The truth about Middle-Class tax cuts

In other threads, some DUers are posting inaccurate info about the middle class tax cuts. According to these posters, the middle class tax cuts are "Bush*'s tax cuts" and are not Democratic tax cuts. An article that ran on CNN's website shows this claim to be untrue.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/06/taxes.debate/index.html

Lawmakers wrestle with competing tax-cut plans
Daschle unveils proposal for Senate Democrats

"With President Bush exhorting lawmakers to support his economic plan, Senate Democrats on Tuesday unveiled a rival measure, one that would offer tax credits to families and businesses, aid to states, but without a key provision sought by the White House: the elimination of taxes on dividends. ...

The plan unveiled by Daschle would do nothing to reduce the taxes on dividends. It includes a new "wage credit" of $300 for every working American, plus another $300 each for the first two children. The plan would also accelerate the child tax credit and the doubling of the standard deduction for married couples. "

After Bush*'s tax plan cut out these tax credits for low-income workers, Dems fought to pass a bill that would extend these credits to low-income workers. Repukes fought the idea:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C1EF73B540C778CDDAF0894DB404482
DeLay Rebuffs Move to Restore Lost Tax Credit

"House majority leader Tom Delay says House will not consider Democratic measure to extend tax credit to 6.5 million low-income families unless modification of new law is part of broader tax-cut package; Republican leader, irked at mounting criticism of last-minute omission, says there are 'a lot of things that are more important'; several Republican senators have signed onto measure to extend $400-per-child credit increase to families earning from $10,500 to $26,625, group included in original Senate bill but left out in conference; $3.5-billion measure, financed by cutting corporate tax shelters and changing accounting practices, was attached to energy bill, which was then pulled by Republican leaders; White House backs Sen Charles Grassley's proposal to include child credits in any additional legislation cutting taxes"

The truth of the matter is that some Dem candidates are getting a lot of heat for backing a repeal of legislation that will have the effect or raising taxes on middle-class Americans, and instead of owning up to the real reason for why they wants to raise taxes on the middle-class (ie balancing the budget, a Repuke goal) they are tring to convinve people that the middle-class tax cuts were Bush*'s idea in order to stir up hostility to these Democratic middle class tax cuts.

expenses...I would like to know where exactly are they getting this tax cut.

.

The issue is one of getting elected....since most candidates are trailing Dean it begs the question of how others would succeed...

To talk directly to your idea that Dean proposes raising the middle classes' taxes....are you fooling yourself into thinking that the repugs are not going to be able to convince the public that the tax cuts benefit them? Hell, how do you think they passed to begin with!!!

And just how is your guy going to repeal any tax cuts better than Dean? You mention this in another post yet I have yet to see a single post from you outlining how your candidate would pay for all the programs I listed two paragraphs below....unless you think some of what I listed are unimportant, then you need to tell the American public why that is....

AT least Dean is offering the public real policies with the chance of implimenting them with the money that would come from repealing the tax cuts....

I.E. healthcare, perscription drugs, education, homeland security, aid to the states, etc...

And I also remind you that of all the candidates....Dean is the only one who has experience as a chief executive getting a Republican legislature to budge on policies that he supports....

and don't worry, one thing Dean will promise is that if we don't have the money to fund a program, it won't get funded.....try selling defecit spending to the American public...they like over spending on social programs less than they do on defense.....

but that's ok....keep spinning this malarkey....maybe it'll stick...

One thing about Dean's campaign...he has to dat been on top of what the public image of him is....something that the other candidates have not shown much strength in.....

This one says nothing about Dean. It's about the truth concerning middle class tax cuts and their Democratic provenance.

more than two seconds of memory....you response is directed at the argument made by Dean supporters....or was until that thread was locked....

so now you are pretending that this isn't directed at Dean supporters? Who's being disengenuous now? I asked you a question above.....

whether we are talking about Dean or not.....what would you do to fund the programs i've listed? This reminds me of grad students who are trained to knock down scholarly work but offer no alternative of substance on their own....it's easy to say something won't work....why dont you tell me what will?

or can't you?

If you want to talk about this, start a thread. If you PM me with a link, I'll post to it.

In the meantime, do you think there's something wrong or inappropriate with my pointing out that the middle-class tax cuts were a Democratic idea?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The middle class tax cuts are NOT Bush*'s tax cuts. They were the Democrats idea.

