Clark wants to eliminates taxes for earners with less than 50K earnings!

[cryofan]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Kerry vs tax cuts for the middle class
He questioned whether Clark's plan, unveiled this week, to eliminate taxes on people earning less than $50,000 a year "kind of excuses them from a sense of responsibility for the country."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A63270-2004Jan7&am

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

I really cannot understand why people are not flocking to Clark. This guy wants to shift the taxpaying burden back onto the upper class, where it used to be decades ago.

Why is this aspect of Clark's tax plan not more well known?

[Ruti]

1. Although I have visited each of the

candidates' sites, I recently received an email showing each of their positions side by side.

I don't see why anyone could prefer anyone over Clark after going down the list!

[AP]

7. I would say about clark's,

I'd rather see regressive taxes (like sales taxes and federal and state license fees and things like that) go before I saw a progressive tax like the income tax disappear, even on the middle class.

Also, there should be some distinction about where that income comes from. It should be earned income up to 50,000 which is tax free, if any income is going to be tax free. Rich people will shelter income by having several kids and giving them assets, like stocks, and letting them realize the income up to 50K tax free.

Does Clark address this?

[bearfartinthewoods]

28. the title is UNTRUE

clark will retain income tax on singles and couples without children.

only people with children under 50 grand will pay nothing. everyone else will still pay.

[PVnRT]

31. That's nice, a tax penalty for those with no children

n/t

[thebgrkng]

Ummm

There are actually expanded tax breaks for people without kids. But even ingoring those; Those with no children would stay the same, so where is the penalty?

-TheBgrKng

[thebgrkng]

51. Ummm

There are actually expanded tax breaks for people without kids. But even ingoring those; Those with no children would stay the same, so where is the penalty?

-TheBgrKng

[Guaranteed]

2. How can you manage a federal budget if you

give away that much money? That's an ENORMOUS amount of money that the feds would lose.

[robbedvoter]

3. It all comes from the extra 5% rich people will pay over their 1 million

and probably some corporate loopholes as well. It's calculated so as not to ass one cent to the deficit. I don't know accounting, but my candidate didn't lie to me about anything, so I believe him.

[OKNancy]

4. Because we are going to tax the shit out of the rich

people like every progressive wants...
and cut the Pentagon budget as only Clark could do.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

10. Taxing the shit out of the rich...

Does appeal to my visceral side. If nothing else, it will get them to put their money in investments and keep them there. I would also recommend that they be made to invest the largest amount in the USA. Taking away the tax breaks and credits of companies that get them to create jobs, but send jobs overseas, should happen too. Make them share the pain.

Cutting the Pentagon's bloated budget appeals to my intellectual side. As I read the other day, incredible amounts are line-item'ed as "Miscellaneous", IE: Discretionary Funds. Play money for generals and colonels to play with. THAT racket needs to be busted up yesterday.

That is why I could comfortably vote for him, as well as Dean and Kerry. Each brings something I can live with to the table.

Note: I also happen to think that Kucinich is an incredibly good man who has put so much that is good on the table of this election cycle. It is too bad that he hasn't gotten his due from the media. But that is not the least bit surprising.

[AP]

11. It's not that taxpayer is rich that matters, it's HOW they got rich.

People who got rich working hard shouldn't have the shit taxed out of them. They contributed to society. They deserve the rewards. People who didn't work at all to get rich need to have a little more of the shit taxed out of them.

Incidentally, Dean has received most of the income he's gotten in his life in the form of gifts from his parents and, no doubt, inheritance. After about 20 years of working, he has amassed a net wealth of at least 4 million bucks. He and his wife have never mead more than about 185K in any one year, and that year was very recently.

Yet Dean has the least interest of all the candidates in giving a tax break to middle class people who work for a living and for most of the wealth they receive (unlike Dean) which would be covered by raising taxes on people who don't work for a living for the bulk of their wealth (people, perhaps, like Dean).

[EstimatedProphet]

29. No

Taxing isn't a punishment. It's a commission. The more money you make, the more taxes go with it.

For too long, the rich have been getting away with not paying their fees. It's time to make them own up to the fact that they use government too. Maybe they only use roads and schools as much as everyone else, but the government is a lot bigger than that. What about the court system? The rich and corporations by far use the court system more than the poor.

In the end, it all comes down to this in my opinion: if you need water, you don't go to the desert. Why go to the poor for taxes?

