LA Times, AP asserted that Edwards tax plan allows GOP to call him an "incorrigible tax raiser[]," "tax-and spender"
On July 26, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards unveiled part of his economic plan, which involves cutting taxes for low- and middle-income Americans by, in part, raising capital gains taxes for those making over $250,000 per year and repealing the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 per year. However, in their reports on Edwards' plan, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press asserted that his proposal represents a political risk because it would allow Republicans to portray him as an "incorrigible tax raiser[]" or a "tax-and-spender in the mold of Walter Mondale." Neither article explained how offering a plan to provide tax cuts and incentives for a majority of Americans would leave him open to such criticism.
Edwards's plan includes the following provisions for low- to middle-income Americans:
- Create a "Get Ahead" tax credit that would match savings up to $500 a year for families earning up to $75,000, money "that could be used for retirement, college education, buying a home, investing in a small business or during a financial or medical emergency."
- Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to pay up to 50 percent of child care expenses up to $5,000 and make it partially for lower-income working families.
- Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit for single adults and reduce the "marriage penalty" for 3 million families.
In a July 27 article, the Los Angeles Times described Edwards' plan as "a politically risky position for anyone heading into a general election contest against Republicans." From the article:
Tax hikes, once anathema to Democrats trying to shed their image as tax-and-spend liberals, are back.
The three leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are promising that, if they win the White House, they will repeal or let expire the tax cuts for wealthier voters that were enacted under President Bush.
In Iowa Wednesday, former Sen. John Edwards went even further by proposing additional tax hikes on capital gains, hedge funds and corporations to help pay for new tax breaks for lower-income families.
[...]
Edwards' proposal may be a crowd-pleaser for Democratic primary voters who object to Bush's big tax cuts.
But it may be a politically risky position for anyone heading into a general election contest against Republicans, who portray Democrats as incorrigible tax raisers.
Similarly, the July 26 AP article reported that Edwards's plan would "create tax breaks for the middle class" and create other financial incentives for low-income earners, but nonetheless asserted that "[b]y calling for tax increases for the wealthy, Edwards risks opening himself to criticism that he's a tax-and-spender in the mold of Walter Mondale":
By calling for tax increases for the wealthy, Edwards risks opening himself to criticism that he's a tax-and-spender in the mold of Walter Mondale, the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee who said he would raise taxes. In the election, Mondale suffered a 49-state defeat, losing everything except his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia to President Reagan.
The AP made a similar assertion in a February 5 article on Edwards' proposed health care plan, which includes a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans:
His idea immediately opened him to criticism that he's a tax-and-spender in the mold of Walter Mondale, the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee who said he would raise taxes. In the election, Mondale suffered a 49-state defeat, losing everything except his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia to President Reagan.
In addition, the headline to a July 27 New York Times article on Edwards's tax plan read: "Edwards Proposes Raising Capital Gains Tax," thus focusing on the tax increase included in the plan as opposed to the tax breaks. By contrast, the July 27 Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) on the plan was headlined: "Edwards's Tax Plan Focuses On Low, Middle-Income Families."
'Taint Edwards' plan that "allows [the] GOP" to call him anything, it is the Corporate Media blessed by those very Repugnants, that allows - then iterates ad inifinitum - that lie.
Beat me to it; that's pretty much the same point I was going to make. The media have essentially invited the GOPpers to call Edwards an "incorrigible tax-raiser" should he be the nominee, signaling in advance that they will happily cooperate in pasting the label on him without bothering with the details.
Remember folks -
Tax breaks for middle/lower income Americans - bad
Tax breaks for the hyper-wealthy and corporations - good
Thats what this article boils down to me - doesn't matter whether it's Edwards, Obama, Hillary et al
They'd all get tagged with the "tax and spend" meme
Meanwhile it's been shrub and the republicans that have been spending like crazy since he's been in..
Yet the Dems are still "tax and spenders"
go figure...
i have an off topic query has any body else received emails and updates from human events.org without asking for them ???? they sent me ann coulters latest comedy skit i have not signed up to receive anything from there but it seems to say that i have maybe im being paranoid this tin foil hat heats my brain
Nope. You may have simply been spammed; someone else may have signed you up; or you may have clicked a link not realizing that it had an unforeseen consequence (as do some of the sweeps I enter, where submitting the entry enrolls me into an agreement to receive crapola from the sponsor, which I must then opt-out, having unwittingly opted in).
Halfaworld. I've linked to Human Events here a few times, sorry if I got anybody bombarded with the stuff.
An old buddy of mine deliberately got me on their mailing list, but he knows that I enjoy the accidental comedy of conservative propaganda, as much as I like keeping an eye on the enemies of America.
You've got to admit, though, Coulter and Gingrich's articles are pretty hilarious.Almost as funny as the idea that some of our fellow voters read it as serious political and social commentary.Sad funny.
yes HBL the column was a doozy but not as sad funny as the pure adoration she got from people afterwards it was wierd
Well, I guess if you have taxes in the first place, you necessarily are going to spend the money. But the question of where the money is being spent should be the focus. For Republicans, tax money is for their cronies and to line their pockets. And I'm sure Dems do some of the same, but are more focused on bringing things to the average person. The fact that the corporate media can't (won't) get that message out is very distressing. Edward's plan sounds sensible to me.
