All these tax cuts don't help me, a single mother with 4 kids

I would probably be considered low to moderate income and on the lower end of the middle class. I'm 38 years old and I have never had to pay the IRS a red cent throughout my entire life. I have always got a refund. In fact, since Earned Income Credit, I actually end up getting close to $4000 more than I actually paid in taxes. I never got any of those checks from Bush, so the only effect his cuts had on me was that they hurt my state because Bush didn't have the money to fund homeland security, special education and no child left behind. Three of my children are school age. Now Clark wants to make more tax cuts that won't benefit me. How is this going to affect my kids' schools? How is it going to affect things in my state? This scares the crap out of me. We all know that Bush has severely hurt this country with his irresponsible tax cuts. So what makes anyone think that the way to fix problems caused by tax cuts is to pile on even more tax cuts? That's the Bush model, isn't it? Isn't this what we're supposedly fighting against?

Recinding Bush's tax cuts doesn't hurt people like me in any way. We aren't negatively affected at all, because we never gained anything. However, getting rid of all those irresponsible tax cuts do help people like me and people who struggle even more than I do. It helps because it provides crucial funding for social programs that the poor and lower income people rely on for survival. I just can't believe that so many people here favor more tax cuts. What about the most vulnerable people in this country? You remember them, the ones Democrats are supposed to care more about protecting? Why would anyone here support further reckless and irresponsible tax cuts that only stand to harm the most needy and vulnerable in this country?

actually spend it (and paying for it by a realignment of the tax structure) will help the economy.

And we all saw how that worked out, didn't we.

:eyes:

If Dean is only promising insurance coverage, he's not fixing anything - just applying a band aid solution that won't cure the disease, only ameliorate the symptom. He should know better.

never saw a doctor until I was 21, and have the scars where I should have had stitches to prove it. All it takes is for a kid to fall out of a tree for a family on the edge to be ruined financially. What a blessing guaranteed health care would be for so many people. I would gladly give back my share of W's tax cuts ($7/week) for that, even though I myself have excellent coverage through my job.

This will only be a blessing for those that can pay for the premiums. The rest?

All that money will trickle down and help people like Karaoke.

Is that people buying luxury goods make luxury goods cheaper. On the other hand, cost of living doesn't decrease one bit.

What a great way to bring back the Reagan Democrats, become Reagan!

You say you have four kids. Believe it or not, Bush did ONE thing in the tax plan that I liked, and that was increase the child tax credit from $500 to $1000. You should have a $4000 credit just for your kids! This is a big chunk of change. If you didn't get this, your tax person sucks. I hope you ask about it when you file this time.

...the increase in the EIC wasn't from Bush. That was a Dem proposal I believe. Secondly, "if you didn't get this, your tax person sucks"...not everyone in the US has a "tax person".

and I do my own taxes. Earned Income Credit is for lower income people.

You have to make a certain amount of money to qualify, and I don't. I get Earned Income Credit by filing as Head of Household.

EITC per child benefit gets larger and expands from 2 children to three.

You'll still get the credit, only more of it.

Than the fact that your HoH deduction, and your dependents exemptions, cause you to have no tax liability.

So yes, your low income makes it easier for those deductions and exemptions to lower your tax liability to zero, but income level in and of itself is not the reason you don't qualify.

(IRS veteran and tax preparer here)

I always got a refund even before EIC. Hell, when my ex husband was in the military we even got a refund with me working as well as his income.

Your refund was based on overpayments of tax from your paycheck. Anytime you overpay, you get a refund, EITC or no.

Because I have no tax liability. This is the point some people on here seem to keep missing. No tax cuts target low income people because we don't have any tax liability to begin with. Any tax cuts end up hurting lower income people regardless of who gets them because it almost always leads to a cut in crucial services to low income families.

I prepare my own tax forms to find out what I'm getting and then I take them to H&R block to do rapid refund. I have them check through them to make sure I didn't screw anything up. I do other people's taxes for them as long as they don't itemize. If they do 1040A or 1040EZ and are lower income I use the free turbo tax online program to file electronically for people. I figured I better straighten that out because I just realized that I said that I do my own taxes in one post and that I do rapid refund through H&R block in other post. I take it to H&R block after I do them just because I want the money in 2 days. I figured I better explain this before someone pitched a fit over those two statements. I used this reply just because it was convenient, so it's not directed at you.

