Edwards announces tax plan...raises taxes on top 2 or 3%...tax breaks for middle

Parent Cafe
1

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_taxes;_ylt=AkLB.EYYVEmH0mzu0A.yGGys0NUE[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_taxes;_ylt=AkLB.EYYVEmH0mzu0A.yGGys0NUE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>DES MOINES, Iowa - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards on Thursday unveiled a plan that would increase taxes for the wealthy and create tax breaks for the middle class. </p>

<p>“It’s time for us to put America’s economy back in line with our values. It’s time for us to put an end to George Bush’s war on work,” he told a packed theater at Grand View College in Des Moines, Iowa. “It’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven completely out of whack by the lobbyists in Washington, by the powerful interests in Washington and by those who value the few above the interests of many.”</p>

<p>He added that, “It should not be in America that the middle class carries the tax burden, and that’s exactly what’s happening.”</p>

<p>Edwards’ plan would fix what he called a “rigged” system by ending tax breaks to Washington insiders with wealth and corporate power. Those are the same people, he said, who keep politicians in power.</p>

<p>“We have crony capitalism. We have lobbyists who are there every single day working to rig the system, and it is rigged,” he said, referring to insurance, oil and drug companies."</p>

<hr>

<p>I think of the major candidates, Edwards represents the middle class the best. Therefore, he has no chance. Today, Treasury Paulson came out and said we need to cut corporate taxes. Edwards came out his proposal. Which program helps the middle class the best?</p>

<p>Reasons why I like Edwards…
His proposals are helpful to a majority of Americans.</p>

<p>He admitted he made a mistake with his vote on the Iraq War. I want presidents that admit they make mistakes. </p>

<p>He has gone through personal hell and will have an understanding and empathy that the other candidates won’t and don’t (except for maybe McCain,who is done). </p>

<p>He understands that our health care system is broken.</p>

<p>He understands that there are incredible imbalances in our economic system and our tax system and has come up with proposals to address them.
He has worked on Wall Street and has come up with proposals that are not in the interest of Wall Street. Instead, they are beneficial to a majority of Americans</p>

<p>Why he won’t win…
He doesn’t represent the corporate interest. For some reason the middle class has hitched its wagon to the corporation (including the international corporation) and this wagon is being pulled in a direction that doesn’t help the majority of Americans.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.metafilter.com/49526/Happiness-Machines[/url]”>Happiness Machines | MetaFilter;

<p>Episodes 3 and 4 explain why…</p>

<p>His hair.</p>

<p>The masses don’t vote in their own interest. (Sometimes they aren’t offered a candidate that will act in their own self interest). </p>

<p>Those at the top won’t like his proposals and will trash them even though they are beneficial to the majority. “He wants to raise taxes! He wants to raise taxes!”</p>

<p>Uh… yeah. On the top 3% of the population. Many who are paying lower tax rates than millions of Americans. </p>

<p>150,000 people in this country make the same amount as 150 million people!
Maybe, the 150,000 can have similar tax rates as the 150 million people? You think? (Most of the 150,000 make a majority of their money as capital gains, or they use overseas tax shelters). </p>

<p>Just read Edwards’ tax proposal. It is similar to Reagan’s.</p>

2

<p>The top percentage already pay way too much in taxes. Of course the middle class will bear the brunt of taxes as well they should given the large middle class in the USA.</p>

3

<p>Effective tax rates per taxpolicycenter.org. Top 1% and 5% pay at a higher rate.</p>

<p><a href=“Statistics | Tax Policy Center”>Statistics | Tax Policy Center;

4

<p>Would still like to see an ASSETS tax, rather than an income tax. A BIG one.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>The top % have also increasingly acquired the biggest share of the nation’s wealth. </p>

<p>Thanks Bush!!!</p>

6

<p>mini - if ever there were a way to cause recession and unemployment, that would be it.</p>

<p>(Plus in most places, Americans do pay a healthy amount of ad valorem taxes on property.)</p>

7

<p>I don’t understand why people are so angry with the wealthy. The wealthy generally pay ‘far’ more in taxes than the middle income earners (let’s not call it a ‘class’ since I don’t believe this country has ‘classes’ - semantics - I know). I, for one, am very happy for all the multi-millionaires out there who pay far more taxes than I do and thereby lower my own tax burden somewhat. Run the numbers and see how much in taxes someone who earns $1,000,000 pays versus someone who earns $250,000 versus $100,000 versus $16,000. Now, rather than being angry at these people earning more than you for not paying even more in taxes, be thankful that they pay what they do.</p>

8

<p>^True - the wealthiest 1% pay about 35% of all income tax…the top 25%…about 85% of the tax load. Not a bad gig for those in the lower 75%.</p>