The Edward's plan is so offensive
Makes the moneyed class quite hypertensive
Give a dime to the poor
And they'll only want more
Gets the cons and the media defensive
the truth in rhyme
Is quite sublime...thank you.
For some reason, Democrats think that that the economy is inelastic, meaning that no matter what the Government does, people will behave the same.
The Democrats also think that somehow they can insulate the Rich from the economy without harming the rest of us.
In truth, by taxing the Rich, you hurt everyone. Increasing taxing on anything decreased investment, decreases spending, and decreases the amount of hours worked.
So, Yes, Edwards is increasing taxes.
Work the Republican idea of taxation from the other end and we'll see why they disdain taxes. Lowered taxes let the corporate class off the hook; it lets them shirk their moral obligation to provide ethical compensation for the loyal labor of those of us who make business profitable.
Their argument is founded in the assumption that lower taxes put more money in peoples pocket. Thus, lower taxes enables lower wages for the many, which in turn maximizes profit for the few. This paradigm disregards the high cost of low wages. Minimal benefits and low wages force people into government aid programs or sheer desuetude, which in turn, elevates the need for greater investment in aid programs and a greater need for tax revenue.
All the while the wealthy elites, and their wannabe accomplices, call the financially raped laborers feckless government parasites and blame them for their lack of skill despite the artificially inflated cost of tuition and criminal interest rates of college loans. Pair that with lowered eligibilities for subsidized loans and you're left the option of paying for school with help from a hitch in the military; or you can just go directly into a job market where all the high paying jobs have been shipped overseas.
You see Republicans just do not see laborers as people with malingering financial insecurities over the high cost of healthcare, higher education, fuel, food and housing. We are no more than an expense to be externalized. We are no more than numbers that factor into a bottom line.
We have forgotten the essential role of our government as synergistic protector of the people against the corrupt, organized and well funded corporatists
The Republican snake oil salesmen have convinced so many people that our tax investments in the commons are a waste. They’ve made us believe markets are naturally moral. They have swindled us into believing that the desires of the private sector trump the needs of the common good.
Gives a new name to Wal-mart republicans. Not the ones who shop there, but the ones who own the joint and foist their underpaid, under benefitted employees onto the public rolls, vis a vis medicaid and such. Another good post, Roundhouse (I think of my karate days whenever I see your name).
Thank you JuliaJayne. I don't tell you this enough, I don't tell any of the posters here enough, but I really admire your posts.
As for the roundhouse tag, I'm nonviolent and the physical violence associated with term is simply unfortunate. I picked the name while I was first logging on to MMFA and watching the Doors on video. They were playing the Roundhouse in London. At the time, to me, the sound of it conjured the image of a shelter that offered little resistence to nature while still protecting one from the elements.
Anyway, BORING, I know.
Nice post, Roundhouse. And not just in contrast to the wealth-worshipping robotic blathering of CompliantConsent immediately before it, although he did help you by providing a stale saltine cracker appetizer to your prime rib entreé.
Who wouldn't disdain paying taxes, exept those who don't have to pay them? If being "off the hook" means paying less than I pay now, I'm all for it. No wonder I keep voting Conservative. I paid more in taxes under Bill than I do under W. Its that simple. As far as ethical compensation, if employees don't like the way they are being treated, they always know where the door is. The part about "moral obligation" was just funny. A legal requirement, absolutely, but a moral obligation? You lefty's really are a funny bunch.
I also paid more "under Bill" (sounds salacious), but I was making alot more money then. My business grew stagnant under "W". It was thriving "under Bill". Geez, I feel so dirty now.
"Who wouldn't disdain paying taxes, exept those who don't have to pay them?" (Dave)
Only those taxpayers who love this country more than their bank account, and can think of a long list of things to "disdain" more than pitching in for the purpose of this civilization we're trying to run.
Don't get me wrong, there's all kinds of government waste.I'm all for getting that cleaned up, I just don't vote conservative because I don't think the way to solve this is by killing our troops for a tax-subsidized profit , and shifting the tax burden to working class people.
As a conservative I understand why you would think moral considerations concerning other people is a joke. Anything except self interest stikes a deaf ear. Why arent I suprised. Who cares if their neighbor starves as long as YOU have enough to eat. Yeah its a joke alright and people like YOU are the punchline you just dont get it.
Studies actually show that conservatives give more money to charities than liberals do. Most conservatives would simply rather help the poor through charities rather than wasteful government programs.
"Studies actually show that conservatives give more money to charities than liberals do. Most conservatives would simply rather help the poor through charities rather than wasteful government programs."
No, I don't think so.
Do these studies include donations to religious institutions?