...don't like horseshit threads from people who bash Dems more than they bash Bush.

What is not true?

and even asked some questions....but they haven't been addressed.....oh well, time to move on.....

unless someone would like to tell me how other Democratic candidates hope to pay for....

1) Healthcare
2) Prescription drugs
3) Education
4) Homeland security
5) Rebuilding Afganistan and Iraq
6) Providing Aid to states for unfunded mandates passed by Bush (i.e. no child left behind, homeland security).....

cause until I hear an answer to that (one that is realistic), than what are we talking about here....if you are going to attack a position it is usually good to have your own plan in place....isn't this the knock the repugs are using against dems now?! All they do is gripe without providing alternative choices.....

Maybe I missed it but I don't see where you acknowledge that the middle class tax cuts were a Dem idea.

If you want responsive responses, you try responding responsively to the point I've made.

Pay for it by making sure the money you spend/invest today (by defecit spending) pays for itself down the road by reaping rewards larger than the investment you make.

Healthcare, education, homeland security, allowing Iraq convert to a democracy with a wealthy middle class will all reap much larger rewards, and defecit spending on that stuff is very wise (just like your average American will go into debt to buy a house or an education). Too bad Dean has a Hoover-like affinity for balanced budgets and doesn't see this.

or projected outlay there....

Hey I got a better idea....maybe if we could convert dirt into gold, than all our problems will be over....dont worry that I dont have any figure....dont worry that I have no actual "progressive tax" plan....we'll figure it out later....when we have a republican Congress and worse of a mess than we do now....can't wait for those 2006 midterm elections!!!!

You want numbers? Well, give me a staff of economists and access to all the data and I'll give you a breakdown.

Are you saying that you disagree with the notion that (1) we need a more progressive tax code, and (2) that we can deficit finance things that reap huge financial rewards?

I'm not clear if not having the numbers discounts those notions.

Is that the thing you don't believe?

as it began...was that Dean will not be able to sell a tax hike on the middle class come election time....because the American people don't like getting taxed in the current environment....

The ghost of Walter Mondale was frequently bandied about....

So you solution to the problems is to deficit spend on the social programs mentioned at numerous times....

You believe this because running on a platform of running huge budget deficits for social programs is going to play better with the American people than a platform that says we need to raise the cash first, than pat for the programs, because bankrupting the country is only going to delay problems to the future, where they will be harder to tackle....

And you base your assumptions that this will somehow reap financial rewards to the economy? individual families? government? what?

I personally believe that some things are meant to cost money, like public transportation, healthcare, education, and that we should pay taxes to ensure that those services be the best they can be.....

No where does Howard Dean rule out a progressive tax plan....

No where does Howard Dean suggest that he would recind all the tax cust for any reason other than to solve some of the more serious problems this country has been dicking around with for far too long...

He has offered several programs that he would seek to impliment then using the money that would be recooped with the repeal of the tax cuts....and only if those monies were recooped....

Where's the money coming from to pay for these programs doing anything else, cause i'll tell you, going to the American people and saying "let's make the deficit higher by building a huge bureaucratic agency...." is going to be even harder to sell than lets pay for it as we go....

That's my point....and to a certain extent, everything else is just debating points....it's easy to say....Dean cant win doing that....so what is the alternative....

Possible scenarios:

1) Repeal the tax cuts...all of them (or as much as is needed) to impliment policy proposals....
2) Repeal part of the tax cuts....is it enough to do what is needed?...still waiting for the word on that one....what do we leave out, what do we include? Half ass won't fix the economy....
3) Leave everything as is....huh??!!! God no....
4) Cut more taxes....what are you smoking.......

Democrats are going to be asked for policies....they are going to have to find the cash for those policies (harder now that Bush has screwed up the system)....if the don't find the cash, they are going to have to not do things...or run deficits to do things.....

You rank those in order of what the electorate will tolorate and what it will not.....I think I know which one is the better message....and it isn't running deficits....

Who said anything about "running huge budget deficits"??

Possible scenarios:

1) Repeal the tax cuts...all of them (or as much as is needed) to impliment policy proposals....
2) Repeal part of the tax cuts....is it enough to do what is needed?...still waiting for the word on that one....what do we leave out, what do we include? Half ass won't fix the economy....
3) Leave everything as is....huh??!!! God no....
4) Cut more taxes....what are you smoking.......

