My opinion as to why Kerry is right on the tax issue.

[cindyw]

Dean is right that effectively the middle class got no tax under the Bush tax plan, but Kerry is not arguing that point. He takes the scenario one step further. If we can reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy 1%, we can fix the problems, like higher tuition or property tax, and the middle class will effectively get the tax cuts that Democrats fought for. It is going to take some time after the reversal of the tax cut for the effects to kick in. So if you got 300 dollars in tax cuts (I agree paltry compared to rich) and 300 dollars in raised tuition you were at least lucky enough to get the money to content with higher expenses. If we reverse the middle class tax cuts at the same time that we reverse the higher end, the middle class will be put in undue burden to handle the higher expenses that have not gone down.

Bush always made the argument that his tax cuts helped people in the middle class pay for their higher expenses in a time of economic crisis in this country. Remember his winning argument that people can pay their higher utility bills with the extra money! It makes people mad that Kerry makes this argument to say that we should keep the middle class cuts, but we are ignoring that Bush used these arguments to mislead people on his whole tax package. Those higher bills people had to pay with their paltry cut were caused by the other half of Bush's tax cuts. Classic trickle down economics. Kerry is not advocating the trickle down theory.

So Dean is right on the current reality, but does not connect the dots to make the proper conclusion of what is possible. Kerry has that vision of what we need to do to relieve the middle class during the Democratic recovery. Why should we bear the burden of that recovery.

So for you people who do not see yourselves as benefitting from the child tax credit or marriage penalty (as I do), here is a scenario for you.

Under Dean 2005: your tax rate is returned to the original scheme. Your tuition is still high and now you have to put the $300 on your 18% VISA card to make up the difference in the previous years income.

Under Kerry 2005: your tax rate stays the same and you have the same income to handle the higher expenses

Under Dean 2006: recovery causes expenses to go down, so you do not need the income to make up for the higher expenses. Unfortunatley you are now in debt from the previous year. That 300 dollars you put on your credit card will cost you a 500 by the time you pay it off.

Under Kerry 2006: recovery causes expenses to go down, so you now have an extra $300 to invest in your first IRA. This in turn helps the recovery further. Fortunatley your are not in debt for the $300.

[quinnox]

1. It's a complex argument

I really don't trust what a lot of the people say who frankly, don't know what they are talking about. Economics is an arcane science.

If a world reknowned economist like Krugman says he agrees with Kerry's position, it's a good sign.

I'm in the middle of the road on this one, to my unexpert sense there are valid arguments on both sides.

[cindyw]

2. As one who has personally felt the effects of debt,

I fully understand the consequences of asking people who are cash strapped as it is to finance the gap between tax rate adjustment and recovery. They will have to come up with the money somehow as, Dean so rightly points out, their expenses are higher. Why put the burden on the middle class. The total of their cuts amount to so little compared to a reversal of the 1%.

Let us have some extra help while the economy recovers. And as we already know, we will invest that money directly into the economy. We all did this over the last three years and help up our crashing economy. If we could do this without the burden of the tax cuts for the wealthy, we can reverse the jobless in jobless recovery.

[AP]

4. For 30 years the US tax code has become increasingly regressive.

The results are perfectly clear: it's harder for the middle class to get ahead, while the wealthy further consolidate their wealth and political power. Furthermore, the burden has shifted almost entirely on individuals who work for a living (regardless of their income levels) and off big corporations and people who live off dividends, long term capital gains and inheritance & trust funds. (While the states and local governments screw the poor and working class, federal tax is least fair to the people who make around 300K as a family, and to people who make about 75K as a family).

Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman et al are absolutely right about this. The tax code needs to be more progressive so that the middle class is less burdened and can start making this economy work. Wealth is created by labor and not by finance tricks and insurance that really isn't insurance. We have got to start rewarding labor and asking the non-productive forms of wealth to start pulling a little more of the weight.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman...