Maybe. (Isn't charity antithetical to personal responsibility and self discipline? Doesn't charity lead to dependency on handouts? It's Republican anathema!)
But I'll tell you right now that many charities dedicate less than half your contributions to them to doing actual charitable work like feeding the hungry. Furthermore, they prosyletize and give aid based on ideologic conditions such as abstinence only.
The Salvation Army actually uses discriminatory hiring practices. Doesn't matter if you want to help in the cause, you have to be like them. Christians only need apply and our legal system protects their right to discriminate.
Libs won't support that kinda crap.
There are many charities that are wasteful, far more wasteful than any public assistance organization.
Lets see. Katrina. Seems like organizations such as Red Cross, Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, etc were a ton more effective than FEMA in getting aid to the victims. There are sham charities and one needs to do a little due diligence before contributing, but on the bright side, there are charities that do good. I would like to refer you to one book, "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks, Professor of Public Administration at Syracuse University. Read it and draw your own conclusions.
Oh please, Oscar, don't be so typical. It's standard operating procedure for Republican administrations to defund, mismanage and generally ruin public organizations, then point to them as ineffective. The Bush administration appointed one of Georgies incompetent good ole boy buddies to head FEMA (heckuvajb Brownie) and New Orleans paid the price for it with their lives and livelihood.
If I were you I wouldn't ever raise the memory of Katrina or FEMA as it just reinforces another deadly incompetent Republican failure.
I guess your silence on the fact the Salvation Army accepts public money, is tax exempt and a Christian organization that is permitted to use discriminatory hiring practices shows your support for such discrimination.
As for Arthur C. Brooks, "The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money." [link to www.beliefnet.com]
Why does he exclude religious liberals or secular conservatives? Seems like religious people in general would be more giving than non-religious. Brooks' finding are inadequate.
Yeah I have seen those studies. With methodology like ASKING specific charities and putting up a Salvation Army bucket in a city in North Dakota and another in San Fransisco shortly AFTER they ran a very public campaign to discriminate against gays. Nothing proven by either of them
What's funny, Dave, are rich folks who accumulate wealth on the backs of working people yet resist re-investing in the health and welfare of those same hard working people.
Those of the corporate mentality seem to thoroughly ignore their dependence on the sweat and toil of working folks. They deny what it really takes to feed CEO-style appetites; the labor of the American worker. Cosequently, working folks deserve more damn respect than being told where the door can be found.
So many Americans work hard, take pride in their labor and try to save for rainy days, but hard work doesn't gaurantee success. Tragedy happens, stagnant wages happen, unemployment happens. Sometimes folks just aren't lucky and sometimes the good jobs up and leave the country in oreder to facilitate even more profits for the wealthy.
So many elitists enjoy having their interests protected by armies and their assets insured by banks, good for them, good for us, we have a great system of government that protects and empowers her people. But many elitists benefit even more by having the middle class tax payer disprotionately foot the bill for them.
Heck, I wouldn't even mind corporate welfare so long as companies held up their end of the social contract and paid a living wage, provided healthcare and invested that public money back into the community.
"Work the Republican idea of taxation from the other end and we'll see why they disdain taxes. Lowered taxes let the corporate class off the hook; it lets them shirk their moral obligation to provide ethical compensation for the loyal labor of those of us who make business profitable"
Actually, the exact opposite is true. Higher taxes for corporations mean that they'll pass the cost onto their workers and customers, and you end up hurting the very people you are trying to help. Raising taxes on the rich ends up hurting everybody, not just the rich.
RinoHunter, are you a self-serving rich guy, or just a complete sucker?
"RinoHunter, are you a self-serving rich guy"
No, but I'm working on it.
That answers my question. Thanks.
Rino,
Good for you. Unlike many here, I believe that someone who works hard so they can be financially successful, even "rich", and enjoy the fruits of their labor for themselves and their loved ones is an admirable quality. Many who do are not simply greedy fat cats, but many I know give much back in the form of charitable contributions and help their fellow citizens in many ways, because they are able.
Do you ever get tired of tilting at strawmen, Tommy?
Oh, you mean like the one trotted by many here that if you favor small government and low tax rates that you are also in favor or eliminating roads and the police and fire departments? You mean that one?
i GIVE THAT ONE A "10" TOMMY- DEFENDING YOUR USE OF A STRAWMAN WITH ANOTHER STRAWMAN.AND ,YES, I HAVE MY CAPS LOCK ON AND I DON'T CARE WHO KNOWS IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
sorry.
Straw? Do you really deny that some here feel exactly the way I described it? Why else put out Paris Hilton as an example of the "rich" who earned and worked hard for their money?
I didn't say all people......I don't believe it was a strawman argument at all, I think it was an accurate assessment of the contempt SOME or MANY here feel about those financially well off.
AND I LOVE YOUR CAP BUTTON!!!
You just went from asserting that many libs think tax cut Republicans want to eliminate infrastructure to Paris Hilton....something or other..."rich"...earned...worked, whatever. I don't know what you are saying. Do you?
