Clark unveils plan to repeal some tax cuts Updated: 6:46 p.m. ET Jan. 05, 2004NASHUA, N.H. - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark offered his plan Monday to simplify the tax system and reduce or eliminate the burden on lower- and middle-class families by making the wealthiest Americans pay more. advertisement “My tax-reform plan is simple,” Clark said. “Those who make the most should pay more. Those who make the least should pay less.” Calling his plan “the most sweeping tax reform this nation has seen in years,” the retired general said families of four that make less than $50,000 a year will not pay any income tax. All taxpaying families with children and making under $100,000 will get a tax cut. Clark acknowledged that single people without children wouldn’t benefit much from his plan, aside from changes to the earned income tax credit for low-income taxpayers. Help for 'growing families' “This plan is designed to help growing families,” he said. To pay for changes in the tax code, Clark would repeal President Bush’s tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year. He would raise the tax rates another 5 percent for those who make $1 million or more each year. “The bottom line is our tax system is broken. The Republicans are always talking about family values, but it’s about time in America that we started valuing families,” he said. “This is a matter of seeing what’s right for America and having the courage to demand it. I see it, and I will demand it.” Clark said his proposals will allow taxpayers to fill out a three-line form that will determine if they have to pay income taxes. That form would ask their income, their marital status and their number of children. “And if it all adds up to 50,000 or less — and two children or more — then you should put away your checkbook,” he said. No forms The federal government would figure out individual taxes and deduct that amount from the taxpayers’ paychecks so that no tax forms would have to be filled out. People would still have the option of filling out a 1040 form. Clark said the additional revenue that comes from increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans and closing corporate loopholes would pay for the changes in taxes for lower- and middle-income families. A spokesman for rival Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut criticized Clark’s plan, saying it would give more control to the Internal Revenue Service while helping only a fraction of the middle class. “This is nothing more than a mini-me version of Lieberman’s plan — its not a middle class tax cut,” said Jano Cabrera. Roger Salazar, spokesman for Sen. John Edwards, criticized Clark for exempting capital gains from the higher tax rate on those earning more than $1 million. Edwards has proposed a new 25 percent tax on the unearned wealth or capital gains of the top 1 percent of taxpayers. 'Special rules for unearned wealth' “Unfortunately, we continue to see plans that create special rules for unearned wealth, even from other Democrats,” Salazar said. On Sunday, Clark sought to end speculation that he would agree to be a running mate for Howard Dean or any other Democrat should he fail in his bid for the party’s nomination for president.
I posted this to see what kind of reaction this tax reform would get. I have a hard time believing that if every family of 4 making less than 50K paid no taxes that you could possibly make up the difference from the well to do. Also, I doubt the family would take their tax savings and invest for the long term, their are just too many material temptations. However the levels of wealth at the very top of the scale in the US are obscene. To me it seems that the aquistion of power has a snowball effect. CEO's making tens of miliions of dollars a year do not earn it because of their unique qualities but because the have worked their way into an incestuous clique of power. I'm all for a graduated tax system but everyone should bear some responsibility for supporting our government. Conversely, the graduated tax brackets should continue increasing as income levels increase up to a point where incomes over say 10 million a year are taxed at say 75%. But the rich guys are in charge and they are going to make sure they stay rich.
Most flat tax plans have some progressive provisions, i.e. people in the lower end of the income spectrum would pay less than the flat rate.
This is a plan I might support. A poor family having food is more important than a billionaire having another yacht.
It's a step in the right direction. The man offers plans rather than rhetoric. This is proof to me that Clark is virtually the only one of the Dem candidates who has a chance to knock Howard Dean off his stride.
