Edwards: Tax credits for poor, tax hikes for rich

Yes, let's remove some of the juicy subsidies that the rich get. BUT, not for more social spending. We need to get our financial house in order. Our countinued budget deficits will only hurt future generations.

We must stop the ever growing gap between the rich and the working class. Repeal the tax-cuts that the current administration has given to our priviledged wealthy in America. It's time that our wealthy friends stand on their own two feet.

Yours truly,

Frank F. Stoneham

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

das kapital lives

Another step closer to John's One America - where we are all broke.

If John Edwards meant what he said, he wouldn't wait to be elected president to start fighting poverty. He'd lift some families up by giving them the bulk of his fortune. Or he'd let them live on his estate. Or he'd at least give them coupons for $1200 hair cuts.

Countdown to the Anrgy Old Rich White Guy Reupblicans who will start complaining about what Edwards payed for a haircut.

John E., it's not payed, it's paid!

Now,let's run through this again. Bush's tax cuts cut taxes for everyone. For instance, the 28 percent rate (that is where most Americans are) went down to 25 percent. Those that were in the 10 percent tax bracket (that would be the poor) went to 0 percent. That's right, Lefties, under George Bush, the poor that were in the 10 percent tax bracket, NO LONGER pay federal income taxes!
Also, the child tax credit DOUBLED, it went from $500 per child, to $1,000 per child.

So, tell me, Loons, how exactly doubling the child tax credit, lowering taxes for all and REMOVING the poor from the federal tax rolls, is a tax cut for the wealthies?

And, it is quite "rich" that one of the wealthiest Americans alive, who does take from the people through his lawsuit schemes and who has a 30,000-square-foot house and pays 1,200 for a haircut and thousands for suits (I know BC thinks Edwards buys his suits at Kohls), is talking about the mistreatment of the poor. Edwards is one of the biggest mistreater alive!!

That's a $400 haircut. The $1200 was what Mitt Romney spent on makeup.

Another step closer to John's One America - where we are all broke.

Posted by: Terry | July 26, 2007 1:56 PM

Terry, more people are broke under Bush than before. Poverty is increasing, severe poverty is skyrocketing.

Thanks for the spelling lesson, Little Johnny Nazi!

"And, it is quite "rich" that one of the wealthiest Americans alive, who does take from the people through his lawsuit schemes and who has a 30,000-square-foot house and pays 1,200 for a haircut and thousands for suits (I know BC thinks Edwards buys his suits at Kohls), is talking about the mistreatment of the poor. Edwards is one of the biggest mistreater alive!!"

Ok I get it now! Its ok for silver-spooned aristocrats like President Bush to devote all of their policies to comforting the comfortable, but if a man who worked himself up from poverty wants to fight for the poor, well that's just plain wrong!

Who SHOULD fight for the poor, Mr. Dyslin? Oh I know I know, they're all just parasites living off the dole. Let's just bury them and forget about it. I guess other super-wealthy Americans like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have it all wrong in their philanthopic pursuits as well.

Hear John D: The only thing that rich people in power should do is give favor and comfort to those who already have favor and comfort! Amen halleluyah!

Every single candidate who is currently running for President is independently wealthy, yet to his and their credit, John Edwards and the Democrats are the only ones talking about helping out the middle and lower class Americans who make America the great place that it is and who didn't benifit from Prez Chimpy's tax cuts for the rich and his Iraq civil war (Haliburton, Blackwater etc.).

Tony,

American is not going to feel the impact,until the majority of the people feel it.

This includes the rich.

Imagine the dollar being worthless, then what???

We are in a Twiligt Zone...

American need to wake the freak up!!!

I notice that nobody actually addressed the facts given by John D regarding the Bush tax cuts. Is this the typical Lib approach to anything that conflicts with the hate-filled view of the moment?

You all should stop hating rich people, I bet one of them gave you a job. I know they've given me all of mine. And if I let them keep a large chunk of their money, they will give my brother or my neighbor or my friend a job too.

