Now I am against progressive taxation and a social conserative

[dsc]

Yes, that's right. Because I dare to have a problem with paying more in taxes than those making 4 times my salary I am against progressive taxation and a social conservative. That is a crock.

My sole problem is the blatent unfairness of those with a better standard of living paying nothing and my paying something. That is wrong.

Under Clark's plan I pay close to $500 in taxes and people making 50k pay none. That is unfair.

I don't think I should be slandered for saying so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=74218&mesg_id=74218

That is the thread in which this was said original post and post 33

[KittyWampus]

1. The Kids Benefitting Will Be Paying Your Social Security

Further, there is the concept of "Triage" ... the sorting and allocating of treatment to patients such as disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors.

Paul Krugman just pointed out that even Rubin has now joined the "Coalition of the Shrill" warning about impending Economic Disaster.

Right now, getting money to families with kids is allocating tax breaks to those who can best maximize the benefits FOR THE WHOLE OF SOCIETY.

Post Script: Clark is the only candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of cutting the Pentagon Budget and/oro holding them accountable.

NO Economic Plan will be of any use over the medium or long term without addressing the Pentagon's bloated budget.

[bearfartinthewoods]

4. a family of 4 with income of 100,000 is in more need than a

single person earning 14.000? could you flesh that out for me?
how does your triage prioritize this?

[KittyWampus]

6. Because An Economic Plan Is More Than Tax Code

also a family of four stretching $100, 000 to include health insurance along with everything else is endangering not just one individual but four of them.

Further, who says the Tax Code can't give benefits to singles in two years after the Economy starts getting its footing back?

[OhioStateProgressive]

8. that is sick

families who make 100,000 should have their taxes RAISED

jesus, 100,000 is NOT middle class!

[WoodrowFan]

11. 100,000 IS Middle-class

$100,000 is well within the middle class. That's about what the Mrs and I make together and we don't live lavish lives. We can't afford a vacation every year, drive older cars, and live in a small house in a middle-working class neighborhood. I moved to DC from ohio so I know $100,000 goes further there than in DC, but anyone who thinks in an area like DC, or New York, or any other really big city can tell you, $100,000 may be in the upper half of middle class but it IS middle class.

[OhioStateProgressive]

13. no, 100,000 is not middle class!

thats nice that you and the Mrs. make alot of money, but it still isn't middle class

[WoodrowFan]

24. According to the Census

According to the U.S. Census Bureau the middle 20 percent of the country earns between $40,000 and $95,000 a year. The top 20% earns more than $165,000 a year. Even if you say that everybody in the top 5th is rich. $100,000 a year still falls well under that level.

BTW, according to Salary.com, the cost of living in DC is 17% higher than in Pittsburgh.

[OhioStateProgressive]

26. i say the top 20% is rich(nt)

[WoodrowFan]

29. fine, but 100,000 is well beloew that top 20% (NT)

[redqueen]

33. Please don't do this

Dividing the classes among lower lines is playing into their hands (right wing, corporatocracy, take your pick of terms).

We shouldn't be fighting against those making a little more than us. They are not the enemy. They really are just at the comfort level, hard as that is to believe for someone (like you and I, I assume) who makes much less.

The enemy is the top 2%, and even more than that, the top .05%

Fighting amongst ourselves over crumbs is self-defeating, and they love it, and have used it well for centuries.

Please let's stop, and recognize that we're being manipulated.

[OhioStateProgressive]

38. i guess

but I support class warfare...it's the only way we can force socialism on America

[redqueen]

45. I do too

But the issue is what class?

What we're seeing in this thread and others is a play-by-play account of exactly what the corporatocracy wants: you manipulate the lower classes into fighting against each other. By doing this, the top dogs are in no danger.

Picture it this way: there are starving dogs outside your door. Some are fed every other day, some every few days. You throw a few steaks outside, and wait until there are a few good fights occupying the dogs' attention. Then you can scurry by safely as you carry your tray of filet mignons to the good-ole-boys club next door.

See? When the middle class and lower class fight each other, the upper class is ecstatic, because they're off the hook.

It's worked too long.

[OhioStateProgressive]

46. i say lump them in with the upper crust

and go after them all

[redqueen]

48. half a starving pack

can't beat half a starving pack and the elites which run the show for everyone.

[bearfartinthewoods]

56. are you saying 100,000 is just "a little more" than 14,000?

and calling 10% of someon's income "crumbs" isn't helpful if that's the amount they owe the landlord.