The problem is that by doing this you take away incentive to work harder which drives growth in this nation. Statistically in the US, the poorer you are the more overweight you are. That is an example of a very rich nation. The reason our standard of living and quality of life is so high is because of the productivity and strength of our economy. If you don't tax the poor and do tax those who make more you are taking away incentive to make more money. That will lower productivity levels and will ultimately lead to a weaker US economy which will effect every American. This is just silly. Its ironic that as many people talk about what is 'fair' and 'equal', many think it is fair to be taxed at a higher percentage if you make more money?? That just doesn't make sense to me. I believe we should limit taxes for very low income people, but aside from this group, there should be a flat tax and all people should pay the same percentage of their income. GreenVegan. If someone worked and made enough money to buy a Yacht then that is there decision. Don't penalize people because they make more money. If someone does well financially it is not their responsibility to provide for those that do not. Even with a flat tax, the more you make, the more you will pay, but it does not penalize you for making more. I don't know why you think its society's responsibility for those that cannot keep up.
FDK, you're a smart guy, and you must realize your oversimplification. It's a victim of an economic blank slate assumption. If we all started at the same place, your argument would be very convincing. However, a large percentage of the most wealthy Americans are children of very wealthy families. Does Paris Hilton more deserve a yacht than a single mother working two jobs to feed her kids deserves an extra $100 a month? Do the Bush twins deserve luxury SUV's because their great grandfather was shrewd enough to sell industrial equipment overseas? It's very tough, if you just use dollars, to distinguish between hard working, creative people and lazy, useless people.
B-Bob, Its obviously more complicated than what I stated, but Clark's ideas are not the solution. I also believe in a simplified tax code because I feel many corporations and individuals use little known shelters to limit what they pay in taxes as well. I also believe in the 'death' tax and that inheritances etc. should be taxed. A simplified tax would better serve all people. It would not allow groups "in the know" to get away with tax shelters, and it would not take away the incentives to work harder. I think all people should take pride in paying their taxes. They should see their country versus the rest of the world and realize that it is a blessing that we live here.
"If Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it. And if that makes me an 'old-style' Democrat, then I accept that label with pride and I dare you to come after me for it." - General Wesley Clark "And if it all adds up to $50,000 or less and two children or more, then you should put away your checkbook - because you won't owe the government a dime in income taxes." - General Wesley Clark Looks like a even-steven plan--suitable for an election as it is not intellectually or numerically dishonest, but it appears to me we'll have to eventually do more in terms of cuts and taxes to get us close to anything near a balanced budget. But you can't really run on that, so this is a good first step. It also has the potential of making Bush defend higher tax cuts while coming out against eliminating cuts for those under $50k. One of the things I like about Clark is his enthusiasm about taking on the "class warfare" canard.
The problem is that by doing this you take away incentive to work harder which drives growth in this nation. Yep. I know I prefer to make $20,000 so I can pay no taxes instead of making $100,000 and having to pay taxes.
Sorry to quote so much, folks, but F.D.K. and I are in complete agreement on the three major points here. I never thought I'd have as much in common with FDK as I usually do with FDR.
Ugh, Why not just institute a flat tax and let each person pay their share? Perhaps because it's a dumb idea.
I apologize but this is the second time I seen this B.S. written in this forum and I just can't let it pass. Poor people aren't fat because of our standard of living, its because its cheeper to by a bag of chips, or a $.99 cheese burger than it is to buy healthy food. I see a lot of overweight homeless people also, that doesn't mean they're eating like Louis XIV.
The fact that very poor people would have the ABILITY to be fat is a testament to our incredible standard of living. If you are poor in India, Somalia or El Salvador, you would not have the financial ability to consume enough food to be fat. I thought this was pretty straightforward. I'm not saying they are eating like kings i'm just saying that food relative to average wages is very cheap compared to the rest of the world. Major, Great, wonderful response. I can see you are quite the man of the people, or making a living off of the people.
Major, Great, wonderful response. I can see you are quite the man of the people, or making a living off of the people. Great arguments deserve great responses. Bad deserve bad responses.
I'm still firmly entrenched in Dean's camp, but Clark has really impressed me the last week. He is finally becoming the candidate I thought he could be. I no longer harbor delusions of a Dean/Clark ticket (sigh), but Clark is really coming on strong. Should be interesting in the primaries.