I agree that the tax cuts don't do much of anyone on the lower end of the income scale any good, with or without children. The last decent reform there came with Clinton's 1994 budget, which made tax table reductions for the under $30,000 AGI people.

Friendly advice - avoid Rapid Refund and just wait the extra 2-3 weeks for the electronically filed refund. Rapid Refund is a loan, which is as bad as those from the Paycheck instant cash places. You reduce your refund just so it can be obtained a few weeks sooner.

I was surprised how many calls I got at the IRS from people thinking the Treasury processed the refunds that quickly, and wanted to know "Where is my Rapid Refund?" I always had to direct them back to H&R Block or whomever. I am sure you know this, but I post it anyways for the readers of this thread who may not have known.

However, this is the slow time at work. I'm a waitress and things really slow down from Thanksgiving until March. My pay is half (or even less than half) what I get from April through October. By the time I do the rapid refund I'm usually running almost 2 weeks late on paying my bills. If I waited for the few weeks I'd basically be screwed.

I can understand in an emergency. Just hope for people who have no immediate need for the money that they wait it out.

and he always waits. I file them electronically for him, both state and federal. Because I use the online turbo tax for those who make less, it's free to e-file. (Tax Freedom Project I think it's called)
He gets his back pretty quick, and he can do that because he doesn't have the same slow period at work that I do.

as Head of the Household for the first time this year, I made $25,600 last year and I have one child. I didn't apply for the EITC because I didn't think I'd qualify. What's the difference between the EITC and child tax credit, don't they cancel each other out? And what about the dependency exemptions? How much of a refund, if any, should I expect this year?

Based on your income you'll get the maximum amount, which I believe is around $2000. So, you'll get everything you paid back as well as the EIC for one child. If you missed it and qualified last year, you can file an emended return and get the EIC from last year. You can probably get H&R block to do it for you for around $60 or so if you short changed yourself last year. You might have to contact the IRS to find out if you qualified, though. I did that one year when I had my brother in law do my taxes for me. The IRS actually contacted me and told me they owed me almost $4000.

You should always look into claiming the EITC. It is a refundable tax credit, which means if you qualify, you can get the money even if you are owed a refund otherwise (generally caused by having too much taken from your paychecks), or no tax liability after your standard deduction (or itemized if you can), your exemptions for yourself and your dependent, or other tax credits for which you may qualify.

Now, if you have a tax liability, even after claiming your standard deduction and your exemptions because you didn't have enough paid from your paychecks, then the amount of EITC will be reduced or negated by that liability - after all, it is a credit, not an automatic refund. That is one key reason for looking into it - it could reduce your tax burden or give you a refund where you may not have had one before.

As for the Child Tax Credit, it is called a non-refundable tax credit. That means if your tax liability is LESS than the maximum amount of the credit, then you only get a credit for the amount of the liability. For example - let's say you have a tax liability of $300 after you subtract your deduction and exemptions. You cannot claim the full $1000 for the one child. You can only claim $300 of that. That reduces your liability to zero. Now, the difference between that and the EITC is that you can go below zero (therefore, into larger refund territory) with the EITC. That is, if your EITC was $2,000, then you get all of it back, and not just a reduction to a zero balance. It is designed for low-income people. The Child Tax Credit is designed for a braad swath of poor to upper-middle class, hence its non-refundable status.

Anyway, consult a tax professional about seeing if you qualified for EITC in the past few tax years. If so, you can file 1040X's, amended returns, and get that money. By law, you don't have to pay more than you legally owe, and often the IRS will catch you for NOT claiming refunds for which you qualify - but don't wait for them, take action NOW.

From now on, look at the rules and charts for EITC in your tax form instructions booklet. The two credits do NOT cancel each other out - the EITC may reduce your Child Tax Credit so you can't even claim it, but because the EITC is refundable, it is by far the better of the two - it means more money your way. But ALWAYS look into EVERYTHING you may possibly be qualified for.

Conversely, the Child Tax Credit does not harm the EITC, another reason you should investigate.

The Child Tax Credit to which you refer is a non-refundable credit. That means if you have no tax liability after all other deductions and credits, then you don't get it.

The EITC IS a refundable credit, hence KK's legal claim to it.

So her tax person doesn't suck.

miracles never cease...you actually agreed with me on something. Someone get the smelling salts quick!

