Dean's Tax Plan

Quote from Maverick74:

Well, this is turning out to be a great debate about Dean't tax plan.
More...

I don't think Dean's tax plan is smart. The problem isn't with tax collection and revenue, it is with spending. Congress just voted and approved another raise for themselves, which is wonderful -- it is one of the only bills that gets handled quickly.

However, Americans already pay enough taxes. I pay federal tax, state tax, county tax. I pay social security tax and medicare taxes. I even pay tolls every day going to and from work. After all is said and done, I probably pay close to 40% of what I earn in total taxes -- and I'm just lower middle income bracket!

The answer isn't raising taxes, but putting a very tight control on spending. Unfortunately, with the IRAQ war and possible terrorist actions always on the forefront, the current administration is writing whatever checks it needs to write to keep this country safe. That's fine, but there will be repercussions at some point. You can't have a government spending money left and right and running huge deficits without something bad happening like a devaluing of the dollar, inflation, etc.

So, Dean isn't going to win anyone's votes by threatening to raise taxes. If you've got a huge leak in your pool, you don't take a hose and turn it on to keep the water level constant. You fix the leak.

We've got outrageously out of control spending on things we just don't need. Everyone wants rovers on Mars, welfare for disabled workers, etc -- but that money has to come from somewhere and we're already taxed waist high.

Dean's tax plan flat-out sucks. If this keeps up, we'll all be working from January to October just to pay taxes.

STOP SPENDING.

Consumer credit card debt is at an all-time high of 2 trillion. The federal deficit is at a staggering 7 trillion. Most, if not all, of the states are running dangerously high deficits. My own city of Baltimore can't even afford money for schools -- DC schools are even worse, and large economy states like California are having their bonds reduced to junk status.

Raising taxes isn't the solution. STOP SPENDING MONEY. Cut programs that aren't necessary. Unfortunately, some of those cuts will have to be deep.

Thank god the economy is starting to show signs of strength because if it kept on dragging its feet, we'd have a lot of states going belly-up unable to pay their bills any longer.
 
I would say we have the highest deficit in the history of our country and that the Bush tax cuts are to blame. I would also say that without repealing the tax cuts, which is what the outline above of Dean's plan essentially calls for, we will slip into a Reagan-like decline where the only option is to severely cut social services, thus further gutting schools, environmental controls, and negating any possibility of health care reform. This is actually the long term goal of the GOP, to create such a huge deficit that social services have to be seriously cut back.

I also say that the place to make some money is in the business sector. Bush and the Republicans allow the largest corporations to avoid major taxes and environmental controls, which costs the average American tons of money (not to mention quality of life). Remember that under Clinton things were much better for all of us, even though the taxes were at pre-Bush levels.

Moore is using simple scare tactics that are easy to see through. In the US, freaking people out about taxes is an easy way to get people nervous about the Democratic candidate. But it is all BS. After all, the $85 billion that went to Iraq came from the taxpayers, not the Bush family or anywhere else.

The final point is that Moore and people like him really want to have their cake and eat it too (i.e. spend like crazy and pay no taxes). Sure, this would be great, it is like charging the hell out of your credit cards and then being surprised when the bill comes and you can’t pay it. Someone will have to pay for the Bush's huge spending increases (the largest in history). If it isn’t us today through higher taxes, then the future generations are screwed.
 
Quote from richtrader:

I would say we have the highest deficit in the history of our country and that the Bush tax cuts are to blame. I would also say that without repealing the tax cuts, which is what the outline above of Dean's plan essentially calls for, we will slip into a Reagan-like decline where the only option is to severely cut social services, thus further gutting schools, environmental controls, and negating any possibility of health care reform. This is actually the long term goal of the GOP, to create such a huge deficit that social services have to be seriously cut back.

I also say that the place to make some money is in the business sector. Bush and the Republicans allow the largest corporations to avoid major taxes and environmental controls, which costs the average American tons of money (not to mention quality of life). Remember that under Clinton things were much better for all of us, even though the taxes were at pre-Bush levels.

Moore is using simple scare tactics that are easy to see through. In the US, freaking people out about taxes is an easy way to get people nervous about the Democratic candidate. But it is all BS. After all, the $85 billion that went to Iraq came from the taxpayers, not the Bush family or anywhere else.