<p>k&s - there is still a little income and wealth redistribution going on in this world. I’d rather live here than there.</p>

9

<p>“Would still like to see an ASSETS tax, rather than an income tax. A BIG one.”</p>

<p>That’s what an inheritance tax is for. ;)</p>

10

<p>“mini - if ever there were a way to cause recession and unemployment, that would be it.”</p>

<p>Evidence, please? I have never, for example, seen a shred of evidence that inheritance taxes were linked AT ALL to recesssion and unemployment. I think it’s all part of the general neo-liberal lie, much like the Laffer curve, discredited Friedmanesque economics, and the Gore(y)-globalization mythology. I think it would be a fine engine of general economic (and ecological) prosperity, provided the tax rate is high enough.</p>

<p>I am not at all angry at the wealthy. On the contrary, I think it is wonderful that they can acquire those assets that can then be taxed at a nice, hefty rate. You can even start with my mom if you like. ;)</p>

11

<p>“^True - the wealthiest 1% pay about 35% of all income tax…the top 25%…about 85% of the tax load. Not a bad gig for those in the lower 75%.”</p>

<p>I really hate this argument. It’s incomplete. What share of income does the top 1% make? the top 25%?</p>

<p>It’s more than their share of taxes.</p>

<p><a href=“Statistics | Tax Policy Center”>Statistics | Tax Policy Center;

<p>What this organization fails to state is that a large part of income for those at the top is not reported, and now the way the inheritance tax is, is never taxed at all. There is an incredible amount of capital gains in real estate that is never taxed. Stock gains are never taxed. Municipal bond interest isn’t taxed. (Although muni bond rates are slightly lower, so I guess you can argue that in an indirect way, they are partially taxed). Then there are all the slippery overseas tax dodges.
Then there is this…
<a href=“Report: Blackstone partners�may avoid taxes on IPO - Jul. 13, 2007”>Report: Blackstone partners�may avoid taxes on IPO - Jul. 13, 2007;
I’m sure the teachers and nurses of the world are taking advantage of this loophole too. Oh wait. Teachers and nurses pay a higher tax rate than the owners of Blackstone.</p>

12

<p>mini - you weren’t clear that you were speaking of inheritance taxes.</p>

13

<p>actually dstark - the percentage of wealth vs. the percentage of tax is not that far off.</p>

<p>(I’m going to bow out of the private equity conversation since I won’t have an unbiased take on it…)</p>

14

<p>No…I wasn’t…that’s just one class of assets. (I was referencing DStark’s note). Why just tax rich deadpeople when you can justly and fairly tax rich live ones?</p>

15

<p>Mini, so how do you want to tax assets of live rich people? Be specific.</p>

16

<p>Mini, a wealth tax is like a really convincing perpetual motion machine – it’s really interesting until you look at the details. How exactly would it work?</p>

17

<p>The same way devout Muslims do - a 3% tax on those assets which will not be expended in next year’s living expenses. If one has a lavish lifestyle, so be it. </p>

<p>It’s not very complicated if you actually want to do it. (Certainly no more complicated than our current tax system, which is set up to benefit, ah,um exactly whom?)</p>

18

<p>Mini,</p>

<ol>
<li> How do calculate net worth?</li>
<li> Who does the calculation?</li>
<li> How do you handle assets owned overseas?</li>
<li> Does it include the value of real property?</li>
<li> Does it include the value of personal property?</li>
<li> How do you value financial instruments in thinly-traded companies? Who figures it out?</li>
<li> Would you apply the tax to someone who was unemployed? Has cancer?</li>
<li> Had all their wealth in the home they lived in?</li>
<li> What if someone owned a small business (say, 20 employees) that wasn’t profitable, and was their only asset? Would you support liquidating the business pay this tax?</li>
<li> Any lower limit?<br></li>
<li> Same rules in East Bayou, LA, as in New York City?</li>
</ol>

<p>I’ll have some more questions once you answer these.</p>

19

<p>So let me get this straight. I have 1 million dollars. I make 60,000 on that money. So I pay let’s say a 10,000 income tax. I have 50,000 left. It costs me 50,000 to live so I am even (except I am losing to inflation). Then I have to pay a 30,000 wealth tax on the money I have left. So now I am left with 970,000. I lose to inflation and I lose to the tax. </p>

<p>It would be pretty hard to amass any wealth for most people.</p>

<p>No wonder most of the Muslim economies are a wreck (Or will be when the oil runs out).</p>

<p>PS I like WashDad’s thorough questions.</p>

20

<p>Yes Muslims are a great model–for the middle ages.</p>