I deal with tax law, which is in the realm of fact. When someone gets their facts wrong, I will jump in.

My opinions of tax law are another matter. Let's just say as a childless single person I detest the current rigging of the tax code which favors people who reproduce and/or marry, but that would be off-topic.

Yep, tax code isn't fair and I'm all for changing it so that it is more fair...but that can't be done until the mess Bush has made is fixed and those loopholes for the corporations are fixed. You can't do tax reform simultaneously with these things because it hurts too many people. I'm finally in a position where I'd be okay. But I know an awful lot of people who would be devastated by further tax cuts. I'm advocating for those people in this thread.

No matter what else, I would hope we ALL agree on how phony and ineffectual Bush's tax cuts are, for so many reasons.

and I don't hate your candidate. I think he's great where he's at and helps keep people honest. He's just too far left for me as a presidential choice. But keep in mind, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a bona-fide swing voting Independent. I'm not sure why you seem to dislike Dean so much, but as a Vermonter, he really did a great job here. A lot of the stuff posted about him here isn't even true, and I think many people have bought into those falsehoods. Oh well, anyhow, thank you for helping explain why tax cuts don't help the poor or low income Americans. I can't believe people are trying to sell tax cuts as if they help people who have no tax liability. It's nuts. :shrug:

I got like 3 more dollars on every paycheck. You want to take that away from me? You bloody TAX AND SPEND libral!!!!!!!!!!!! (NOTE THE EXCESSIVE PUNCTUATION AND USE OF CAPS)

And it's all thanks to his brilliant tax cuts which went to so many needy people!

YAY BUSH!

I mean, what does she know anyway, it's only HER LIFE. :eyes:

Nope, you aren't. So, do tell, just how the hell do you know what the facts are about my financial situation?

I have two children who live with their mother most of the time so they aren't counted as my dependents. My wife (their stepmother) and I make between $50 and $100K a year, and thus Clark's tax plans don't change my taxes at all. But the information you gave about yourself seems to suggest you are exactly the kind of person who would benefit from Clark's tax plan.

If you make less than $75K a year, which your statements suggest you do, and you have at least three kids, which you say you do, I believe Clark's tax plan says you neither have to pay tax, nor have to file a tax form longer than 3 lines. If I'm wrong on this, please explain. I'm not asking for any personal information you don't want to share, just enough to show me how Clark's tax plan doesn't benefit you.

the credits aren't refundable. Since she already gets the EIC she has no income tax liability to be cut. Thus Clark isn't cutting her taxes and he isn't refunding the credits.

My understanding is that the EIC is treated as taxes you have already paid. If she owes no tax, such payments are still owed by the IRS to her. The only difference I see is that she has a simpler tax form to fill out to prove she doesn't owe any taxes.

thus she gets money from the government. Under Clark's plan she isn't getting anymore money and she would be if the credits were refundable.

that says the Clark tax plan abolishes the EIC? My understanding is that it doesn't, and that the refundable EIC she currently gets would be refunded to her under Clark's plan as well.

She is saying she will get no additional benefit from this and I concur with her. He is not making the tax credit refundable nor is he increasing the EIC. Thus a person in her position gets no additional money. Ie she isn't getting any more money.

H&R block does my taxes for me for a fee and I get my check in two days. I would still have it done this way regardless, so even this shorter form doesn't affect me.

I've NEVER paid anything to the IRS in my life. I always get everything I paid from my paycheck back at tax time. I also get EIC for two children. Even though I have 4 children, I only claim 2 each year. My oldest child is about to turn 18 in 2 months, so this will be the last time I can claim her. My 3 year old's father gets to claim her every other year because we have equally shared custody of her and it's in our custody agreement. My ex husband claims one of our sons every other year as well, simply because if I allow this I get his refund towards a hefty back child support bill he had. So, I claim 2 kids for EIC. I get $800 a month in child support payments now, but didn't get any at all for 7 years. I work as a waitress and make $2.38 and hour plus tips. How much I make depends on business. In the past, at a job of about $11 an hour I still didn't have to pay any taxes to the IRS and got EIC. Most single mothers don't make as much as I do and don't get consistent child support, if they get it at all. I've been on welfare before and can tell you straight up that the most vulnerable people are the ones who don't qualify for any assistance yet barely make enough to make ends meet. These are the working poor, and these ridiculous tax cuts don't help these families out and stand to harm them by taking away from crucial social service programs that these families rely on when they lose a job, get sick, or have some kind of crisis.