2 of those 3 have been major players in the Senate during that regressive period. All 3 voted for Clinton's '98/99 packages. Why do they get a pass? Kerry and Lieberman both supported the heavily contested '94 tax package(not one Pug vote). Maybe they're part of the problem...

[DemDogs]

42. Don't agree but be clear

Why the heck did you put Edwards name in that subject line?
In the text, you aren't talking about Edwards.

[cindyw]

43. Last time I checked that '94 package brought us

a great economy. Would you prefer they had been on the side of Gingrich all that time?

[Pez]

3. existance of tax cut depends on who you talk to

married couples with children ~do~ receive a considerable tax cut. to do away with this while the economy is tanked as it is would very much be a problem.

i agree with kerry's plan to leave in the tax cuts that democrats in congress fought for. i think your example of debt is right on-- it might not be debt to pay for utilities, but it could be for clothes, school supplies, food... people fall back on their credit cards before they sacrifice. creating an environment where people would go into debt for a few years until the economy recovers will essentially erase any benefits the middle class might get in the future.

[cindyw]

5. Exactly Pez

The middle class could handle the Clinton tax rate in Clinton's economy, but they are broke now from increased debt, home refinancing and asset liquidation. People have made many sacrifices in order to stay afloat in this economy and we should not ask them to sacrifice further. Bush may have been wrong that we needed a cut before, but we sure need the help while the economy recovers.

I used the example of a non-married, childless person because it was the least of the examples. People with children and who are married need Kerry's policies even more. I just didn't want single people to reply to this with, "well I got no help cause I don't get a child tax credit"

[killbotfactory]

11. How much will they save a year with free health care for their children?

[cindyw]

12. Who says that's even a choice.

We do not have to chose between getting rid of the middle class portion of the tax cut and health care for children. It's simply a false choice.

The issue really is that even short term pain, while we fix Bush's mess, could destroy some families. I do not think that Dean intends to do this, I just don't think he connects the dots on the pain his plan could cause people. His rhetoric is right, but the plan is wrong.

[Larkspur]

21. No, it's not a false choice

Can't have tax cuts designed to gut the government and health care which needs those taxes.

[cindyw]

31. So you don't think it was the higher end tax cuts that hurt us

You think it was the lower ones.

You can have health care and keep the cuts Kerry speaks of. I would like to see your proof that this is not possible, otherwise it is Dean word against Kerry's. I believe Kerry.

[Larkspur]

13. As a single and child-free taxpayer who did not get a tax cut, it

infuriates me that I'm subsidizing married filing jointly with children.

Single and child-free people pay more taxes proportionally and get the least amount of services from their government.

The next time I see one of these kids behaving badly in public, I'm seriously tempted to call DCF on these parents.

[cindyw]

17. This is even too ridiculous to respond to.

[Larkspur]

19. Typical biased response

Kerry doesn't care about tax justice for all Americans, just wants to bribe certain voters to get himself elected.

If "it takes a village to raise a child" then this villager will start holding parents accountable for wasting taxpayer money by raising brats.

[cindyw]

28. You want to punish the parents of America for government waste.

:bounce: :bounce:

Knowing that you are Dean supporter and you believe this is so exciting.

If only Dean would publicly share this notion too. It would make Kerry's winning of the nomination much easier.

[Pez]

38. so you'd rather have malnourished naked kids running around?

my sister has two children and if she lost the child tax credit it would be a serious burden. it would be a serious burden for many families in america-- namely those in the middle class. the higher income bracket are not going to have many financial difficulties ever, and can hire tax attourneys to spend a week finding out every dime they can deduct. the lowest income bracket will have financial problems. in addition to keeping the tax cuts the congress cockroaches fought hard for, kerry also has a plan for economic growth and development that will benefit everyone.

to begrudge someone a tax credit for raising their children and enable them to save for their college is selfish and short sighted.

and the marriage penalty requires married couples to pay MORE percentage-wise in taxes than they would if they were single; that doesn't seem very fair! they could just stay single and pay the same taxes you and i do. it's not like they pay less taxes than single people would; they just don't pay more, so it is the same as if they were single.