[redqueen]

61. Compared to what the top 2% or 1% or .05% makes?

You bet your ass it is.

And that's my WHOLE point.

[KittyWampus]

79. 100,000 Divided By Four Is 24,000

With 2 of those people needing new clothing every year.

Also, a house or rental with at least one more room.

Significantly more wear and tear on car plus gasoline.

Somewhat more electricity use.

Futhermore, we are talking about FOUR people who, if there's a Depression, would be much harder to uplift than a single person.

[bearfartinthewoods]

"100,000 Divided By Four Is 24,000"

and 24,000 divided by two is what my wife and i have.

so each of those four people are scraping by on what my wife and i both manage on. you are not convincing me.

[JVS]

16. This is the problem

Definition of class is very fluid in our society. $100,000 per year can be defined as middle class or not.

First of all there is the age factor, if you have a couple who are both 23 and they make a total of $100,000/year this is clearly not middle class. These people are relatively affluent and assuming that they continue to advance their careers will probably end up quite wealthy. Contrast this with a couple near the end of their careers that have just made it to the level where each of them is making $50,000 a year, these people are arguably middle class.

Adding complexity to this debate is the fact that we don't have a real definition of middle class in this country.

[OhioStateProgressive]

19. i can buy your argument

but to flatly state that 100,000 is middle class is ludicrous

It made me want to go to my hometown outside of Pittsburgh and go tell all the old steel workers that 100,000 counts as middle class these days...as they struggle to earn 25,000 a year at a non Union factory, since the Union shops all shut down

[WoodrowFan]

22. is this too subtle?

Yeah, but we're not living in a depressed area. Here a simple Cape Cod built in the 1940s sells for $300,000 and up. It's not middle class in some depressed are of West Virginia but it sure is middle class in much of the US.

[OhioStateProgressive]

28. i'm just gonna keep quiet

it bothers me that some white collar or techie could stand and act like him being middle class is the same as someone who works with his hands in good honorable factory jobs

class divisions go deeper than the money earned, but the job as well

[WoodrowFan]

30. too bad

too bad if it bothers you, but us white collar types are middle class as well. We're being screwed over by Bush and his cronies just as much.

BTW, I have worked in a factory (GM) and doing work in resturants. That's how I paid for college.

[OhioStateProgressive]

34. i tell you what

go into the Steel valley of Ohio and Pa. and explain to those people your tax problems and then listen to theirs

you need perspective

[WoodrowFan]

37. I have it, do you?

I grew up in the Rust Belt and WORKED in a factory. I've seen both sides, have you?

BTW, I am not complaining about my taxes, just trying to get you to see that the middle class is a bit larger than your limited perspective admits.

[OhioStateProgressive]

43. hmmm

my dad, uncle, brother lost their jobs when Rockwell shut down

I moved to Ohio

I worked as a tool and die apprentice(skilled labor) for three years...of course since it wasn't Union it was for low wage

I am finishing up my degree (Pell Grants)...on taxpayers money, mostly from people making over 100,000 a year

I have all the perspective I need

[JVS]

27. Hey, I'm from Penn Hills, right outside Pittsburgh. Where are you from?

[OhioStateProgressive]

36. in between Butler and New Castle(nt)

[BuelahWitch]

49. Hey! I grew up in Pulaski!

Still have relatives in New Castle area. Hi neighbor! :hi:

[OhioStateProgressive]

50. cool:)

i actually moved to a few places in Ohio after i moved from Pa., but I still ahve relatives in New castle, Erie, and Cambridge Springs

[dsc]

10. how many jobs paying 100k don't have health insurance?

that is absurd. People making the like of my salary and the poster you are responding to's salary are far less likely to have health insurance than that family is. BTW I don't.

[redqueen]

20. Employers don't cover the cost

For just me, the cost would be minimal.

To cover me and my family, it's nearly $250 / mo. Plus deductibles, co-pays, etc. (and these really add up when you have children).

[dsc]

31. a couple of things

First, I still have doubts that jobs paying $100k have that poor of an insurance offering but for the sake of arguement lets say they do. Lets have the $100,000 family have 5 kids with a $500 deductible for each one. Let's even have them be really sickly kids and use up the whole thing. Ok here is what we have. $250 a month for 12 months equals $3000. $500 * 7 (people) equals $3500. That makes our $100,000 family have an income of $93,500. That is still a higher per capita income than the single making $12,500. And that single could never get health insurance for free. The poster I responded to, though not Clark, seemed to think that that family should pay nothing while the single paid $480. That isn't fair.