Libs, you'll be quite happy to learn that the stock market erased probably one trillion dollars in capital today. That's how you punish those fat cat hedge fund managers!

But I'm sure your IRAs and 401(k)s weren't affected because your money is pure.

I just hope Big Evil Pharma and Big Evil Oil collaborate on a petroleum-based drug that will alleviate symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Mikeman,
I like the rich white Republic Party members, I just don't want them running our country anymore.

Republicans need to look at history (although they hate education - is history tested on NCLB tests?) When taxes are raised on the rich, and the poor and middle class are helped, the economy soars and the deficit disappears. The poor and middle class are who buy most products, when they do well, business does well. Raising taxes on the rich has NEVER hurt our economy, it has always made it stronger. Then a Republican comes along, cuts taxes on the rich, and everything goes to heck again. It's an endless cycle.

Alright Mikeman, here are just a few examples:

This article plainly spells out the issue that progressives have with the regressive Bush tax cuts and is a must-read for either side of the debate:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/04/business/tax.php

It wisely stresses the extremely relavent but conveniently overlooked aspect of DEBT. In my humble opinion, a tax cut is not a tax cut if the budget is already in deficit. Its simply borrowing money to give it away, and as most people are able to understand but "conservatives" continue to conveniently overlook, BORROWING money requires repaying it with interest. I've always said that the Bush tax cuts are simply a check written out to the most affluent now and signed by future generations.

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, June 30, 2006

99% of Connecticut Residents Lose
Under Bush Tax Policy
New analysis finds only very wealthiest residents benefit
A new report by Citizens for Tax Justice finds that the "borrow-and-spend" fiscal policies of the
Bush administration have saddled nearly all Connecticut residents with a debt burden that far
exceeds the value of the tax cuts they've received since 2001. Only the wealthiest one percent of
Connecticut residents come out ahead when comparing the impact of tax cuts and increased debt.
The report includes new estimates of how the Bush tax cuts have affected Connecticut residents
at different income levels between 2001 and 2006. The report also shows that because the Bush
administration's tax cuts are paid for with borrowed money—which ultimately must be paid by
taxpayers through tax hikes or spending cuts—the bottom line for middle-income Connecticut
residents is a net loss.http://www.ctkidslink.org/media/press_releases/2006CtLoses.pdf

"Tax cuts under the Bush plan are not in proportion to the percentage of federal taxes paid. The richest 1% of taxpayers pay 20% of all federal taxes, but receive 36% of all tax cuts under this plan; similarly, the richest 5% pay 36.5% of federal taxes, but receive 49% of the tax cuts." http://www.mncn.org/bp/bushtax.htm

The analyses show that more than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent, about 2.6 million U.S. taxpayers.

By contrast, few taxpayers with modest incomes benefited because most of them who own stocks hold them in retirement accounts, which are not eligible for the investment income tax cuts.

Those making less than $50,000 saved an average of $10 more because of the investment tax cuts, for a total of $435 in total income tax cuts, according to the computer model. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/04/business/tax.php

Finally, Mikeman, I've got a little more faith in you apparently than you do. If you really think your boss can do better things with your money than you can, you'll fit in just fine in the Young Republican club. However, I as an employer have plenty of faith in my employees' ability to spend money wisely, and if a choice was offered of whether a dollar be given to me or to them, I would choose them. Why?

Because the chances of them spending that marginal dollar is greater than it is for me. And a dollar has a much greater multiplying effect as it trickles UP from consumers to owners of capitol, instead of the supply-side fantasy of trickle DOWN.

Do you really think that there are even a handful of people making over a million dollars a year who, after being given Bush's 2001 tax cut, actually went out and bought that shiny new Lexus for $74,000 that the voodoo economists predicted they would? Do you really think that boosting the income of someone making $1,000,000 by $75,000 is going to alter their spending patterns? Puhleeze.