The final point is that Moore and people like him really want to have their cake and eat it too (i.e. spend like crazy and pay no taxes). Sure, this would be great, it is like charging the hell out of your credit cards and then being surprised when the bill comes and you can’t pay it. Someone will have to pay for the Bush's huge spending increases (the largest in history). If it isn’t us today through higher taxes, then the future generations are screwed.
More...

You know so little about Dean. Read this and tell me what you think about Dean now. It looks like he is in bed with corporate america too. What do they say about those that live in glass houses?

http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=9377
 
http://www.vermontgop.org/fact_check_dean.shtml

Fact Check: Dean Is Not A Fiscal Conservative

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dean in Denial About His Big Spending
From Americans for Tax Reform

Howard Dean Says He Limited Vermont Budget Increases to Economic Growth...
But One Year He Signed a Budget Increase FOUR Times That Large!

WASHINGTON - Today's [8/7/03] Washington Times quotes presidential hopeful Howard Dean (D) saying that, as Governor of Vermont, he limited state budget increases to the rate of gross state product (GSP) growth. But four of his annual budget increases exceeded GSP growth, including one whopping 23.7% increase, more than four times that year's GSP rise. Overall, Vermont state spending grew 83% under Dean from 1992 through 2001, 58% faster than the state's economy.

Howard Dean Says:

"[My fiscal policy as president] will be to limit the federal budget's rate of growth to the rate of growth in the economy… That's what we did in Vermont. You never let the budget grow faster than the economy."

But Under Howard Dean:


Year Vermont GSP Growth State Spending Growth
1995 1.7% 5.3%
1998 5.1% 8.1%
1999 5.3% 13.4%
2000 5.6% 23.7%

"Howard Dean likes to call himself a 'fiscal conservative,' and maybe he would have been one in 1970s Sweden," said Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). "But here in America, growing your state budget at 23.7% isn't fiscally conservative-it's fiscally insane. It's no wonder Dean is so ashamed of his tax-and-spend record he has to hide it-I wouldn't want to admit it either."

Dean's claim about the Vermont budget isn't the first tall tale he's told on the campaign trail. Today's San Jose Mercury News reports that Dean claimed never to have supported raising the Social Security retirement age to 70, even though he endorsed such a move in 1995; he also said he opposed raising the age to 68, despite saying he would consider doing so just two months ago.

"Can we believe anything Howard Dean says?" asked Norquist. "Maybe next he'll tell us that, during his service as Vermont Governor, he took initiative in creating the Internet."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fact Check: Dean Is Not A Fiscal Conservative
From Americans for Tax Reform
Irresponsible Spending Record As Governor
Completely Contradicts Recent Media Reports

WASHINGTON - [8/15/03] Presidential candidate Howard Dean has recently been touted as a fiscal conservative as Vermont's governor. In fact, Dean claims, based on his record, he will be a better keeper of taxpayer's money than President Bush. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has conducted an analysis, based on Howard Dean's criteria, which demonstrates Dean as fiscally irresponsible. The analysis below examines Howard Dean and then Governor Bush's spending records from calendar year 1994 - 2000, years in which both men were governors of their respective states.

Howard Dean Says:

"[My fiscal policy as president] will be to limit the federal budget's rate of growth to the rate of growth in the economy… That's what we did in Vermont. You never let the budget grow faster than the economy."

But The Real Facts:

Total state spending increased faster than Vermont's economy by 24.5 percent during the years of the study. Spending increased at an annual rate of 9 percent, while the state's economy was growing at just 5.5 percent. As a result, the average Vermont resident needed to work an additional 14.3 days in 2000 to pay for state spending than in 1994. All told, State Spending Freedom Day (SSFD) did not reach the average Vermont resident until March 14th in 2000.

By contrast, the average Texas resident needed to work 2.4 less days in 2000 than in 1994 under Governor Bush, while the US average was a slight increase of 1.7 days for the same study period. As such, the true cost of state spending increased nearly 8 times faster than the national average under Governor Dean. The chart below demonstrates the magnitude of these spending increases.


State 1994 SFD 2000 SFD Days Change Percent change
VT 58.3 Days 72.6 Days 14.3 Days 24.5% Increase
TX 36.2 Days 33.8 Days -2.4 Days 6.6% Decrease
U.S. 47.6 Days 49.3 Days 1.7 Days 3.6 % Increase

Data Sources: Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and Americans for Tax Reform
 
What Fiscal Discipline?
George W. Bush is no Reagan when it comes to spending.
June 10, 2003
By Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven

Edward Carter's guest column on last Friday's National Review Online, entitled "True Fiscal Discipline," left us scratching our heads over here at the Cato Institute's fiscal policy department. It was sort of like the Titanic — it started off as a nice voyage, but ended up ramming into an iceberg and sinking. In Carter's case the "iceberg" is his contention that Bush's fiscal policies "embody" fiscal discipline.