[redqueen]

39. I wasn't saying the health insurance costs are the only reason

justifying the position. It's not. There are many other factors. See post #35 in the other thread if you're curious.

Also, this isn't a 'poor' insurance offering. It's average. And it's getting worse, every year. That's why we need to end for-profit insurance coverage. :)

[dsc]

47. Post 35 assumes the single is making 40k

and I have no arguement with him on that. But there is no way, no how that I am going to buy the idea that a single making 12.5k is better off than a family of 7 making 100k assuming all else is equal.

[papau]

51. Many taxes - including an income tax-the payroll tax -still hit under 50k

folks with kids.

I do not see the cost benefit ratio problem.

A guy with no assets does not need much to defend his assets.

[dsc]

54. thise taxes also hit me

and either to the same or greater perportion than the family. For example I have a car and thus pay the associated fees and taxes to have it but the family likely has only 2 cars. They pay twice as much then not four times as much. SS taxes are flat rate so equal. Nearly all the other taxes are either per item or flat and thus I either am taxed higher or equal. This I still pay more in taxes.

[bearfartinthewoods]

58. yes, but even if you must pay, you are obviously benefiting from being

enrolled in a group. your health care costs are incredibly low as i paid 450 per month for two people until we got coverage through an employer. are you sure your employer in not contributing? 250 a month is an incredibly good deal for a family.

[redqueen]

63. *sigh*

I never said that I don't benefit. I never said upper middle class people had to pay for coverage outside a group.

Geez Louise this should not be this difficult.

I posted in response to another post, wherein it was stated that there was some doubt as to whether people making $100K didn't have health insurance.

I merely pointed out that although yes, they do probably have access to a group plan, that those costs are not borne 100% by the employer.

And yes, my employer is paying part of the premium.

[JVS]

2. How could you be so selfish?

;-) Just joking.

[blm]

3. Why are you starting another thread?

You take everything said so personally as if it is all directed at you personally. You might feel better if you read posts more objectively.

[dsc]

7. coming from you that is rich

but frankly I was directly told by one poster I should go out and have some kids if I didnt' like it. But although I directed this personally my point is that this isn't progressive. And I'll start threads when I damn well please.

[KittyWampus]

9. BLM Seldom Starts Her Own Threads

she usually manages to make her point within existing threads. And quite well, I may add. :)

[blm]

15. Then direct yourself to that poster who irked you

in the other thread. What you are doing is exactly what Skinner asked us not to do.

[dsc]

25. I doubt you would tell a woman who complained about sexism this

I think the shitty treatment of single people and childless people both on this forum and off it is an issue. Guess since you have both a husband and kids you don't give a shit. Hardly surprising.

[blm]

35. That wasn't the point at all. But you're too angry to notice.

I have no qualms with WHAT you said, it's HOW you choose to vent it. You didn't need to start another thread.

You're doing to me exactly what you are complaining was done to you. You just attacked me by saying I don't give a shit because I have a husband and child. That's untrue and an unfair attack, but, I don't plan to start a thread about it to complain, dsc.

[dsc]

41. Get this through your head

this is a general problem. This is hardly the first time childless single people have been abused for daring to say that some of the pro family agenda has gotten blatently out of hand. Yes, it has been renewed again with this debate but it has gone on many times. Incidently the telling to get a spouse and kid was in reference to threads about the marriage penalty. But, again, I think the issue of the utter disrepsect shown to the single and childless is important enough for its own thread. You clearly don't. I do apologize for assuming why though.

[bearfartinthewoods]

18. me too...i was told to "find a fertile mate and hit the bed"

i'm really glad my wife doesn't read DU much anymore.

[WoodrowFan]

32. I'd tell them

Given that the Mrs and I can't have kids I'd want to tell that person to stuff it.

BTW, I don't think anybody making $12,000 a year SHOULD pay income taxes. I am just not convinced thay would have to under Clark's plan.


On Edit: I meant to say that I think that 12,000 should fall under the level at which someone pays taxes. When I posted this note I understood that they now do pay income tax.

[dsc]

52. Take a look at the tax form

The 1040 EZ makes it clear as day. A single person making $12,000 does pay income taxes. You may like to think that isn't true but it is.

[WoodrowFan]

53. you are correct

You are correct, my apologies.

[dsc]

55. thank you

I know people often don't believe this is the case due to things like the EIC but it is true.

[Scott Lee]

5. And you support the consumption of kitten flesh in bizarre rituals...

and push down old ladies at the corner bus stop and take their purses, and yada yada yada.