Nobody here was even hinting at either example you brought up. Isn't that called strawman argumentation?
I'm still waiting for that "trickle down" from Reagan. I think they stopped at "trick".
True, increased taxes result in reduced investment; however, America's concern should be directed to the types of investments the we encourage. Our wealth-holders aren't investing in the lower classes. The money is not trickling down. Instead, the investments generally are in "bypasses" to American middle and lower classes (ie: away from the cities, away from the country, in machines and robots that in essence diminish the need for labor, etc.).
Accordingly, it makes sense to roll back the tax breaks because they are not working to enrich the masses. Conversely, the wealth-holders are using the breaks to find other ways to increase their own income, their company's revenues/profit/stock prices, and their investors' dividends and capital gains.
It's time to give the middle and lower classes a break after the last 27 years of making the weathier wealthier.
From the mail I get, I'm beginning to think our wealth-holders are single-mindedly interested in sending out credit card offers by the ton. I fail to see how enticing middle-America into deeper and deeper debt is good for the country.
Sure I guess that is why the 50's were an economic golden era and the top rate was in the 80 percentile. But dont let reality interfere with your delusions.
Well of course, nothing in the world has changed economically since the 1950's. Good one Solon.
Sure its a little hotter and movies have gotten better but unless you can show that slightly higher top rate taxes will effect the economy in a worse way than EXTREMELY high top rate taxes did in the 50's YOU. HAVE. NO. POINT.
Do they want him to follow in the republican tradition and borrow and spend?
Did you mean, "borrow and steal"? Of late, at least, that appears to be the Repugnant trend.
How about "borrow and steal or spend"?
I'd buy that (if I had any money left). Of course, I could always stop sending $20.00 to the Edwards campaign every month; or drop one of my local Dems off the list - no way I stop the monthly to MMFA.
No. They want him to follow in the traditional conservative position of cut taxes and cut spending.
RH, who was the last Conservative to do that successfully?
I would say Reagan even though he could've cut spending even more than he did.
Well, W. seems to have some of the Reagan act down- bloated military spending and deficits. Unfortunately, the baby boomers that helped to alleviate Reagan's aftermath are starting to retire.
In other words, even going back a quarter century, this proud conservative tradition of fiscal responsibility is not related to any real events, just an imaginary feel-good mission statement.
Nixon and Ford were both very conservative on fiscal issues. They both vetoed countless spending bills, even though they were more moderate on other issues. The Republican controlled congress helped to keep spending in check in the 90's. Gingrich even shut the government down for a short time because of Clinton's out of control spending.
Yeah, the same shutdown Tom DeLay called the "biggest mistake of his (Gingrich's) life" and helped reelect Clinton. Imagine if Congressional Dems did that now for ideological reasons, like stopping the war. Would anyone from the right support their principled stance?
Maybe I'll stop now that RH is going back 30 years to try to support his conservative tradition of low spending.
The shut down was not over spending. It was over whose numbers would be used in the budget making process. Should the CBO be the primary, or only, source of economic data? That is was Newt was pushing for rather than the acceptability of OMB data.
"I would say Reagan even though he could've cut spending even more than he did."
Reagan ran up more debt than any other president excluding this current Bush. We're spending about 100 billion dollars per year in interest just on the money he borrowed during his presidency. Reagan is also the main reason why the SS Trust fund is depleted. Greenspan relayed this great idea to Reagan: raid the trust fund. All presidents since Reagan have borrowed from the fund and now it's filled with IOUs.
"In truth, by taxing the Rich, you hurt everyone. Increasing taxing on anything decreased investment, decreases spending, and decreases the amount of hours worked."
Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and the opposite occurred.
You are confusing him with FACTS. He dont need no stinking facts he has an ideology. The talking point that showering the rich with everything and being content with the crumbs they let fall off the table is religious dogma to cons like Rhino. No mere FACTS can shake their FAITH.
Clinton also reluctantly signed a tax cut on capital gains which led to a better economy and more revenue coming into the government.
Reluctantly? Okay, so you're a mind reader too?! Wow. Why can't Bush "reluctantly" accept that 70% of the people who hired him want us out of Iraq? Where's the grudging acceptance and common sense ability to see the other side's argument and agree to something as a means of compromise to better our country. If Clinton could do it, why can't your buddy W?
And you KNOW it was THAT which helped the economy and not raising the top rate because you are the Amazing Kreskin right?
I never said that raising the top tax rate hurt the economy. I think that it was a small enough increase that it didn't really have much of an effect. Tax increases on capital gains and dividends do much more to hurt the economy because those kinds of tax increases cause people to invest less money in the stock market. A tax hike on regular income isn't as harmful because it doesn't deal directly with the stock market.
I really don't think increasing or decreasing taxes on the wealthy has any effect on the economy.
Then you're obviously not an economist.
I never said I was.
When the tax rates for the wealthy were at 90 percent and then 70 percent, the economy was doing just find and we had the greatest expansion of the middle class. It really doesn't matter what the tax rate is on the wealthy.