Clarks plan might sound good to people who'd like to save a little bit of money, but at further inspection, his plan is just more of the same devastating tax cuts that stand to destroy the safety nets so many in this country depend on. I can't support this.

Your per child EIC claim will increase and the limit is raised from two to three children.

Your EIC credit will go up under Clark's plan.

I was a single father of two girls from 1994 to 2002, when I remarried. During that period my income has been around $20K a year, and my settlement with my ex-wife assigns her the tax exemptions for the two children. I do end up paying taxes on my income, and don't get to claim either exemptions for my two children or EIC credits. I received a $300 advance on my 2000 taxes that I had to pay back in 2001; I call that Bush's tax bribe, not a tax cut. My taxes as a percentage of my income have not changed due to Bush's cuts. I am also unhappy about Bush's tax cuts, and don't like the way they've made my children's schools strapped for funds or the rising cost of health care. I pay far more for health care now than I did in 2000.

The thing that will make more money available for social programs is to shift government spending from other government programs to social programs. Clark is the only candidate advocating a decrease in the most pork-ridden part of the Federal budget, the military budget. Even a modest decrease in military spending will provide a substantial amount of money for social programs like health care and education.

Are you in favor of decreasing military spending and redirecting the funds to education and health programs? Clark is; I am. It is time the Federal government started spending money more wisely. Raising my taxes would be fine with me as well, but I do believe that would have a negative impact on the availability of jobs, so until the economy is a little healthier, I'd rather have the jobs available than higher taxes.

spending towards renewable energy. There's a lot that people want the next president to do. Those things aren't free. The more tax cuts given, the less that can be done, period. There is a choice to be made here...a little more money in your wallet or a better country that treats it's people right. For me, the choice is quite simple...a better country.

It's part of his environmental plan, but I have heard him talk about it as part of the economic plan as well. Clark believes that environmental and renewable energy technologies will create jobs and help the economy.

Here is the part about energy:

As President, I will pursue a far-reaching, strategic energy plan to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, including our dependence on foreign oil; cut greenhouse gas emissions; and maintain economic growth. I will:

* Promote the use of fuel-efficient cars, SUVs and minivans by --

* Strengthen automotive fuel efficiency standards, in consultation with scientists, environmental groups, industry, and others;

* Accelerating the use of hybrid vehicles through targeted tax incentives; and

* Spurring research into hydrogen-powered fuel cells;

* Impose a cap on carbon emissions from power plants by putting the market to work as we did in controlling acid rain -- with tough but fair limits, coupled with an emissions trading program, so that businesses will get the incentives they need to invest in emission control;

* Aggressively promote the use of renewable energy like solar and wind, ensuring that we will be capable of producing 20 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources by the year 2020;

* Harness the power of bioenergy, turning farm products into energy and fuel and helping American farmers profit from the fight against global warming;

* Use standards, incentives, and other measures to significantly increase the energy efficiency of our power plants, our business equipment, and our home appliances;

* Invest in the capture and sequestration of carbon;

* Upgrade our outdated electric grid so that power can be distributed efficiently and reliably;

* Help communities plan for smart growth rather than suburban sprawl; and

* Lead the United States to re-engage in international global warming negotiations, recognizing that American leadership is essential and that all nations must do their part in meeting this challenge.

The man has never balanced a budget before. He's making an awful lot of unrealistic promises. I'm sticking with the guy I know I can trust. I can't trust Clark because not too long ago he was singing the praises of Bush and Company. That makes me nervous. Dean is my choice now and always.

Clark goes on his tax cut proposal, he'll be helping starve those same social programs even further....

Tax bracket goes up to 2000-levels for > $200k
Tax bracket goes up to 2000-levels + 5% for > $1-Million

Are are you shooting from the hip per usual? How about substantiating what will be starved and why?

You're nowhere near middle class, not even lower middle class.

And while these cuts did not benefit you directly, they did benefit other single mothers with kids.

Nice of you to be so considerate of other people.

Now I've seen everything. :crazy:

These were the cuts the Dems forced them to put in.

Next?