I know, man. I see it daily. ;)

[WoodrowFan]

12. I find it hard to believe

I find it hard to believe that anyone making $12,000 a year is paying any taxes. If they are I sugest they visit H&R Block.,

[dsc]

14. take a look at the tax form

I majored in Mathematics and am a good reader. The form is very simple. The stanard deduction and exemption come to $7,700 for a single person. Go look it up if you don't believe me. That leaves $4,300 to be taxed. 10% of that is $430. I doubt I am unique in not having enough deductions to itemize.

[dolstein]

17. Fine, support Dean -- and pay even more than under Clark's plan

Clark may not give you a tax cut (as a single taxpayer, I feel your pain). But at least he isn't going to raise your taxes, like Howard Dean, who would increase the lowest bracket from 10% to 15%.

[bearfartinthewoods]

21. ya know......

for some of us, it isn't just about what we pay. it's about the fairness of the system. it's about not feeling hosed. it's about a basic premise of liberliam called progressive taxation which does NOT include the idea that a person who earns 14.000 should pay a tax while a person earning 49,999 need not.

[dolstein]

42. In case you hadn't noticed, Clark's plan is more progressive

The person who earned 14,000 and pays taxes under Clark's plan pays the exact same amount under the current plan (and pays 33% more under Dean's). Sure, I wish Clark cut taxes for lower income single childless taxpayer's in addition to lower income households with children. But it's not the lower income single taxpayers who are financing the tax cut for families -- its the wealthiest taxpayers. Clark's tax plan is more progressive than Bush's and Dean's. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

[bearfartinthewoods]

59. you guys keep saying this...do you really think we are all stooopid?

progressivity, imho does not equal people who make 14,000 paying taxes while people who make three times that don't.

whether the taxes owed by the 14,000 guy under clark are the same as they are under dean is not the point. it's the fact that they remain tax payers while someone with more than three times their income doesn't.

[redqueen]

67. Proof right here: set the lower classes against each other and the rich

are sitting pretty.

This is really very sad.

Sadder even than seeing liberals defend free trade agreements that are setting this country back 100 years.

[lastliberalintexas]

109. THANK YOU!!!!

You've tried to make this point several times, but people just aren't listening. *sigh*

Why are we fighting amongst ourselves? The REAL enemies are the uber wealthy, those who earn more than a million in a single tax year. If they were taxed at rates we had under Roosevelt, Truman or even Eisenhower, we could exempt far more people than we do now. When the income tax was first implemented under Wilson, IIRC, something like the bottom 80% or so were WHOLLY EXEMPT from federal income taxes. It was intended to only tax the robber baron types, not the average American.

If those making under $50,000 just keep focusing on those making about $100,000 (and vice versa), the robber barons are the only ones who win.

[redqueen]

117. No, thank YOU!

You've just single-handedly made my afternoon. :D

:yourock:

[lastliberalintexas]

122. Glad I could be of assistance

:-)

It just gets very frustrating to see progressives arguing over which group should be taxed more- those making $15K or $50K. As progressives, we should be arguing that NEITHER of them should be subject to the federal income tax at all!

It's the same thing the RW does with the working poor/middle class and those receiving gov't assistance. If you keep that lower middle class guy upset over and focused on the $10K a year in housing and medical benefits that the welfare recipient gets, it makes it a heck of a lot easier for Ken Lay to steal MILLIONS. Maybe one of these days we'll learn.

[QC]

129. Yep, and it works every time, doesn't it? n/t

[redqueen]

133. It would seem so, yes.

:(

[dsc]

23. In return I would get health insurance

humm $200 or health insurance? pretty easy choice.

[redqueen]

40. What's the premium for the insurance?

What's the co-pay?

Devil's in the details, you know.

[dolstein]

44. Yeah, let's see Dean pass health insurance

I'll believe it when I see it.

[JVS]

62. Let's see Clark pass this taxcut

I don't think the Republicans would let it happen.

[bearfartinthewoods]

94. are you under the impression that this health coverage will be free?

: eyes :

[dsc]

100. No but I am under the impression

that it will be far less than $200 below market price. The figure he gave as a max (7% of income) would be around $1000 a year for me and that was vastly less than I can get comparable coverage for. When I paid half I was paying over $150 a month.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. What's in it for me?

Is that what you're saying?

Here's what I have to say about your comments:

"ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

[JVS]

60. Yes this sacrifice is necessary so that well off families won't go GOP!

They need the tax cut to help get their children a Playstation, it is more important than the rent money of a poor single person.