[AP]

56. No. I'm right.

It's about both. Yes, the more money you make, the more you should be expected to pay on an additional dollar relative to someone who has fewer dollars because you have a lower valuation of that dollar.

However, the tax code is all about encouraging certain activities and encouragin others. Unfortunately, Republicans have turned into one that makes socially valuable, economicall productive activities more expensive and less valuable individually through the tax code.

So, as I said, don't just allocate the burden on the wealthies. Take the burden off the activities that are sociall valuable by, for example, taxing cap gains at at least the same rate as earned income.

[thebgrkng]

30. It's a winning way to do it....

Edwards plan is fine from an idealistic side. But it will never get passed in a Rep Congress. (I think it would be tough even in a close dem congress).

The main problem with it is it has a nebulous us vs. them. capitol gains and estate taxes are limited to the uber rich, and the republicans will take advantage of that to cloud the issue and convince small business owners and family farmers that they will be screwed.

Clarks plan is a winner cause it sets up a clear us vs. them. Us is 99.9% of America. Thats a powerful Us. Do you make less then a million dollars? your taxes will stay the same or go down. If you are uber rich they will go up.

-TheBgrKng

[AP]

58. Edwards plan will definitely pass congress. He's the only candidate I've

seen get heads to nod when he talks about taxes. Heads nodding translates to pressure on Senators and Congresspeople to act.

[thebgrkng]

60. Agree to disagree there...

The fact that the Dems couldnt even keep the estate tax for the highest 0.5% tells me that its too clouded an issue. I don't see it passing with no control of Congress. And i don't see it as an issue clear enough to help win seats in congress.

I do like Edwards plan, I also love the Chicago Bears =)
But if i really needed a win, I wouldnt bet on Chicago.

Clarks plan will do great things for the Democratic party.

I have to say, I am a left-leaning independent who was drawn to Clark for his FP experience and what i feel is his intellectual integrity and fair-mindedness; but his tax-plan is the most exciting idea I have seen in the whole election. (And it won't even affect me)

-TheBgrKng

[quaker bill]

43. I know taxes are only just

when they come from people we don't know.

[AP]

57. I make money from both sources of income -- earned and unearned and I

have no problem saying that the income on labor should at least be taxed at the same rate as the income that isn't earned.

I want a society that doesn't discourage labor.

[Skwmom]

9. He's going to tax people making over a million

an additional 5%.

[meow mix]

23. he'll let me keep my 14 dollars of min. wage tax

by taking a couple hundred from someone with entirely too much money.
sounds good to me!

[AP]

5. Dean supporters who say we desperately need to rescind the middle class

tax cuts...how do your respond to this?

This is just about the median income in America. So, it's obviously going to result in people whom you think need to pay more in taxes not just pay a little less (304 bucks on average). It means they're going to pay NO taxes. If Clark is right (and I think he is) then Dean supporters really have to detest this plan.

Incidentally, people should know that corporations pay less than half of all of federal income tax collected. They pay about 20% of ALL tax burden (which would include things like excise taxes and license fees for corps, and sales tax and license taxes for individuals, and property taxes for both).

Corporations pay an effective rate of approximately 3% on corporate income, and it's realtively flat too. Ie., bottom third pay effective rate of about 2% and top third pay effective rate of about 3%.

If you had an alternative minimum income tax on corporations of 6%, you could eliminate personal income tax completely (of course, you wouldn't want a flat rate -- you'd want a progressive rate, because you wouldn't want to give super large corporatons an effectively lower rate than small corporations -- and, ideally, you'd want to eliminate regressive sales taxes and property taxes before you eliminate progressive income tax, even on the middle class).

So, Clark's not crazy.

[quaker bill]

41. You still don't get it

It is the deficit we need to eliminate. Clark's plan is no different than the rest, well perhaps a bit worse than some. His plan may be more progressive than some but it is still revenue neutral.

The poor don't pay income tax. So this plan will be of no assistance to them. The poor do pay payroll tax at 7.5 percent from the first dollar earned. Because payroll taxes generate a surplus over current entitled benefits, the remainder is stolen to finance the general revenue (income tax) deficit.

It is wrong to subsidize a tax cut for people earning 50K by stealing the payroll tax of those making minimum wage. Now if the plan supported eliminating the payroll tax on the poor by being a bit more moderate on tax relief for the middle class, I might be able to get behind it.