I have a better imagination that you do. I can imagine saving money on our military (but Dean doesn't want to cut military spending), eliminating corporate welfare, RAISING taxes on the RICH and not the middle class, and more

It's deceptive to suggest that your list is complete. There are options you haven't considered.

as I mention elswhere....

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not start a new discussion thread with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

just to answer your question.....you should've responded here....not in the other thread....

I didn't refute your claim about the 4 threads I started so I can't be "continuing a disagreement" that we never had. And I'm certainly not following YOU around. If anything, you've been keeping track of me, which is how you know how many threads I've started.

I know how many "Dean is raising the middle class taxes threads" there are....I was only responding to yours cause it was the third one....which is reason enough to lock it.....cause I thought dupes were verboten....

to inform people that those tax cuts are NOT Bush*'s tax cuts, a point you studiously ignore.

When you want to talk, let me know by responding to my point. Otherwise, don't expect me to respond to your points.

Don't know when exactly I ever said "Bush's tax cuts...." but there were Dem tax breaks in there as well....seems like a debating point instead of addressing the real issue....

So i'll conceed it to you....now what do you gain by that?

I ask the question again....how you going to pay for all the stuff I listed above?

Make choices....what goes and what doesn't....what will you pay for and what wont you?

And for those things you will pay for...how are you going to pay for them? Taxing the rich sounds good but the repugs are just as good at getting the public to think these are tax cuts for the middle class (actually it was the dem tax breaks that enabled Bush to get the tax cuts passed....by constantly pointing to the "middle class tax cuts")....

so Bush got $400 billion for 1% of the population and the other 99% got $1 billion.....gee thanks guys.....helps us out in the spring when George wants some more tax cuts....

so que the tune for waiting...what you gonna pay for and how?!

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

I would finance programs by eliminating Bush*'s tax cuts for the rich (income tax, inheritance tax, dividend tax), corporate welfare and tax shelters. I would also increase the tax rate on the highest bracket and create a new, higher, tax bracket with an even higher rate. I would also eliminate agricultural subsidies that go to corporate farms.

The rest of the programs I would finance with deficits.

after you do that other stuff. But if you do, you'll be OK because health insurance is going to pay for itself several times over. (The health care industry is the biggest sinkhole in the economy, I believe.)

Oh, and one more thing to remember: if you end up running surpluses after all that, what are you going to do with the surplus? Well, if you're like Dean, you'll give it back to all the people who pay taxes (not just the overburdened middle class) in the form of a tax break. If you're Clinton, you'd use it to finance Social Security for an extra ten years so you could fend off the attack by the wingers who want to undo the legacy of FDR and send America into chaos so that you could solidify the hold on America the richest Americans have.

If you're really lucky, you could use that money to create a national high-speed rale system, or you could cure cancer, or you could invest in research in solar powered flying cars...etc...etc...

Dean's the biggest political hoax since Chimpy hisself.

saying "Bush's tax cuts" rather than, "tax cuts that were put in by amendment by the Dems"

social rewards even in the short term that it will make sense to fund it from defecit spending? Won't it keep more people at work than on the sick bed? Won't it put a ton of cash in people's pockets, which they can then use to invest in savings accounts and education and starting small businesses, and buying fuel efficient cars, and homes in better neighborhoods, and more computers, and PDAs and other things which make them more effective and efficient workers and consumers, etc. etc?

Furthermore, won't universal health care take out so many irrationalities from the marketplace that we'll see an economic boom which is going to benefit IBM (by helping them sell more of their goods in a bigger, more rational economy) even more that it benefits healthy 20 year olds working for IBM?

If that's the case, why can't we fund it out of progressive taxation?

I don't understand why the middle class has to continue to be overburdened to pay for these things which create huge SOCIAL benefits that really accumulate among wealthy corporations as much as individuals.

Preferably from someone other than one of the 20 or so people I have on ignore.

They seem to believe that my four threads are a more important issue

that divert attention from their narrow (misleading) construction of the issues.

...

over the years their taxes have gone down greatly resulting in the large gap between the wealthy and the rest. so i agree, if one feels more funds are needed, why not get it from increasing taxes on the wealthy rather than the others ? i believe this was clinton's goal(cutting taxes on middle class), but the republican congress would never pass a tax cut without it being loaded with welfare for the wealthy so clinton wasn't able to get it through. i also read that bill clinton campaigned on raising taxes on the wealthy. i think this is a big issue for democrats and liberals.