In the 60's when the top tax rate was at 90%the economy was lagging, and a DEMOCRAT named John F. Kennedy cut the top tax rate, and the economy picked up steam. The same thing happened in the 80's when Reagan cut the top tax rate. The misery that occured during the Carter administration ended when Reagan lowered tax rates. The economy began to boom, and the misery began to end.
In the 60's when the top tax rate was at 90%the economy was lagging, and a DEMOCRAT named John F. Kennedy cut the top tax rate, and the economy picked up steam.
Hardly anyone was paying that ninety percent because of all the loop holes in the tax code. JFK lowered the tax rate to about seventy percent (which is what most rich people were paying at that time anyway) and closed the loop holes. In one of the debates, Nixon claimed that JFK was trying to throw the economy into ruin by lowering the tax rate and what I said above is what JFK said to Nixon.
The same thing happened in the 80's when Reagan cut the top tax rate.
The Reagan economy was an illusion. Give me a credit card with a ten million dollar limit and I could look like I'm a millionaire.
The misery that occured during the Carter administration ended when Reagan lowered tax rates. The economy began to boom, and the misery began to end.
I was born towards the end of Carter's presidency so I don't know too much about it. But during Carter's presidency he didn't run up much debt. Maybe he should have. He also had the situation with Iran.
The top rate was also 91% during the entire 50's and the economy was GREAT. Ya got nothin
Carter dealt with more than high taxes. The question of stagflation should also be understood. Richard Nixon could be understood as part of the problem dealing with Carter's economic issues. Until 1972 the United States linked the value of the dollar to gold, while the rest of the world linked their currencies to the dollar. Because of trade imbalences the dollar was over-valued. This was part of the Betton Woods Accord. With the de-linking of the dollar and gold, the dollar de-valued to reach a more natural valuation. That the currency was approaching a more stable valuation, especially based on the actions of the Fed during Carter's administration, probably had at least some effect on the economy during the Reagan Administration.
Oh and you got your degree in economics WHERE AGAIN? As I pointed out before the top rate was MUCH higher during the 50's and it was an economic golden era. Also Raygun Bush and Bush all cut taxes for the rich tons and yet CLINTON who RAISED them had a better economy if you look at gains for the working class. So much dogma so little understanding
No but what you DID say is the cut in capital gains is what led to a better ecomomy and you have NOTHING except your DOGMA to support that supposition another in a loooong line of baseless assertions. Yes lets help those playing the stock market. Always looking out for the rich and showing no care whatsoever what happens to the working class and poor.
70% of Americans invest in the stock market. It isn't just "the rich" as you suggest.
The wealthy, conservative elite of this nation have more at stake now than at any other time in recent history. There is a war in Iraq that must be financed and fought to keep Al Qaeda from reaching the United States. The corporations and family fortunes must be protected from this terrorist threat that will follow us home if we don't stay and kill more people.
Since the wealthy have more assets at risk in the face of terrorism, we can all be assured that they will sacrifice more to protect their assets and the children they have enrolled in expensive prep schools and colleges.
Let's have a little more faith in our wealthy righwingers to do the right thing.
</sarcasm>
I am right there with you and willing to give the Right Wing the benefit of the doubt, as soon as I see their first act of good faith. Anyone -- Bueller ... Bueller ... Bueller.
The top 50% of income earners already pay over 96% of the taxes to begin with. How much more do you want them to pay? Should they pay 100% of the taxes?
Rino, you are confused. Your statistics don't mean squat! For one thing, even assuming they are accurate, since the top 5% make 96% of the income, why should they have a problem with paying 96% of the (nominal) taxes? Seems "fair", doesn't it?
For another, let's look at this from another angle. Since our current Government does everything it can to protect their fortunes with laws that benefit them at every turn, it would seem like a very wise investment to pay the same Government for that service. I mean, where would the rich be without Government support? It is the wealthy in this country that receive far far more Government "welfare" in the form of protection of patents, good transportation, ease of capital movement overseas, subsidies in the billions (oil is a great example), and a war designed to protect (and grow) their assets. If I was rich, taxes would be money well spent. And if they are as smart as you think they are, I am sure they already know this. In fact, when you spout this nonsense, Rino, they laugh at you for your ignorant gullibility.
Your point is not correct. The top 1% earn 19% of the money and pay 37% of the income taxes. The top 5% earn 33% of the money and pay 57% of the income taxes. The top 10% earn 44% of the income and pay 68% of the income taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Bruce, you also made a liar out of him. You stated that the top 5% paid 37% of the txes, not 96%
57%
The top 50% of income earners pay 96% of the income tax. Or close to that.
I stand corrected. I read it wrong, but it in no way changes my point (see below)
"I read it wrong, but it in no way changes my point"
Sure it does. The statistics that Bruce linked to show that the rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. They pay a much higher percentage of the overall taxes than they would if we had a flat tax.
Citing the percentage of income and then the percentage of total tax paid is a bit misleading.
Here's a toy example which might make things clearer.