Bottom line is that we will never win the tax cut debate during the GE anyway. Bush will simply outbid us regardless of the consequences. If the debate is about who is more comitted to lowering taxes, Bush will win because there is 20 years of evidence to back him up on this.

[AP]

59. You still haven't won this argument.

[HereSince1628]

6. That has less life-expectancy at birth than the "flat-tax"

Tax-talk and coffee on a cold January morning, the tradition warms me.

[thebgrkng]

53. Flat tax hurts poor people

This hurts rich people
There are a lot more poor/middle/lower-upper people than rich people.

The flat tax should be the example to look at to see why this is such a good idea.

-TheBgrKng

[arewethereyet]

8. I want my hair to come back, ain't gonna happen

his tax proposal has zero chance.

And if he doesn't know this is this who we need to run ?

[JohnnyFianna1]

12. Warning this information comes from the Wall Street Journal

People making under $50000 (according to wall street journal) pay for only 4% of the government. People making over 100000 pay for over 50% of the government. BY increasing their taxes 5% Clark would actually get a surplus!!

[arewethereyet]

14. thats very true

but increasing their taxes 5% has even less chance of happening in a Republican Congress.

[cryofan]

15. But if you want to get something done, first you have to ....

....say what you want to do. If you never state your plan, you never get it done. And hasn't anyone here ever heard of taking a bargaining position?

[arewethereyet]

19. what does he bargain with ?

this implies give and take and he has nothing to give

[thebgrkng]

36. His plan is the most winning

See post 30. (The main point is he defines the Us's and the Them's very clearly)

A lot of people do not vote in their best interest because they are tricked into not understanding the differences between us and them.

Us: 99.9% of Americans
Them: 0.1% of Americans

Americans won't be confused which side they are on. If you make less than 1 million dollars you are US, if you are uber rich you are THEM.

Its the plan that will not only win us the White House but will win us House and Senate seats all across the country.

-TheBgrKng

[AbbeyRoad]

13. Well...

Why is this aspect of Clark's tax plan not more well known?

I think part of this could be attributable to the fact that the mainstream media is more obsessed by Michael Moore pointing out Bush's absence from the National Guard and pretty shiny objects like Bennifer.

[newyawker99]

21. Hi AbbeyRoad!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AbbeyRoad]

24. Thanks, newyawker99.

:D

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. Welcome to DU, AbbeyRoad!

Nice to have another Clark supporter on board! :hi:

[mvd]

38. Welcome to DU

:toast:

[dusty64]

16. I thought that

only applied to those who have reproduced, all others need not apply. I really do like Clark, but not at all wild about that tax plan.

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. I have a child and the

Clark tax plan doesn't help me either. It's not just "childless" people or singles who won't get any money. Our taxes won't change. Period. The POOR people in this country need help. I don't begrudge them that.

"A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats"

[AbbeyRoad]

37. Those who don't have kids...

I don't have kids either, so I thought it might not benefit me either so I looked at the pdf of his proposal and found this:

"And tax breaks for 3.2 million poor childless workers, which can be used to defray
payroll taxes and work-related expenses."

AND

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

I'd like the proposal even if this wasn't in it, because I think these people deserve a meaningful break.

[TeacherCreature]

17. That's crazy

I am sorry, but BAD idea.

[thebgrkng]

44. Why?

Its not bad, its the best plan out there.
-TheBgrKng

[creativelcro]

18. That seems excessive to me...

It would have to be adjusted by cost of living, at minimum. Somebody with 50k can barely make in in MA, but would do well in other parts of the country...

[NNN0LHI]

20. It all depends on your definition of "do well" I think? n/t

[dsc]

22. No he doesn't

I make vastly less than that and will still pay taxes. You shouldn't have posted that headline.

[adamrsilva]

27. Clark will get attacked for this by both Republicans and Democrats

"Shouldn't everyone pay taxes?"

[thebgrkng]

46. He answers that gracefully

They do
payroll taxes
state taxes
property taxes
sales taxes
Lower income earners also make up the majority of the military and fight and die for America. So Clark challenges you to say they arent pulling their share.

'You flush the toilet and you are taaaaaxed' - Ahnold S

-TheBgrKng

[AntiCoup2K4]

32. The only way taxes under 50K could ever be eliminated....

...is if the rich had to pay every last penny of their taxes, and that's never gonna happen unless we remove the entire corporate bullshit from politics first. Not to mention all the waste in defesne spending would have to be eliminated so there would be no deficit as a result.