In fact, most single mothers I know don't even get child support regularly, if at all. I do, after not getting any at all for 7 years. I rent a nice 3 bedroom 2 story house with attached garage. My kids have just about everything they want. We sometimes struggle, but we aren't lacking for what we need. I know a lot of people who envy me and think I'm loaded compared to where they are financially. If you consider me to be poor, then I'd hate to think what you would call all the families beneath me economically. But hey, if you believe that people who are doing just fine financially should save a little more in taxes at the expense of sevices to those who have nothing, I guess it's your perogative. As for me, I'm going to stick up for those worse off than myself...and believe me, there are A LOT of them.

...especially not Clark supporters.

Clark's tax plan is not a tax cut. It raises taxes on the richest 0.1% and decreases taxes on the poorest; the amount of money the government gets in the end is the same. This tax proposal should not make your state's ability to pay for education or other social services any worse.

If you would like the government to collect more taxes, the only Democrat currently proposing such a plan is Howard Dean. Clark plans to cut defense spending instead of collecting more taxes in order to fund social programs like education and healthcare.

They have always got refunds. How on earth can you claim that Clark is lowering the tax burden of people who have never had a tax burden to begin with?

Of the Democratic candidates, Dean is advocating tax increases, Clark is advocating a tax plan that doesn't increase or decrease the total amount of tax collected, but collects more money from rich people and less money from the poorest people who pay taxes. The rest of the major candidates are all advocating actual tax cuts. If you want to complain about tax cuts, complain about Gephardt or Lieberman or Edwards, not Clark.

Clark is the only candidate advocating shifting money from the Department of Defense to Health and Human Services. Dean's tax plan won't help you or other people so poor that they pay no taxes as much as Clark's plan to shift money from DoD to HHS.

He's got a health care plan that will actually pass. He knows that doling out tax cuts hurt social programs. How is Clark going to pay to help America get rid of it's oil dependence if he uses the defense budget for social programs? How is he going to make sure everyone gets health insurance? How is he going to balance the budget if he's giving tax cuts? How is he going to create jobs and fund homeland security?

Clark doesn't know what he's doing and has no experience in developing budgets, let alone balancing them. Dean has balanced 11 in a row and he does know what he's doing. He served me well here in Vermont. Did I mention that thanks to Dean I get another EIC credit from Vermont state taxes? I also get a renter's rebate. These credits target those who are hurting the most. Clark's plan doesn't help me or people worse off than me.

I'd just call it a tax spin

a more progressive tax system. Clark's tax plan is very much in line with what the Democratic party has stood for since FDR, providing the least fortunate in our country with a better opportunity to make a better life for themselves.

I think this man with recognized foreign policy credentials but "no political experience" is doing quite well on domestic policy. According to independent analyses of the plans put forward by all the candidates, Clark's health plan insures either the most or the second most of the currently uninsured, for the second lowest estimated cost. He has proposed a shift to a more progressive tax system, which is not vulnerable to the typical Republican "tax and spend liberal" attacks. He is taking a stand on cutting the defense budget, even in a time of war, and has the credentials necessary to convince the voters that he can do it without making America less safe.

Wake up, fellow Democrats! This is the kind of leadership we've been searching for all our lives!

I think it's great that you can rent a large house for about half of what I pay for my tiny 3 bdr on a major highway.

I think I got something another poster said mixed up and attributed it to you ... so nevermind on the income thing. I have no idea how much you make but I did get the credits and I've never qualified for the EITC and I barely make ends meet so assumed... never a good idea. :)

However, I do feel that no matter what our views are about the people who are doing 'just fine' financially are, that we should not allow the conservatives to manipulate us into fighting over what are crumbs to them. I do not begrudge those making three times as much as me their cuts.

I do not see that those cuts are necessarily going to result in cuts to social services to the truly needy. All one has to do is fix the offshore haven loophole, raise the top rate by at least 5%, and stop blowing billions down the Pentagon's maw... and voila! No conflict.

It is not cuts to social services which should fund the cuts made by Democrats to help average Americans. I don't know why this is continually set up as an argument.

He chose to squeeze non-discretionary spending to pay for the upper end tax cuts--that is where most of the money is going. What is it--about 40% of the tax cuts goes to the top 1%.

This money could pay for education, infrastructure needs, non-renewable energy research and programs, and affordable health care for America's low and middle class families.