I have a quote for you too
"Those who take the most from the table, teach contentment. Those for whom the taxes are destined, demand sacrifice."-Brecht

[redqueen]

65. WTF?

Playstation? Poor single person's rent?

Please!

We are being manipulated!!!!

Yes, it is important that taxes be low for the poor. Yes, it is important that they be lessened for the middle class.

Stop the infighting, please.

For the love of God and all that's holy, please open your eyes and see that you're fighting over crumbs!!!!!!!

I know, I know... crumbs aren't rent money and blah blah blah.

Admit to yourself that the difference between the upper middle class compared to the difference between the vast majority of Americans (and yes this INCLUDES the upper middle class) and the top earners is NOTHING! NOTHING!!!!!!!!

[JVS]

135. It isn't the fault of the lower class that people let themselves be...

bought off and start acting like they are rich. People like to think of themselves as succesful, so they act as though what is good for the rich is good for them.

[dsc]

64. If it weren't also bad policy

I am not a selfish person. I rarely vote against increases in taxation. But I do have a problem with living a poverty life style and paying taxes while people right down the street are living a middle class one and paying no taxes. That is totally unfair.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. You say 'bad policy' but the content of your post

is again, all about what's in it for you. I don't have kids either and personally I do think it is fair that people with kids pay lower taxes than me, and get more tax breaks than me, whatever their income.

This $500 dollars you have to pay is all you seem to care about, not the future of our country.

[OhioStateProgressive]

70. the future of our country is...

getting those with 6 and 7 figure salaries to have the entire tax burden without ANY on the 5 figure families

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. A laudable goal.

One that I support. But even if that goal were to be achieved, I still would argue that it makes sense to have child tax credits. As has been said before, 'it takes a village'.

[OhioStateProgressive]

75. families who make decent money do not deserve a cut more

than someone who can't pay their bills or afford any simple luxuries

[redqueen]

77. Here again, you set yourself up as the opposition

Why do you insist on making it:

Poor vs. everyone else

Rather than:

AVERAGE AMERICANS VS. THE VERY RICH

[OhioStateProgressive]

84. it's important to remember

that no workers movement ever had any support from white collar middle class types...all workers socialist movements came from the Poor class, agaisnt the other classes

i don't see how it can happen any differently here

[redqueen]

92. How is this any different

than arguments saying that we've never had a truly progressive president so why should it be any different now? (i.e. Kucinich)

Also, Kucinich isn't planning on rolling back all the cuts under Bush either. You may want to read up on his plan.

Kucinich on Taxes

[OhioStateProgressive]

97. im well aware of Dennis's tax plans:)

and I understand what you are saying

maybe i am wrong about it, I'm still voting for Dennis regardless:)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. An honest difference of opinion.

I think we should all help raise the children. You don't.

[OhioStateProgressive]

83. oh bullshit

you could paint a building with that wide swathed comment


I do not believe a family making 100,000 deserves a tax break more than a single person who makes 20,000 or less

and your comment about the children is so vulgar i might nearly curse

yeah, lets see which person Im voting for

Single Payer healthcare
Universal Pre K thru Bachelors Education

yeah, these are certainly bad for children

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. We do disagree, and it is an honest disagreement.

You say:

"I do not believe a family making 100,000 deserves a tax break more than a single person who makes 20,000 or less"


I say

"I do believe a family making any amount deserves a tax break more than a single person making any amount"

So we disagree. Where's the bullshit?



on edit: I think you are confused about the meaning of the word 'vulgar' -- and sorry, but your attempt to get me to bash DK won't work, I have profound respect for him and his positions.

[dsc]

86. Wow

I do believe a family making any amount deserves a tax break more than a single person making any amount.

end of quote

So a single person flipping hamburgers at the local McDees is less deserving of a tax break than Ken Lay (assuming he has or had kids). Well, I guess I know why you think I am selfish geeze.

[OhioStateProgressive]

101. the bullshit

is that you attempted to paint me as someone who doesn't care about children

and it is a big wet bucket of shit...because you are wrong

[Feanorcurufinwe]

113. If I'd said what you ascribe to me, you'd have a point.

But I didn't.

[OhioStateProgressive]

125. truth hurt

"I think we should all help raise the children. You don't."

what you said to me

my post stands as correct as it ever was

[Feanorcurufinwe]

137. I also stand by what I said.

I never "attempted to paint you as someone who doesn't care about children", which is what you accused me of. I said what I said.