Or you could think of it this way: it takes a whole lot more Treasury money to alter the patterns of an individual who is already making more than he or she can spend, whereas a relatively much smaller boost at the bottom will have obvious effects by putting more money into the hands of the vast majority of consumers.

The good times that Wall Street is having now is built on a foundation of massive debt. That "conservatives" seem to have no problem with this leads me to believe that they care not a lick for who will pay down this debt.

Tony,

Raising taxes has a better chance of taking us back to the Carter era, not the Clinton era - as you think.

You will find out what it takes to live on you own when you move out from mom and dad's roof - obviously you don't have a job as you are constantly responding to these posts all day long.

If mom and dad paid for any college courses that taught you economics or business, please tell them to go get a refund.

John E. - go back to summer school. Johnny Edwards help for the lower/middle class amounts to nothing but wealth redistribution. It dioes nothing to grow the economy.

It's obvious that some people (Edwards NOT included) do not understand the bush tax "cuts" and should either read the code (if they could understand it) or refrain from commenting on tax law. I think we need to raise taxes all across the board (higher for the rich and lower for the poor obviously) so that we can repair the country (Ghettos, Levees, School etc) and pay back the Chinese.

Those poor (figuratively) pitiful rich people. Thanks be to the best legislators money can buy for providing everyone with a tax cut on non-exempt income. But thanks more for all the additional loopholes and legislation they provided so those rich people can legally hide quite a bit more of their income so it doesn't have to be taxed.

But John D is right. If the government on whole is spending more (mostly on the war and the the "haliburton type" who profit from the war) we should definately reduce the amount of taxes coming in. Trickle down worked so well in the past, right?

While I'm not leaning towards voting for him, Edwards is right on target with this issue.

A just society has an obligation to spread the wealth of the few to those less fortunate. Actually, the bible demands it. Oh, but I forget, the right likes to focus on the draconian aspects of the "old" testament like "an eye for eye" so much, they don't bother with the "new" testament.

Such as:
Acts of the Apostles 4: 32-35

"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.
With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale,
and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need."

Sounds pretty socialist to me. Marx couldn't of said it better. (O.K., maybe not the "Bore witness" part) but the principle of property being kept in common and redistribution of wealth is the same.

Then, of course, we have the great teaching of Christ himself in regards to taxes:

Matthew 22: 17-21

"Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? Knowing their malice, Jesus said, "Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? Show me the coin that pays the census tax." Then they handed him the Roman coin.
He said to them, "Whose image is this and whose inscription?" They replied, "Caesar's." At that he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God." "

So, if Christ was here today, wouldn't he tell you Republican hypocrites, when you whine about taxes, "Give to WASHINGTON what's Washington's"

Terry-

Did you economic courses tell you that increasing poverty was a good thing?

Republican Motto:
----------------

TRICKLE DOWN

Trickle Down

trickle down

VOODOO ECONOMICS!

My economics courses told me raising taxes on an economy would worsen the economy, which would lead to more poverty.

I figured after a 40 year War on Poverty being waged by the federal gov't, poverty would be solved. Why isn't it?

Go look and see what the "poor" in our country have.

Supply side economics worked in the 60's with JFK, in the 80's with Reagan, and in the 2000's with President Bush.

Anyway Tony, what do you do for a living that allows to sit and blog all day? What great economic contribution are you making?

Terry, the real world disgrees with your economics classes.

Poverty went down every year under Clinton. Poverty has gone up every year under Bush.

But I'm sure your right, the poor are all a bunch of whiners, who are secretly living in the lap of luxury, and aren't worth even a passing thought about their needs.

All these left-wing objectors to cutting taxes seem to forget that it was the Democratic icon John Kennedy who was
one of the greatest advocates for tax cutting for all classes to spur the economy and create jobs that benefited people at all levels. Would you cry "voodoo" economics at John Kennedy? And if you decry tax cuts for higher tax classes, you
might wish to note also that's to have employEES, you must first have an employER. Finally, if you really don't like tax cuts, send yours back to the Treasury. Surely your money will go to a great purpose like subsidies for mohair raisers, bee keepers or the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.