Suppose my nation has ten people (It's a very small country). One citizen makes $100 a year, the other nine make $2.
(As the average CEO makes about 400 times what the average worker does, the huge gap between the top and bottom earners is entirely reasonable).
The total amount of income tax paid is $25, which is about 21% of the nation's total income. Suppose the top earner pays $16 of the total tax, the others each pay $1.
The top earner paid 64% of the total tax. It was 16% of his income, a significant chunk, but he can still live quite comfortably on the remaining 84%.
Those shirkers, the bottom earners, paid only 36% of the total tax. However, each of them paid one half of his/her income. They'll probably have some trouble making ends meet.
Note also that before, the top earner was 50 times richer than any bottom earner. After taxes, he's 84 times richer. This system of taxation has increased the gap between top and bottom--and still, the top earner can boast that he paid nearly two-thirds of the total income tax.
Our system is not yet quite as regressive as this one is, but it's getting there.
"Note also that before, the top earner was 50 times richer than any bottom earner. After taxes, he's 84 times richer"
But actually, the statistics show that Bush's tax cuts have actually made the tax code more progressive, which means that the rich now pay a larger percentage of the overall taxes than they did before Bush's tax cuts. The reason for that is because the marginal tax rates for the poor and the middle classes actually decreased MORE than did the marginal tax rates for the rich.
And also, the way that our tax system is set up is progressive. The bottom rate is 15% and the top rate is 35%. The poor don't pay 50% of their income in taxes as your example suggests. There's some poor people who actually make money off of taxes when they get tax credits back. I think that we would be better off going to a flat tax where the rate is 17% for everybody except those making less than $30,000 per year. Those people wouldn't have to pay any taxes. There would also be no deductions except for donations to charities and churches. I think that would be fair as it would let the poor keep all of their money and would also make the rate even for everybody else.
"But actually, the statistics show that Bush's tax cuts have actually made the tax code more progressive, which means that the rich now pay a larger percentage of the overall taxes than they did before Bush's tax cuts."
No. The only reason why they pay more (if that's the case) is that the the rich and the super rich are doing phenomenally well under Bush's economy. For most everybody else the economy sucks.
"I think that we would be better off going to a flat tax where the rate is 17% for everybody except those making less than $30,000 per year."
No. Those who earn more should pay more. Taking 17 percent from someone who makes a million dollars is not the same as taking 17 percent from someone who makes a 30,000.
A flat tax is incredibly regressive and punative unless you have a bottom deduction so that we are talking about taxing DISPOSABLE INCOME ONLY. That is it takes say 30,000$ to live for a family of four. A person paying 12,000 $ in taxes if he makes 60,000 dollars is actually paying almost HALF of his disposable income in taxes while a many who makes 150,000 a year (which isnt even getting up to the rich part of the bracket ) is paying only 10% of HIS disposable income and anyone making 1.5 MILLION is paying only about 1% of HIS disposable income this would soak the middle class and hugely benifit the wealthy which is probably why the cons love it so much
Are you saying that a flat tax would be unfair to large families because it wouldn't allow for tax deductions for dependents? I don't really understand what your point is.
My point is that it costs money to live. So a flat tax will take a much larger portion of the disposable income that income beyond what it costs just to survive from working people than it will from the rich and for that reason is punative. I think the wealthy get more from the investment society has made in EVERY perons ability to make money and ought to pay more since they CAN. However if you are even going to TALK about a flat tax the only possible fairness would be in a flat tax on DISPOSABLE INCOME
I have checked out this site before. The problem with their numbers is that they are based on partial information. The total tax package is compared to only earned income, not earned income and investment profits. This increases the perceived level of taxes paid, albeit artificially. A couple of years ago Center for Budget and Policy Priorities did a study. Over a twenty year time frame the top 1% saw an increase of after tax income of over 200%, while the bottom 20% saw a less than 10% increase after tax income. The latter information dealt with tax data from before George III.
I’m not talking about America’s daily living expenses. I’m talking about war.
I have a better question: Do you think pro-war chicken hawk fat cats have sacrificed enough for the war effort?
I think it’s time for them to put their money where their mouth is. Our all-volunteer military is procuring a long term occupation of a civil war zone, something it was not designed to do. The cost is out of control and it’s obvious that Bush’s tax cuts are not going to be paying for it during my lifetime.
So I’ll pose another question: What’s the plan?
"So I’ll pose another question: What’s the plan"
The plan should be to cut spending to balance the budget. We could start by eliminating all corporate welfare. We could eliminate the subsidies for the oil companies, the airlines, the big corporate farmers who end up getting most of the farming subsidies, and all the other corporate welfare recipients. We could then get rid of all pork until the budget is balanced. We could then slow the rate of growth of all of these rapidly growing entitlement programs that are eating up the budget. We could then get completely rid of the Medicare Prescription Drug plan which costed billions of dollars and did very little good. We could then get rid of No Child Left Behind and have education be a state and local issue once again like it should be. If we did all of these things we would probably have a big surplus rather than a deficit. There's lots of ways that the government could cut spending if they really wanted to.
