur]

70. As a member of the working class, I didn't get a tax cut

I'm single and child-free. I pay higher taxes porportionally than married filing jointly and single heads of house holds.

I didn't get a tax cut, but my property and state income taxes are being raised because the federal grants to states and localities have been reduced or cut entirely.

So for Dean to repeal ALL of Bush's tax cuts, would most likely be a big help to me and could help reduce my property tax burden by giving more to states and localities.