I think we should all help raise the children. Specifically, in the context of this discussion, by giving tax credits to parents. You apparently disagree. Or do I have your position wrong?

[OhioStateProgressive]

142. of course you have it wrong

I believe empoverished people, or those near poverty line need tax breaks

you obviously don't

just an honest disagreement

[Feanorcurufinwe]

143. You are confusing two separate issues.

Child tax credits, and progressive taxation.

I'm willing to accept that I have your position wrong, but please accept the fact that you are also mischaracterizing my position.

I believe our tax system is not progressive enough.

I believe empoverished people, or those near poverty line shouldn't pay any taxes at all.


But whatever the tax rates, are, and however progressive our tax code is, or may become, I believe it makes sense to give tax credits to families with children.


I won't try to characterize your position with regard to child tax credits again, since you say I got it wrong.


See this post for more details on what my actual position is.

[OhioStateProgressive]

145. fair enough, i was wrong in my attitude anyways:)(nt)

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

105. Keep looking - nearly everyone here thinks NAFTA is 'fixable' n/t

[dsc]

71. Given that is nearly 2 months rent

or probably close to 7 of groceries that is alot to me thank you. I think you need to live on an income like mine for awhile and see for yourself. It must be nice to get up on your high horse and call people selfish. I mean how dare I get upset over this. People in my income level never get to travel. We rarely eat out. We are often playing utility roulette (if you have to ask then you aren't playing). But if you feel better calling me selfish then go the hell ahead.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. Wow that's some cheap rent. You should be thankful.

You have no idea of what my income level is and I never engaged in the name-calling you accuse me of. I just happen to believe that it is sensible, responsible social policy for folks with kids to get tax breaks. I am willing to make that sacrifice even though I don't have kids. You obviously are not. If you wish to infer that that makes you 'selfish' you are welcome to that opinion.

[dsc]

74. Yeah it is

Poor people tend to find cheap rents I wouldn't have thought that was a news flash. And again, until you have had to decide which utility to pay this month and which ones not to I really think you need to go elsewhere looking for sacrifice.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. So you are all for sacrifice as long as it is not you who has to do it?

lol

[redqueen]

80. This is ANOTHER reason we can't win the 'class war'

The lower incomes divide and conquer each other, so that the elites are never even bothered about it.

Also it's very easy to paint them as 'someone who will give you the shirt off someone else's back'.

:(

[dsc]

81. well which utlility would you like me to do without

should I give up my one entertainment luxury? My phone, my electricity? I mean what would you like? Should I walk to work? Should I face arrest for driving without insurance? Please illuminate me on this. You pointedly don't state your income (gee I wonder why?) Again, tell me specificly what I should give up so that the family down the street can have that little bit more.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

87. It really is all about you as far as you are concerned isn't it?

Just because I have a sense of privacy and don't wish to post my financial situation on DU, you feel justified in leaping to conclusions about me. The fact is, I also have to make difficult choices like you describe and I still believe that it makes sense for families with children to receive a tax break. You've stated your case, and I've stated mine. I'm sorry the way I've presented my case has hurt your feelings.

If you really want my advice - which I doubt - I would suggest trying to raise your income, rather than deciding which bill not to pay.

[dsc]

88. Gee, why didn't I think of that?

Given that you believe this:

You say:

"I do not believe a family making 100,000 deserves a tax break more than a single person who makes 20,000 or less"


I say

"I do believe a family making any amount deserves a tax break more than a single person making any amount"

So we disagree. Where's the bullshit?


I now understand you. Billionaires with children are more deserving of breaks than I am according to you. Yea I admit that is a real difference of opinion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

89. I'm sure you did, that's why the choice you presented was a false one

[dsc]

90. The crappy economy is one reason I am so for Dean

I think his policies will return us to the 1990's and the great economy.

[Brian_Expat]

82. Bizarre. How's demanding the poor pay for the middle class "progressive"?

n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

112. speaking for myself.

i am MORE than willing to sacrifice for people who have it HARDER than i do.

that means people who have the same income but are raising kids.

it does NOT mean sacrificing for people who make four times what i do because they are raising kids.

[JVS]

130. Amen

That's how I feel about the matter too

[bearfartinthewoods]

98. wtf?????

you wrote:

I do think it is fair that people with kids pay lower taxes than me, and get more tax breaks than me, whatever their income.

are you serious?
a billionaire needs a tax break because he has kids?
a millionaire needs a tax break because he has kids?

you cannot be serious?????