The economy is in a 5 1/2 yr expansion - those tax cuts don't work do they?

As for Clinton, good thing he inherited a recovering economy and a good thing that personal computer/internet came along to carry his sorry economic policies.

"In January 1995 Bill Clinton submits a 1996 budget plan that calls for $12 trillion of spending over the next seven years and $200-billion deficits for as far as the eye can see. Even Washington Post reporter David Broder blasts the document as a "symbol of Clinton's failed leadership." Because of the debt Clinton is adding, writes Broder, "the annual net interest is projected to climb from $198 billion in 1993 to $270 billion in 1997 -- when it will, for the first time, be larger than the projected defense budget."

If anyone deserves credit with the gov't for the economy of the 90's, its Speaker Gingrich. He was the one that called for the balanced budget, not Clinton.

By the way Tony:

"Anyway Tony, what do you do for a living that allows to sit and blog all day? What great economic contribution are you making?"

I'm probably right, you live with mom and dad and know idea of reality.

The American Poor are better off than most of the world's middle class

The American Poor:

46% own their homes

75% own a car, 30% own two cars

97% have a color TV, 50% have 2 color TVs

78% have a VCR or DVD player and 62% have cable or satillite

25% have a big screen TV

26% have a cell phone and 24% have a computer

[quote]
Or he'd at least give them coupons for $1200 hair cuts.

Posted by: Bruce | July 26, 2007 2:00 PM
[/quote]

Maybe Dubya can give them coupons for $5000 custom mad suits instead.

Terry,

I don't see this as an D -v- R debate. Consider some other issues:

How about savings rates?
How about foreclosure rates?
How about bankruptsy rates due to medical bills?
How about job quality? (wages, benefits, etc.)

I used to negotiate union contracts for SEIU Local 1. As such, I would tell company reps and union members alike, they (the company) can't give what they ain't got. So, I'm all for companies being successful. That means workers have to do their jobs and (I took some heat for this) the union is not the public defenders office. We have/had no obligation under the law to defend someone regardless of what they say, do, or don't do.

To use a barnyard analogy: If you want that cow to keep giving milk, you have to help take care of it.

And Terry that works both directions.

Doug,

You're a union rep, that explains your love of Marxism. :)

I couldn't agree with you conclusion more. If an employer is underpaying its employees, they will lose those employees to other businesses. My issue is I don't see this as a gov't interference issue. The job of the corporation is to make money, not pay its employees well. The corporation needs to minimize its payroll costs just like any other costs while maximizing its output to generate revenue. If the employer is not paying its employees well, they will seek employment elsewhere and the corporation will then incur more cost due to employee turnover.

My point is that it is the employer/employee contract and does not need gov't interference.

I do have a union question for you, since I was a union employee long ago.

When you negotiate a rate for your union workers, say $20/hr, it will apply to all workers within a given employee group. Doesn't it bother the employees with that group that perform their job in a superior manner that they get paid the same as those employees that do not perform their work as well?

"The job of the corporation is to make money, not pay its employees well."

".Doesn't it bother the employees with that group that perform their job in a superior manner that they get paid the same as those employees that do not perform their work as well?"

Never bothered me. The employee is there to make money for themselves while putting out as little effort as possible.

If the company has no resposibility to pay me well, as you stated, it also follows that I have no obligation to make sure that they are profitable, or that they get a work output from me any greater than the as low as possible pay they give me deserves.

Loyalty is a two way street. If the company doesn't care for the worker, why should the worker care for the company?

Old Union GUy, it sounds like you were the employee that didn't put out the superior effort. Do you know the employee who did bust their butt a little harder felt getting paid the same as someone who "put out as little effort as possible."?