[Egnever]

6. I agree in part

I think the big hole in deans argument is the fact that taking the taxes back will not return the increased state taxes. However what it does return is also as valuable or more so. Increased helth care coverage will have a big impact on many peoples finances. Full funding of special ed will have an incredible impact. Child services targeted at young children will have a large impact you cant ignor the reduction in child abuse in vermont. Balancing the budget will also have a positive impact.

Yes it will hurt oin the short term but in the long term the benefits will outwheigh the original cost for most of america.

Its a complex issue to be sure and Dean is vulnerable on it as its easier to say dean will raise your taxes than it is for dean to explain the benefits from repealing the tax cuts. In the long run I tend more towards the improved services and balanced budget. Than I do to the politically less risky but longer aproach to putting our national financing back in order.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out. But kerry using the sweet spot to defend his positions was bush worthy spin IMHO as the majority of americans see nothing like that. It probably works though it works for the shrub.

[cindyw]

8. Why hurt the middle class in the short term?

You are naming all these positive things we can do if we get rid of the middle class tax cuts. The portion of Bush's plan that the Dems enacted were small in comparison to what the 1% got. We can have the things you mention without getting rid of the middle class tax cuts in the short term. You cannot argue that people got nothing, but you need that paltry money back in order to balance the budget. No. We need the top back, but not the middle class. No more sacrifice for the already burdened.

[AP]

9. I think I heard Krugman say that the

difference between taking all the cuts back and just the +200K cuts back is the difference bewteen closing the budget form covering 82% of expenses to 85% of expenses.

We'd still be defecit spending if we closed all the cuts. It's better to do the things which would allow the economy to grow, and having a more progressive income tax code is one of those things.

[Egnever]

23. Why tax anyone?

I dont know the numbers on what ammount returning these cuts would entail.

Ap below cites 3% of the deficit. I will take his word for it. Honestly I think that leaving the middle class tax cuts in is a decent position. Personally though i would be happy to give mine back in order to strengthen america.

I dont honestly think it makes a difference one way or the other as it is all rhetoric. No matter who gets in office they will have to deal with congress and take what they can get. I see it as an argument of semantics. Kerry panders to the middle class saying he would let them keep thier money. Dean panders to the patriotic saying he would take it all back and use it to make america stronger.

Its all so much bulshit. Both are for tax reform as far as I can tell.

Dean has said after repealing the tax cuts he would redistribute a portion of them as targeted cuts for things such as small buisness loans and what not. Kerry would asumably do something similar.

Kerry i think holds the easier position to run on IMHO cause people are loathe to give up money.

Bottom line though is both of them will have to get anything they want through congress so its all just empty rhetoric at this point.

noether deans nor kerrys plans stop or start with the bush tax plan.

I am one of the people that got 300$ or less back on a tax cut i didnt want in the first place. For me Giving it back and getting our budget balanced in the short term means sooner that we can actually give back taxes that we can afford.

But I agree with you Kerry's take back everything but the middle class tax cuts are muich easier to spoon feed to the public.

It remains to be seen if Dean makes more noise about what he plans to do on taxes after the bush cuts are repealed. As that is where his strength lies. I think he can claim the bush cuts were disasterously proportioned and applied and a bad idea throughout and that his plans are to start from scratch and distribute them or a portion of them wherte they would do the most to help americans get back to work.

[Pez]

40. you could have all sent your check right back to BUSH INC...

...with a letter telling him to reinvest it in social programs.

pffftahahahah

the problem isn't the middle class tax cut; it's BUSH INC.

[sandnsea]

7. Bush was lying at the time

He wasn't going to implement the 10% tax rate or change the marriage penalty until several years down the road, even while saying these cuts would help the middle class. A few Republicans and the Democrats got these cuts put in place FIRST, as well as the child tax credit. So when Democrats said there weren't going to be any tax cuts for the working people back in 2001, they were telling the truth. They fought to make sure working people got their fair share of the tax cuts. It's possible if the economy weren't so bad, Kerry would ask to repeal these to pay down the deficit. But things are so bad, it would be criminal to take this money away from working people. It's time to stand up and fight for progressive tax policy, return the burden to the wealthy and corporations, and allow the working people to create their own financial stability again.