[Feanorcurufinwe]

107. Let me break it down for you

please give me a little leeway because all I can use is made up numbers.

I see nothing wrong with a billionaire, who pays lets say, four million dollars a year in taxes, receiving a $500 tax credit per child. So they actually would pay three million nine hundred ninety-nine thousand five hundred dollars in taxes.

If I were writing the tax code, however, the credit would be progressive as well, so someone making fourteen thousand dollars a year and paying five hundred dollars a year in taxes would receive, lets's say, a two thousand dollar tax credit, so they actually would receive a one thousand five hundred dollar check from the government.

The issue of what the tax rate should be and how progressive it should be is a separate issue. But do I think someone making fourteen thousand dollars a year should have to pay five hundred dollars in income tax? No. I don't believe they should have to pay anything kids or not. I think we should have a more progressive tax code than we do now. If the argument were for a more progressive tax code, I'd be in complete agreement. However, the argument is against tax breaks for families and that I disagree with.

Vilify me if you wish for my opinions.

[Brian_Expat]

66. You are being SELFISH!

That family has lots of expenses you don't, like a luxury minivan with DVD player, membership in the clubs, trips to Disneyworld (that's a requirement for families, you know), a big expensive McMansion, etc. Who are you to deny them these essential necessities of life?!? :eyes:

[dsc]

68. In fairness the family in my example likely doesn't have these things

but given that I am now a selfish rat bastard for decrying even families making $100k this, your post is more on point than it would at first appear.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

91. Just curious are you the only one who labelled you as

"a selfish rat bastard", or did someone else do so - cuz I must have missed that post. Which one is it?

[redqueen]

93. This argument (about 'blatant unfairness')

reminds me of what I hear from whites in Texas all the damn time. How 'unfair' it is that blacks have their own pageants, networks, set-aside contracts, and affirmative action as well.

I guess you can sympathize now that you have a group that you percieve is getting preferential treatment (that would be 'breeders').

[dsc]

95. I demand a retraction

or a quote by me using breeders. I have never, ever, ever used that word. I want that now.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. I demand a retraction

of your statement that you are being called 'a selfish rat bastard'


lol

[dsc]

102. Show me where I attribute them to one particular person

and I will grant it immediately.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. The fact is no one said it, you are calling yourself names & crying foul.

Weak.

And btw the word 'breeders' wasn't attributed to you either.

[dsc]

111. Yes it was

It was put in a sentence with my perception. But here is a list of what has been called. Post 33 of the thread I site calls the argument socilaly conservative. Bear was told to find a fertile wife. And all of us were called against progressive taxation.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

114. In other words, it is a total fabrication

when you say you have been called a 'selfish rat bastard'.

BTW, if anyone were to do so, please, instead of getting all worked up, just hit alert. Name-calling is against DU rules and any post that called you 'a selfish rat bastard' would be removed.

[dsc]

115. I should have used portrayed as

but since you think billionaires deserve tax cuts before I do (as long as they have kids) then I guess we have to agree to disagree. Tax cuts for billionaires the progressive choice according to Fean . . .

[Feanorcurufinwe]

126. Perhaps you perceive yourself that way, but no one portrayed you that way.

[dsc]

128. Can you please define selfish for me

if it isn't asking "What is in it for ME?" I honestly thought that is what that word meant. Did it take on a new meaning I haven't heard of?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

136. You are welcome to make that inference.

[bearfartinthewoods]

127. gee...how about just plain selfish or jealous?

it's not like these things haven't been said over and over.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

138. If someone calls you or any other DU poster 'selfish' or 'jealous'

please hit 'Alert'. Name-calling is not allowed on DU, and that post will be removed.

[redqueen]

104. I never said you did

And if you perceived that, I'm sorry.

I was just saying that your sentiment about the 'unfairness' in this situation (given that you don't have children) was similar to the argument by whites that their situation is so dramatically 'unfair' (given that they aren't black). Please note also that I don't think either situation is necessarily 'fair', either, but I don't expect perfection. We can't have heaven on earth, so until we get there, we have to do the best we can with what we've got.

[dsc]

110. I don't have kids because I am gay

not due to not wanting kids. BTW this is what you said.

I guess you can sympathize now that you have a group that you percieve is getting preferential treatment (that would be 'breeders').

I think a fair inferrence of that is that I am calling them breeders since you chose that over calling them families etc and put that as part of my perception.