...in the last couple years. I believe, during the 90s, the top 1% got 150% richer, while their tax burden was cut in half. I've seen that even in this totally crappy economy, the super-rich (top 400) have gotten about 10% richer each year, and we all know that Bush just gave them a huge tax cut.

Furthermore, corporations have inverted the percentage of the tax bill they pay (from 70% to 30% or something similarly outrageous) and they're taking all those profits they get and they're using them to monopolize markets (which costs average Americans more money) and they're channeling their profits to wealthy individuals through low-tax channels (like dividends and LTCG).

The tax code is a total gift to the super-weallthy, and I can't believe a Democrat (Gephard and Dean) would talk about taking $2000 from your average middle class American BEFORE they'd try to get it from jacking up the LTCG tax rate, or something more progressive like that.

...but you still spin the same horseshit.

Just take the next logical step and join the right wing. You're almost there anyway.

on edit - I said "almost". if SangHO can call us liars in one thread, get that thread locked for it, and then post the SAME accusation by saying we're "posting inaccurate info", then saying someone is "almost" right-wing is no less inflammatory.

The middle class tax cuts were a Democratic idea. Why don't you address THAT, instead of ignoring the inaccuracies being spread on DU?

Try attacking him. The horseshit you continually post is old, and full of shit anyway.

Take the next logical step....join them.

Still won't admit that it's untrue to say that they were Bush*'s tax cuts?

by ignoring that Bush used those ver same middle class tax cuts to facilitate his $400 billion tax cuts for his friends doesnt matter....we were able to get crumbs from the table so that makes everything allright.....

And of course all the other Dem candidates who are only calling for the repeal of the tax cut for the rich are going to turn around...wave their magic wands and walla....presto digito everythings going to be ok....

Hey, maybe we could beat Bush by offering even bigger tax cuts...but this time to the middle class, yeah that's it....ooohh oooohhh, and we could go a step further, let's get rid of all the taxes!!! yeah....I think i'm on to something....this will make them like us more than the repugs.....

You see, cause the American people are stupid...yeah, they don't understand that if you are given the choice of paying taxes and receiving healthcare, education, home land security, aid for states, they'll go for that extra $700 every time....because we can't possibly offer a message that lays out a positive program that will help the people who need it.....

Mondale....Carter.....Dukakus....booga booga.......

of course, nothing that is said gets through....

Again:

Do you think that is Dean rolls back the tax cuts you will have to give back the cash you got?

Do you think that Dean will raise taxes, but offer none of the programs that he says he wants to get through?

He certainly isnt less to be believed than any of the other candidates...who would somehow get past the electorate with a wishy washy policy that will only hurt the country in the long run...cause the American public loves running defecits on social programs even more than they do on national security....right?

let's just let them rant...it'll go away...just like every other lame attack against Dean has....not long to go now...

If the Democrats take credit for tax cuts they must share the blame. You are correct in that the middle class cuts would not have made it into Bush*'s tax plan but Bush* is after all the one who will accept the credit if they do what he said they would. They are not doing what Bush* said they would do in spite of the Democrats good intentions. The give-away to the wealthy is far to overpowering. Dean wants to end everything associated with Bush* and start fresh with a balanced approach is what I gather. Most of the other candidates want to cherry pick out of Bush*'s tax plan and will in the end fail because it was signed by Bush*. End everything with Bush*'s name on it and then give a responsible tax cut to where it would do the most good. I could be wrong but then I am against anything Bush* including his Democratic sponsered tax cuts. Not the cuts themselves but Bush*'s name attached to them.

but does that justify the lies that some people are telling about these middle class tax cuts?

about. I haven't read all the threads so guess I am uninformed.

I could PM you some links. PM me if you want them.

Most people have probably figured out his game of never addressing the points directly--just ignoring it and continually debating some other unrelated issue. Why bother?

Your name-calling and attacking Dems reminds me of FR....and since I don't go to FR, I choose not to read the same horseshit that they would post. Same goes for you and your spin.

And trust me, you ARE posting the same horseshit that they would post.

I haven't called anyone any names in this thread.

And please show me where Freepers are saying the tax cuts were Democratic tax cuts. Now *THAT'S* horseshit

sweep of the cuts that looted the treasury and rewarded Bush cronies and class under the fraudulent explanation that it would jumpstart the economy, while putting future generations in debt, and with the express purpose to strike the final blow on all the hard fought New Deal institutions---you would have us cheer for the few compensation prizes awarded to a narrow segment of the population at the expense of the whole?