Dean's positions are closest to his out of any of the major candidates, yet Dennis goes after him on the war, on health care, etc. There's a funny thing from Slate on this:

"Dennis, more! I have two questions for the Dean campaign. First, are you paying Dennis Kucinich to stay in the race? And second, why not? He's gold for you every time he opens his mouth. In this forum, Kucinich took three shots at Dean. He rebuked Dean for refusing to pull out of NAFTA and the WTO. Then he forced Dean to explain why Dean would leave U.S. troops in Iraq rather than pull out immediately. (Answer: to keep Iraq from falling into chaos and becoming an al-Qaida nest.) Then he demanded to know why Dean was proposing a pragmatic, politically viable health-insurance program instead of a utopian one. Perhaps for a small payment Kucinich could be persuaded to attack Dean for opposing gay marriage, supporting the death penalty, and accepting the divinity of Jesus."

NEXT!!

Dean is the furthest Dem to the right and Dennis is to the left with Kerry much closer to Dennis than Dean.

What I have read is that Clark's plan is "revenue neutral". In other words tax receipts do not change the only change is from which individuals revenues are derived. Since you have never paid taxes, a cut in the tax rate is meaningless to you.

However, the plan, being "revenue neutral" means that your social security contribution will continue to be spent funding the deficit for the forseeable future under this plan.

It also means that your kids will eventually have to pay off the accumulated debt and make up the deficit in Social Security funding when you retire. The missing 25 trillion dollars will not be found under this plan.

...to reduce the deficit. There's also reducing spending, and growing the economy. And the tax plan of any contender only applies to the initial effort to improve the budget; there's always what one may be able to do when the economy improves.

A revenue neutral tax plan for the near term does not translate to taking money out of social security to finance or pay down the deficit. Not unless the translation is being done by a Dean supporter.

with the economy, and getting international support for Iraq will allow the debt to be shrunk.

Wow, I had no idea
Or do you need to edit?

in the subject line. Does that help?

edited to add: please, folks, remember that the tax plan released yesterday was only a facet of his entire plan. Please go to Clark's website www.Clark04.com to see more details.

Also, read his plans for education and other social issues. You'll see that he has SO much information there, and I think it will quell many of your concerns.

which would read "no raising taxes on people making less than 200k"

I still would like to know if people here honestly thing that the middle class can make 200k per year

I think you're right! :) And if the middle class is making 200k/year, I'm definitely at poverty level! :(

Well, just to clarify, Clark is planning on leaving the tax cuts in place for those earning under 200K. Repealing the tax cuts on those earning over 200K.

for anyone who missed it earlier.

You might pay no Federal Income Tax at all, depending on how much you make.


Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform, a family of four making up to $50,000 would pay no federal income taxes, and all taxpaying families with children making up to $100,000 would get a tax cut.


Check it out: http://www.clark04.com/taxcalculator/

Thanks!!!

then you'd know I don't pay any Federal Income Tax anyhow and never have.

Gotta love the hit and run posts. :eyes:

For the third time, under Clark's plan your tax credit would go up.

Did you read the posts by ZombyWoof? He/she works in tax law and essentially backed up what I said. Seeing as Zomby and I have butt heads on many occassions and don't usually get along, I think it's safe to say that they wouldn't back me up unless there was pretty compelling evidence to do so.

In one of my posts I pointed out that I only get to claim 2 of my children due to divorce/custody court aggreements.

Tax cuts are irresponsible, and you don't fix an economy devastated because of tax cuts by giving even more tax cuts. That's just plain dumb. Reform of the tax system can't be done until other things are taken care of first. Clark has no idea what he's doing on domestic issues, and it shows.

kick because this is really important. People must understand that tax cuts NEVER help poor or lower income people, but stand to hurt them if those cuts compromise funding for crucial social programs.

If the cuts are deficit neutral, builds upon an existing long term plan to balance the budget, and provides for better social services, I'll take it. That's exactly what the plan offers, it's in addition to repealing a whole class of tax cuts (> $200,000).

and replacing irresponsible cuts by shifting them elsewhere is STILL irresponsible because it takes money out of the budget. Clark is fiscally irresponsible.

back to the Clinton level and adds a 44% bracket for those making > $1-Million. Clark's plan is both detailed and responsible. We can't balance the budget simply by raising taxes, there must be economic growth to compensate for revenue loss in addition to raising taxes. Bottom-up is better than trickle-down, give the money to those who both need it and will spend it.