[knight_of_the_star]

34. He will do that

He has said repeatedly that he will slash 25% of the Pentagon's budget. The only other candidate who has said he will take a meataxe to the DoD is Kuicinich, and which of the two do you think will be able to effectively pull it off?

[shivaji]

33. And how does he propose to PAY for this giveaway??

Or is it one of his EVERCHANGING position flip-flop again?

[thebgrkng]

39. Read the plan...

...or at least have some vague idea what the plan is.

You can find it at http://www.clark04.com

TheBgrKng

[AbbeyRoad]

40. The plan is...

"The plan will provide poverty-reducing relief and middle-class-tax-burden reduction of $33
billion annually. This will be paid for without increasing the deficit by:
o Shifting the burden to those who can most afford it—a 5 percentage point rate increase
only on income over $1 million per year. This increase, which can be used only for
working families’ tax relief, will not apply to the first $1 million of income or to any
capital gains. It will not affect 99.9 percent of taxpayers.
o Closing corporate loopholes, including the one that costs America jobs by giving
companies a tax break for moving their headquarters overseas."

http://clark04.com/downloads/pdf/Clark04_TaxReform.pdf

[mvd]

35. While I'd certainly like to sigificantly reduce taxes on that group..

I think that income level goes a little high for NO taxes. I think Clark would be better off wanting to cut taxes by half for incomes $100,000 and below, and wanting to raise taxes on the top 2% by 10-15%.

[thebgrkng]

42. And you think Clark is bold...

heh =)

I've read that a Fam of four already doesnt pay any if they are making up to early 40's. He has just bumped it up to a nice round 50k. (And got rid of the filing)

He has projected raising taxes on 0.1% of the population by 5% People making over a million dollars will pay an extra 5% on their taxes.

The top 2% of Americans are people making over 200k. we will lose and lose big trying to make people who make over 200k pay 10-15% more in federal taxes.

-TheBgrKng

[mvd]

45. Good ideas are not always popular

Why not try to get them popular? You are right that maybe my 2% should be 1%, though.

[thebgrkng]

47. A couple things

It really comes back to the US vs. THEM idea. Right now we dont control any branch of the govt. We need a crystal clear US vs. THEM so people can't be tricked into think that THEM represents their best interest.

Once we have more people with US and that trust US to look out for US, then we can work to shore up other tax inequities. (like bring the estate tax back for the top 1-2%, though ive read when it was going down the Dems would have been happy keeping it for the top 0.5%

-TheBgrKng

[mvd]

48. Well, we can take it in steps

But I still wouldn't abandon my idea if I was running.

[thebgrkng]

49. Clarks is the best first step.

Because it will get people on our side. The poor people that ALL the Dem candidates talk about will realize that they are better served looking out for a candidate that protects 99.9% of America, rather than a candidate that looks out for his richest campaign donors.

-TheBgrKng

[mvd]

50. I like his idea

But I still think that he should talk about a bigger plan.

[thebgrkng]

52. The Dem's have bad credit on taxes...

There are a lot of skeptics who believe for whatever reason that Democrats live and breath to tax people. We have to proceed carefully to bring them on our side. We can't give the skeptics any ammo, we need to make it clear cut which side they need to be on. We can't give them the 'the dems are only doing this to get _____ down the road.'

(In theory i dont disagree with you, I just think in order to really get people onboard you have to play this proposal very carefully)

-TheBgrKng

[mvd]

54. I think if we communicate our message effectively..

that counts for something. And taxes aren't the only issue - it's just important that we don't raise taxes on the middle class right now. But I'm glad we found some agreement.

[nancyharris]

55. The headline of this thread is simply not true.

Read the plan. It eliminates the tax on families WITH 4 CHILDREN whose household income is 50k or lower. It does not lower the tax at all for single people or even married people with no children.

Sounds like a good tax plan to encourage poor families to have more children.

[Kat45]

62. That's wrong,. It's families of 4, i.e. 2 children, 2 parents.

(or I suppose, it could be 3 children, 1 parent).

[Lefta Dissenter]

61. Hey, I like Dean's plan a lot better!

... Oh, wait a minute... he won't TELL us his plan until after the next few primaries! oops! my bad....