The Reagan era was a wonderful time for conservatives. Corporations used the "extra" money they received via "Reaganomics", otherwise known as "Voodoo economics", to rape and pillage each other. In a living demonstration of Darwin's survival of the fittest theory, Corporations created attack and defense mechanisms against one another. If a Corporation had built up a well-funded employee retirement fund, it became a target for another predatory Corporation. If the predatory Corporation succeeded, the retirement fund would be busted, the profits feeding the predator Corporation and the rest of the ingested Corporation sold for parts.
Corporations were also consumed by "cost centers". Everything was a cost center. Employees were cost centers. There were NO profit centers. Consequently, all Corportations downsized to avoid creating more cost centers. The railroad I worked for during those 12 years (Reagan-Bush) downsized itself to the point where it could barely function. During that time they hired NO new young employees. At the end of that era they were trying to do the same work with 2/3rds the work force, a work force that was 20 years older and with something called "deferred maintenance" which means - don't fix anything unless it breaks.
Despite claims to the contrary, The Reagan-Bush era was when American Corporations gave up their loyalty to America and became members of the "Global" economy. They also gave up their leadership of the world and began the trend of putting the welfare of American finances into the hands of the Chinese.
Bruce, besides the fact that I stated clearly that I was assuming his numbers are correct, I was trying not to get into a fight over statistics. I'll even stipulate to your numbers. Whether there is a "disproportionate" distribution of tax being paid by the wealthy is beside the point.
My point is that the wealthy are in fact by far the biggest beneficiaries of Government "welfare" for all the reasons previously stated and should therefore, have no problem paying more in taxes. Our current Government is the greatest protector of their fortunes and their ability to amass even greater fortunes at the expense of the poor.
When you say "our current government" are you restricting that to this administration or is it a systemic thing in your opinion?
I mean the current system, but certainly more deliberately and openly in the current administration. Of course, this is nothing new. It has always been the case. Even our Democracy was intended to protect wealthy landowners. They were the only ones allowed to vote at first.
The truly wealthy (top 1/10%) don't mind paying taxes and, more than likely, they clearly see the benefits of doing so. Without a strong military and central Governemt, many of them wouldn't be as rich and powerful as they are. The meme of the big, bad Government "taking" people's money and redistributing it to unworthy immigrants and the poor do so to drive an ideological wedge between the other 99% of the electorate. It helps get their pro-business candidates elected and is a great tool for sowing dissatisfaction. Before terrorism became the great propaganda tool that Bush and co. have made it, taxes were the scare tactic used the most. The fact is that over the last several decades individual income taxes have been relatively stable (except for the very wealthy who saw their rates plummet during the 80's) or have increased in real terms towards the poor or lower income classes.
We should really be worried about the "spending" part rather than the taxing part, because the one drivesa the other in the long run. The spending habits of this administration will be the real cause of higher taxes, because the money we are borrowing to finance this illegal war, will come due. Of course, the Republicans will let the responsible Democrats come in and correct the situation, like we did during the Clinton administration, and then point their fingers and say "See we told you they wanted "YOUR" money!!" And people like Rino and company will buy it, hook, line and sinker!
I'm all for the Democrats taking total control because the Republicans have failed. They had their chance and they blew it by not governing in a conservative fashion. So for that, there are consequences.
I'm not convinced that things will be all that different with Democrats in total control either but we will see. Your side literally can't lose this next election.
If by "your" side you mean the Democrats, I'll accept your assessment. I guess I am of the belief that neither side truly represents us (meaning the under 100 million dollar club) the vast majority of Americans. I tend to agree philosophically withe Democrats because they at least talk a better game, i.e. elimainating proverty, universal health care, balanced budgets, education expansion. However, we all know that unless any of these issues can find corporate backing (meaning someone can make money off it) then nothing will be done. Lobbyists and corporations controlour government now more than at any time since the era of the robber barrons of the late 19th century.
Fortuntely, our Constitution keeps things moving and therefore the pendulum will swing and another New Deal, Great Society, or other form of strengthening our country by empowering the least among us, is bound to come back again. I pray.
"Of course, the Republicans will let the responsible Democrats come in and correct the situation, like we did during the Clinton administration, and then point their fingers and say"
The Democrats won't "correct" anything. They'll come in and raise taxes on everybody, but they won't use that money to get rid of the deficit. They'll simply spend that money on failed government programs. The Democrats' current budget proposal proves that. The Democrats are proposing the biggest tax increase in American history to go along with an enormous spending increase. If the Dems really wanted to balance the budget, then why don't they present a budget in which the revenue from the higher taxes is used to balance the budget rather than be spent on government programs?
RINO, the only way we can restore the Republican party to where it needs to be is to bottom out and have Democrats run the country for awhile. It's a no lose situation because if they do well, then we do well as a country, and if they do no better than the Republicans have done since 2000 then Republicans will be back, hopefully better Republicans next time that actually have a clue.