Andrew Carnegie:
"The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion.... Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death, the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.

. . . This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being that by far most fruitful for the people...."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1889carnegie.html

[helleborient]

10. If what Kerry talks about are truly middle class tax cuts...

Why aren't they tied to income bracket??? That's what determines whether an individual is middle class or not.

Instead he ties them to behavior - whether you are married - whether you are children - whether you are going to college at this point in time.

All of these benefits can apply to the wealthy as well - calling them simply middle class tax cuts is misleading.

This is why I support Dean's repealing them and starting a plan over - maybe that time we will actually get tax cuts targeted at the middle class.

As they are they are cuts aimed at right wing conservative family definitions - if you are married, have children, and are sending them to college, you get cuts. If you are single or have a same sex partner, choose to remain childless, or the wrong age to have education bills....oh well, Mr. Kerry says you're not middle class!

[DrFunkenstein]

14. How's This?

"If I am President, I will repeal George Bush’s special tax breaks that go to only those earning more than $200,000."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0828.html

[helleborient]

16. It's not the same as those that also go to those who earn over $200,000

John Kerry is complaining about Howard Dean repealing middle class tax cuts by pointing to those that are clearly not middle class tax cuts...they are tax cuts that impact both the middle class and the wealthy.

If they were middle class tax cuts...they would impact only those who make under $200,000.

Repealing only those cuts that only affect those over $200,000 is still doing nothing affecting specifically the middle class.

I'm very annoyed by John Kerry trying to pull a fast one by identifying these as middle class tax cuts when they simply are not - he is wrong. Instead, he's using them as a false political tool.

[cindyw]

18. If you make more than 200,000, than no Kerry does not consider you

middle class. If you are single or have a same sex partner and make less than 200,000 you will benefit from Kerry's plans. The married portion is a parity law. Normally you pay a higher rate for 2 people together than 2 separate. A person who remains childless or is not in college can certainly be middle class.

[helleborient]

20. Why is he defending the cuts for those who earn over $200,000???

They are not middle class, but he is defending their tax cuts - since they also benefit from the cuts from eliminating the marriage penalty and the cuts for education.

I know someone who is childless or not in college can be middle class, apparently John Kerry doesn't know that, or at least acknowledge that...they do not benefit from Kerry's cuts. These cuts are not indexed to income.

His cuts affect a selected portion of the middle class and a selected portion of the wealthy.

[cindyw]

25. I am not sure what you are talking about?

I think you are misunderstanding his plan? How can you say his plan is not indexed by income? the CTC and the marriage penalty is not, but the rest of the plan is.

Kerry's plan is not only child tax credit and marriage penalty. Everyone under 200,000 will benefit, unless they truely received nothing under the 2001 cuts. Everyone got 300 unless they pay no income tax. In which case, Dean and Kerry have the exact same plan.

What benefit does Dean have for a person who has no children and is not married and makes less than 200,000, That Kerry does not have in his plan?

[helleborient]

30. Dean wants to repeal tax cuts that are not "middle class"...

But Kerry is misrepresenting that. As you mentioned, it is EXACTLY the same plan if you are really talking about income levels.

John Kerry does support encouraging people to marry and have children by giving them a tax incentive...that has nothing to do with being middle class...that has to do with lifestyle choice.

Dean wants to repeal these lifestyle choice tax cuts and start over and look at whether we can really afford tax cuts actually based on income...instead of giving people incentives to organize their personal life based on government taxes.

[cindyw]

32. Well, even if you are right, I choose Kerry's plan.

I choose middle class cuts and lifestyle cuts. It would be next to impossible if you can get the Repub Congress to repeal all of the tax cuts, to then get them to enact a plan that only gives middle class cuts. I thus far, have not heard Dean argue for middle class cuts. Why argue that Kerry is wrong to keep the middle class cuts, if you intend to just put them back in later. If he really believe this then why not just argue that Kerry is wrong for wanting to keep the CTC and the marriage penalty cut.