But my central point still is this. These are people who are fundamentally better of than I am and they don't pay taxes but I do. Frankly if the governemnt started giving gays a special tax break strights didn't get I would be first in line to call that crap. I am not against a child tax credit nor am I against children. I am against a child tax credit that is so large and going to so many that people who are resonably well off are paying more in taxes than those featured in Nickled and Dimed. And that is what Clark's system would produce.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

116. Why do you insist in putting words in the mouths of your debate opponents?

No one in this thread said the reason you dont have kids is because you don't want them. And whether or not you are gay is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[dsc]

118. Oh really

Maybe you need to look at the thread I sited in my first post. Then tell me about no one claiming choice. Or maybe you should tell Bear that who was told to get a fertile wife. (also sited in this thread)

On edit Bear states that in post 18. You can ask him for where that post was but I did see it as well. I would imagine he remembers quite well where it was.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

119. If this thread was a continuation of some other flame war

it is against the rules. I am responding to what I've read in this thread.

Your baseless insinuations against me are despicable.

[dsc]

123. where did I say you?

BTW here is some of what I am reacting to.

Some folks have whinged "but what about ME? Why should breeders benefit so much more" even though it doesn't hurt them at all, either in comparison to the status quo or to the fiscal plans offered by the other candidates.

Of course absent there is any request by you to back up his directly quoted words. I haven't seen any post with breeder in it. ANd what about me seems a reasonable shorthand for selfish.

[bearfartinthewoods]

140. i'm not likely to forget the comment or the commenter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=66083#67049

[redqueen]

120. OhhhhhhKaaaaaay

I really don't see why the reason you're childless is germane to the discussion, but ... fair enough.

What you call a 'fair inference' to me is way off the mark. I chose to use the term 'breeders' not for any particular reason.

But I still do disagree with you about making this such a big deal. DO I think it's fair? Honestly I can't say. Our tax code is so screwed up it's beyond comprehension without a degree. I can see where people making $100K in some areas would need it, yes, so I can't dismiss it as 'blatantly unfair' as you have.

What my main point is is this: whether or not you think that it's perfectly fair, the arguments about taxation and fairness should ALWAYS be slanted against the superrich.

You're getting all up in arms about Clark's tax plan, while the superrich are paying hardly any taxes at all. Excuse me for thinking this is unnecessarily divisive.

I can understand getting up in arms about some issues, but this one?

[dsc]

121. So I can only discuss

the unfairness you want to discuss. Sure that sounds fair. I see no rational reason why people making close to poverty wages should have a higher tax burden than solidly middle class people. That is just out and out unfair. It should be noted that someone making as little as $8000 a year would still be paying more than that $50k family and evidently in your ideal world the $100k one too. Yes it would be minimal but it would still be more.

Incidently I brought up the gay thing due to the fact that breeders is an anti straight slur used by gays. It is one reason that I felt the inference was fair.

[redqueen]

124. I didn't say that, either

Sheesh!

You can disagree all you want but the end result is the same. We just disagree! :)

And sorry again about using 'breeders'. Criminy, I didn't even know you were gay so it's not like I planned it.

[bearfartinthewoods]

134. you act as if there is no separating the two.

we could go after the super rich and still not enact this families first pandershit that requires sacrifice from those with less to go to those with four times as much..

[Mudcat]

139. That's no reason not to have kids

My family's best friends are a lesbian couple who are having their second go at in vitro this year... and if it doesn't work again, then they've said they'll start the ball rolling on the adoption process.

My point being, regardless of their sexuality, they're trying to support a family with kids, fall under the 100,000 mark, and would definitely benefit from this tax reform.

[dsc]

147. well it is a little easier to replace sperm

than it is an egg. Adoption was very hard here until fairly recently.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

96. Ding ding ding

good post.

[redqueen]

106. Thanks!

It suddenly hit me why that argument seemed so familiar. :)

[jpgpenn]

131. More Dean supporter FEAR shining thru.

This is a lil creepy to watch. They are slowly seeing their candidate being cast aside.

[Kolesar]

132. Congrats on the most worthless post I have seen today /sarcasm

[BobbyJay]

141. Dean wants to raise taxes and will lose horribly because of it.

[Phelan]

144. Your taxes are not going up

Be glad that your fellow man will be taken better care of and children will be able to have better childhoods leading to a more productive life. Its part of being a member of society.

Shit I'm definitely not getting a tax cut under this, not married, no children and not in that income bracket. but guess what I am glad that people with children will have it somewhat easier.

[JVS]

146. Kick, for the night crew