I disagree. I think that the 2006 election woke the Republicans up enough. Having the Democrats in control of Congress is bad enough. I would hate to see them have total control of the government. I don't want to see Hillary Clinton or any of the other top Democrats become President. I'll vote for whoever the Republican nominee is. It wouldn't make sense for me to vote for someone that I disagree with on 95% of the issues. And I also don't think that the Republicans have been as bad as you claim they've been. I agree that they've been bad on spending issues and also on the immigration issue, but they've been good on taxes, national security, and voting to confirm originalist justices to the courts. The Republicans aren't perfect, but they're still a whole lot better than the Democrats in my opinion.
-The things you cite as bad, I agree are bad and the things you cite as good, I think they are also bad.
-When Bush was finally elected in 2004, I vowed never to vote for a conservative/republican for anything ever again.
"When Bush was finally elected in 2004, I vowed never to vote for a conservative/republican for anything ever again"
So does that mean that you actually voted for Bush in 2000? Why does Bush getting elected in 2004 have anything to do with any other races?
I voted for republicans in local races and I will never vote for a republican again. Bush and the republican controlled Congress have turned me off to republicans/conservatives. I could not believe that liar/war criminal got four more years.
Did you read my post or just browse it for highlights? The Dems will raise taxes, of course, and you should thank your GHod that they do. If they don't and Republicans don't either then this country goes bankrupt, its assets get sold off to our creditors and we become a third world country. How do you think we became a great country? Byu borrowing our way to greatness? Listen, maybe you don't do the bills in your house so you don't know how this works. If you spend more than you make, you go broke, if you go broke, people stop financing you and your military and your economy come to a screaching halt and capital flees. There is nothing inherently great about America that can't be found elsewhere, i.e. labor, raw materials, intelligent, hard-working people, etc.
What makes this country get is its ability to care for the least among us. We stand alone in history as the one country that "got it" when t comes to governing. We made the working class powerful, we get some wealth, some education, some freedom and we become invested in our country and our shared future. The right wing wants to dial us back into the feudal systems with a lower caste or serfs (immigrants and uneducated laborers, the merchant class (most of the middle class) and lords (corporate owners) or the real rich. It will weaken this country and to support the policies of these traitors shows extreme hatred for our country and its true greatness.
Fair taxation means those with the most, pay the most and lift the bottom up. Yes, its income redistribution, but not in a solcialistic way (i.e. the redistribution doesn't have to lead to equal parts for everyone) nor Communist (which is a form of Government not an economic policy). It is smart, efficient and morally right and is what truly madde this country unique.
Actually, the difference between your philosophy and my philosophy is that I want to cut spending to balance the budget and you want to raise taxes to balance the budget. We both agree that it's bad to have a deficit, but we just disagree on how we should balance the budget. I believe in letting people have more of their own money to spend themselves. You believe in the government coming in and taking more of people's money and spending it for them. That's fine. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But I simply believe that we would be better off cutting spending to balance the budget rather than raising taxes. If you read my post earlier, I listed numerous areas in which we could cut spending, including eliminating all corporate welfare. I'm sure that you at least agree with me on that one.
Okay, here we go. The greed factor rears its head. I clearly hear your desire to keep YOUR money. But this is only because you value the money you hold and spend on personal items then you do on the societal benefits of using that money to improve the society you live in. You see Government as wasters of YOUR money. I see it as investment in making the place that I live the best place possible for me and my children and friends and neightbors. What good is all the money in the world if I am the only one who has money. If I have to live in isolation because I have to protect all my money from those that have none. I firmly believe that what makes this country truly great is the sense of shared sacrifice and brotherhood created when everyone is made better off by the efforts of all. Right now we live in a country populated mainly by people like you who believe it is YOUR money and no one deserves it more than you because you worked so very very hard for it. This selfishness leads to pooly run schools, insurance run health care for the well off only, increasing number of poor and neglected children, not to mention the hatred, jealousy, fragmentation and isolation that occurs because of all this.
Now, I am all for endng the debacle in Iraq and cutting the out of control spending on the military to levels required to defend and protect us only. Cutting corporate welfare and other forms of redistributing wealth to the wealthy. But I want universal health care and paying off the debt that Reagan and Bush (both) have crippled this country with, increased funding for education and making college available for all and I want to live in a country that truly values life by seeing that every child has the opportunity to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Increase taxes on the wealthy, decrease them on the poor, decrease spending on waste and the wealthy and balance the budget
Put away your magic 8 ball. You have proven you are a terrible prophet. Who was the last president to balance the budget again?Thats right CLINTON who was a DEM. Raygun and Bush gave us unconscionable debt.
And which party was it that had control of Congress and passed the bills for Clinton to sign which balanced the budget?
What happened to the responsible Republicans? Where did they go? Or were they just playing politics?
Plus, we've seen what having Congress does. As long as King Bush weilds his mighty veto pen, nothing gets done. They presented those budgets and Clinton signed them. You can't deny that they WORKED TOGETHER. Something the current administration is incapable of doing.