[sandnsea]

34. 15% to 10%

Keeping that tax bracket helps everybody.

As to the rest of your post, I'm tired of hearing people go on about how everyone should pay for children's health care, education, and other services; then turn around and bitch about letting families keep more of their income to provide for their kids in the first place. We either care about helping families or we don't.

From your post, it seems like your more interested in just getting a tax cut for yourself. Dean isn't offering that. He's offering repealing your tax cut and providing more services to those undeserving children. Looks like you'll lose all the way around.

[kang]

15. TNR mini-article on the issue.

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=646

[cindyw]

22. This article still says that Dean's plan would cost $2000 more for

this average family in taxes. TNR was taking on Kerry's assertion of how to calculate percentages, not that the middle class wouldn't save more with Kerry. They just don't like Kerry's style at TNR.

Thank you for pointing out an article that proves Kerry is right.

[helleborient]

24. It's also pointing out his definition of middle class...

Requires you to be married AND have children.

He is wrong on the definition of middle class.

The last I knew middle class had to do with income...not marriage and children.

[cindyw]

27. I've read that article now 4 times and nowhere did

it give Kerry's definition of middle class. He has defined it as people making less than 200,000. Marriage and children and income are both a part of his plan.

The article also makes the eroneous assumption that we would be better off to get rid of the middle class tax cuts in order to have health care. This is a false choice. Kerry also has a plan for health care.

[helleborient]

29. Here's the important part...

"But there's an important assumption built into those figures: Kerry bases his calculation on a married couple with at least two children. A single parent, a childless couple, or a couple with one child would not benefit from the same tax breaks (namely, the reduction in the marriage penalty and two doses of the child tax credit). Under Kerry's plan, their tax bill would be considerably higher than $45."


Kerry is using the same assumptions from this article to specifically attack Dean on what he calls "middle class" tax cuts.

These are tax cuts for people with children and who are married...that is where they are targeted, and I would like to hear him be truthful about that. They are not "middle class" tax cuts...if they were they would be indexed to income and the wealthy would not get them and ALL middle class people would.

John Kerry's definition of middle class is skewed...it includes some wealthy people and excludes some truly middle class people.

[cindyw]

33. He is giving an example of one possible couple.

Are you saying that he should give every possible applicable variant of his plan when speaking. He would need 10 minute time limits in the debates.

It is quite a stretch to say that Kerry was "defining" what he means by middle class in this quote. Not even the article was suggesting that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. This is a two month old article attacking Kerry's choice of words.

Not a discussion of whether or not Dean's plan to cut the child tax credit, the child care credit, rollback the 10% bracket, and reinstitute the marriage penalty is a good idea.

[union_maid]

35. Forget whether you agree or disagree with the policy for a minute

And think about the ads the Bush campaign is going do on the restoration of all the tax cuts in the general election. That'll be the ballgame, folks. They'll come up with a dollar amount..a huge one and talk about how Dean wants to raise your taxes and, of course, how Bush cut them. They might try to do that anyway, with the Kerry, Edwards or Clark plans, but it's not going to have the same effect if those under $200k aren't affected.

[dajabr]

36. EXACTLY what Kerry did...

"safest" route...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

39. The American people are less afraid of taxes

as some in both parties would have you believe. It all depends on what you get for those taxes.

[cindyw]

41. Bush is going to say that Dean is raising taxes no matter what

Kerry says. So why not fight over the right plan and not care what Bush will say. Both Kerry and Dean want to raise taxes on the rich from what Bush lowered them to. That's just a fact. The strength of the argument is that Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have hurt the economy and are irresponsible in these difficult times.

Kerry has the right plan. Everything you just said is just the politics of elections and passing a law. We should be behind what is right and yes it will be easier to get rid of the top if we insulate this with keeping the middle class. It neutralizes Bush's arguments. :)