On the tax side of the coin Carter will get little argument from us — there is no doubt that Bush has done an ample job of pushing the tax-cut agenda. Great. But on the other side of the coin (spending) the Bush administration has been completely out to lunch.

Now, as Carter points out, it is true that when placed in the context of the economy's size (GDP), Bush has overseen spending that falls largely in line with the past 50 years. But is this something most NRO readers would celebrate or label as "fiscal discipline"? We hope not.

According to the President's budget for fiscay year 2004, Bush is the biggest spender in 25 years. Even Jimmy Carter's numbers are superior in real terms. Bill Clinton? Bush isn't even close to Bubba. Bush Sr.? Sorry, no. Reagan? No again, but the Gipper does make for a great comparison given his iconic status on the right.

Bush is increasingly being compared to Ronald Reagan. Democrats criticize him for being like Reagan while Republicans praise him for it. Like Reagan, Bush has successfully lightened the tax burden on the American people, and has overseen a massive defense-spending build-up. Given President Bush's recent push for more pro-growth tax cuts combined with increased defense spending for the war on terrorism, the analogy is tempting. But Bush's dismal record on spending when measured against Reagan's nullifies this temptation.

Let's look at the facts. If we compare the three-year percentage change in real spending during Reagan's and Bush's first terms, President Bush comes out as a profligate spender on his own and as compared to Reagan. Under President Bush, real total outlays are estimated to increase by 13.5 percent as opposed to 6.8 percent under Reagan. More importantly, total real discretionary outlays are set to increase by 19.5 percent under the Bush administration while they increased by only 2.8 percent under Reagan.

It gets worse. Discretionary spending is divided into two parts: defense spending and non-defense spending. When President Reagan pursued his defense buildup, he increased real defense discretionary outlays by 19.2 percent while cutting non-defense discretionary outlays by 13.5 percent. However, if estimates hold, President Bush will have increased real defense discretionary outlays by 21.2 percent — but non-defense discretionary outlays will have risen by 18 percent. Discretionary spending numbers are telling because they are determined in the annual appropriations process where the president has the most influence.

A cursory look at the real three-year percentage change in non-defense discretionary spending for selected budget categories during the first terms for these presidents reveals that President Reagan managed to cut spending in most budget functions. In contrast, Bush has not only failed to match Reagan in reducing spending, spending has actually gone up across-the-board, and often at exorbitant levels.

Of course, the argument can be made that it is unfair to lay excessive blame on President Bush for over-spending given that Congress technically controls the purse strings. The GOP-dominated Congress has delivered three-of-the-top-five largest spending sprees in American history — the other two occurred during World War II. Thus, President Bush appears to have inherited a Congress with established spendthrift credentials.

However, this excuse is diminished by the fact that Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill during his time in office. Instead, he has agreed to sign every piece of legislation crossing his desk, including a bloated farm bill and an intrusive education bill. In contrast, President Reagan vetoed 22 spending bills during his first three years in office.

In addition, President Bush has been the beneficiary of a considerably more favorable party arrangement in Congress. Although Republicans did control the Senate during Reagan's first term, Democrats dominated the House — by a 100-seat margin at one point. President Bush on the other hand has had the luxury of a largely GOP-controlled Congress. While Reagan was sufficiently successful at taming a doubting and often hostile Congress, Bush has demonstrated a lack of conviction in tempering the spending desires of a comparatively receptive Hill.

Carter is basically correct in saying that "for more than 200 years America has thrived on a regimen of low taxes and limited government" (low and limited as compared to the rest of the world). But we can do much better. Yes, "true fiscal discipline" embraces the virtues of low taxation and limited government. Unfortunately, President Bush's fiscal policies do not.

— Veronique de Rugy is a fiscal policy analyst and Tad DeHaven a fiscal policy researcher at the Cato Institute.
More...
 
Quote from Madison:

More...

Madison, why is it that liberals always do this? This thread is about Dean's tax plan and you post an article about Bush. What the f*ck? Can we not have a civil conversation on this board about a single issue without it coming back to Bush every freaking time. I want to hear people's ideas about Dean's tax plan.