Bush asks for all the oceans, counting only on the Pacific, but the Dems give him all seven oceans on the condition that he forfeit one river.

It was easy to write that, right?

Why don't you focus your attention on engaging in the debate I'm trying to start about whether health care is the kind of policy which makes sense to fund out of defecit spending because it'll reap huge social rewards quickly (and it will reap huge rewards for big businesses too, but not the sickness industry, provided it's done right).

So what if the Democrats insisted on the middle class cuts that Bush is taking credit for & Dean is criticizing?

The fact remains: The tax package that got passed is very regressive (less so because of the dems) but it's still ultimately responsible for helping the rich get richer and sending us into a record defecit.

The arguement is and should be against the tax package that passed, and anybody who helped it pass. If Bush wants to take credit, then I'll throw my criticism at him.

If the Democrats who supported it want to take credit, then they'll get the brunt of my criticism. In the end, you vote for the whole package and it doesn't really matter who contributed what - the end result sucked ass.

Progressive taxation does not mean throwing a bone to the less wealthy. Voting against the package is a vote against regressive taxation. The income tax system was more progressive before the "Bush" cuts, and we weren't hurting. So why not roll it back and go in for a "do over".

You also ignore the other ways to put money directly into the pockets of working people, and not starve the states: raising minimum wage, relieving the healthcare burden, etc.

Plans to get back even more income without middle-class burden: remove the payroll tax cap & restructure. reduce corporate welfare. close up those riduclous loopholes.

and keep the parts of the existing tax code (as it exists, including every tax law passed by every government, Dem and Rep) that are progressive and toss the parts that are regressive, regardless of where they came from?

I don't understand how arguing against a progressive tax code, with a future UNDEFINED, nod of the head promise for vague future progressivity makes any sense at all.

The fact is Dean clearly doesn't care about a progressive tax code the way that just about every other Dem candidate does.

when he talks of repealing the Bush tax cuts?

by calling the middle-class tax cuts "Bush*'s tax cuts"

Since when? The repubs don't want a balanced budget. They never really have, their empty rhetoric notwithstanding.

In reality, running on a budget that requires revenue to match outlays is a winning political issue, if only Dem politicians would properly frame the debate. The first step is to call a spade a spade and run against the ruinous spending policies of the Repubs.

As one who does not believe (since there is no econometric data to support it) that small manipulations in the marginal tax rates affect the economy to any significant and sustainable degree, i think the goal ought to be to tell people that taxes need to be put back where they were because if we don't the Repubs will bankrupt the nation.

That might be a bit of hyperbole, but it's closer to the truth than the outright lies the Repubs have been telling about taxes and balanced budgets for the last 30 years.

So, i guess i'd dispute your "real reason" argument, since the argument you say they're avoiding is a valid one.
The Professor

The only time they've deviated from that is since Bush* started running deficits. Then deficits became a Good Thing. As an economist, you must know that deficits are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. Whether they are good or not depends on the circumstances.

Also, if these people think that a balanced budget is a good reason for repealing ALL of the tax cuts, then why don't they just come out and say so? You did.

Is this mike on?

progressive tax rates on the economy and in your response you admitted that you never really considered it. (I was repsonding to a post of yours which attempted to set out your argument that changing the tax rates didn't effect the economy, but I thought the model was ignoring progressivity -- I can't remember all the details, but feel free to repost it if you remember it).

I think it's important to note that making income tax more or less progressive does influence the economy, and that it this is fairly apparent. The tax code was become more regressive, and most of the things you'd predict would happen are happening. Furthermore, just look at the de facto flat tax we have on corporate income to see how regressivity/flat taxes affects society.

We're getting a concentration of wealth among the wealthiest because regressive tax codes result in people with lower incomes incurring a bigger relative tax burden compared to people with high incomes paying the exact same marginal rates. We have these people accumulating wealth and converting it to political power which then secures further shifts in the tax burden to people lower on the economic (and, therefore, political power) ladder. We see that it's harder and harder to jump up a class in America.

We can also look to 18th century Europe to see where this is ultimately headed: a poorer society, with less inventiveness and porgress, but where fewere very wealthy people control a bigger piece of the pie.

It's not enough to just look at the overall tax rate (total income divided by total tax receipts); You also have to look at how the tax burden is distributed.