I want to hear what liberals have to say, conservatives and everyone in between. This thread is not about the war, WMD, abortion, god, civil rights, gun control, this thread is about taxes. Why do you guys always want to duck the issue. Yeah I know it hurts to look at Dean's tax proposal but let's talk about it.

So do you have anything constructive to say now?
 
Quote from aphexcoil:

I pay social security tax and medicare taxes.
More...

You may pay into the systems, but these are not taxes.

Whether they are a good or bad "investment" is another issue. But they are popular programs with both the right and the left, and championed by both sides at different times.

Social Security was a "communist" concept to the right wing of the Republican Party when Roosevelt was President. (Or certainly at least "Socialist", which is more accurate anyway). Now it is a pet cause of the Republican Party.

Aphie, you should not be paying into these systems anyway. You should be a teacher (an educator!). Teachers (or anyone with a pension) don't pay into SS. And I believe (not positive) that public employees don't pay into Medicare either.

Or, you can join the military, and again not have to pay into these. Or be self employed, and not pay. Lot's of ways to NOT pay. Just don't be a W2 employee.

If you are no longer selling golf equipment, and you are just trading, you are most likely not paying for SS benefits or for Medicare. If you ARE, then you must have a very good "trading" deal. Like running a trading desk at Goldman Sachs. Is that what you are doing these days? Merrill? JPM?

Peace,
:)RS
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Madison, why is it that liberals always do this? This thread is about Dean's tax plan and you post an article about Bush. What the f*ck? Can we not have a civil conversation on this board about a single issue without it coming back to Bush every freaking time. I want to hear people's ideas about Dean's tax plan.

I want to hear what liberals have to say, conservatives and everyone in between. This thread is not about the war, WMD, abortion, god, civil rights, gun control, this thread is about taxes. Why do you guys always want to duck the issue. Yeah I know it hurts to look at Dean's tax proposal but let's talk about it.

So do you have anything constructive to say now?
More...

thanks for the lecture - good thing there are superior people to keep the idiots in line.

you present dean's ideas by comparing them to bush's - and then object on the grounds that the discussion must not include bush. lol.

the idea is for people to reach their own conclusions, but here are some starters:

- there is no correlation between what politicians say and what they do. bush is an example, but it applies to Dean, Clinton, or FDR. bush's handlers campaign on "conservatism," then spend like drunken sailors. they preach small government, then increase its size as quickly as possible.

- the article was not on abortion or WMD, but on bush's economic policies. taxes do not exist in a vacuum. maybe a less ideological reader may read the article and ask how, for example, bush's welcome 3% reduction in income tax rates plays in light of his creation of massive new bureaucracies or his $500 billion imperial adventures. that reader may assign a different value to promises of future tax cuts (or increases) if he also considers the other policies bush may deliver.
 
Quote from Madison:

thanks for the lecture - good thing there are superior people to keep the idiots in line.

you present dean's ideas by comparing them to bush's - and then object on the grounds that the discussion must not include bush. lol.

the idea is for people to reach their own conclusions, but here are some starters:

- there is no correlation between what politicians say and what they do. bush is an example, but it applies to Dean, Clinton, or FDR. bush's handlers campaign on "conservatism," then spend like drunken sailors. they preach small government, then increase its size as quickly as possible.

- the article was not on abortion or WMD, but on bush's economic policies. taxes do not exist in a vacuum. maybe a less ideological reader may read the article and ask how, for example, bush's welcome 3% reduction in income tax rates plays in light of his creation of massive new bureaucracies or his $500 billion imperial adventures. that reader may assign a different value to promises of future tax cuts (or increases) if he also considers the other policies bush may deliver.
More...

Let's talk about Dean's tax plan, not Bush's economic policies. You keep bringing this back to Bush. I am not comparing Bush's tax plan to Dean's. I simply want to talk about Dean's tax plan period. Leave Bush out of this for a second. In fact if anything, we should be comparing Dean's tax plan to the other democratic candidates tax plan, not Bush's.

Now are you telling me you are OK with those tax hikes? You want the estate tax to go from 0 back to 55%? You want your dividends to be taxed at 39.6% instead of 15%? You want short term capital gains taxes to go up 33%? Don't you trade for a living? You are OK with Dean raising taxes by 50% on the lower class? You have answered none of these questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top