Edwards' tax policy

Patti McQuillen, Louisville, Kentucky — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:19:21 GMT

Edwards has my vote for 2008. He is more than talk; he is action. I need someone to work for real change, not just a few well worded promises. Edwards is already putting effort into the kind of change we need.

Give him a chance to broaden his success and America's economy will improve. This means the working families will finally get a break. Thanks, John Edwards! Hope to see you in the White House in 2008.

Edwards' tax policy

Bruce, NV — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:33:56 GMT

If Mr. Edwards socialistic tax policies were to go into effect, the economy and market would see more days like today. He didn't learn much at that hedge fund.

Edwards' tax policy

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:35:14 GMT

I can see why Edwards will not be around by the convention. Correct me if I'm wrong, President Bush proposed some kind of plans and got shot down by Congress. I don't see how he can make it work. This congress seems to be really against any kind of savings. But with all their investigations and such, kind of hard to figure out what they are for.

Edwards' tax policy

A Goldman — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:01:19 GMT

Edwards is the only candidate -- from both parties -- with concrete proposals. In a normal election with a tuned-out electorate, making detailed proposals would be a risk, but after six years of incompetance and crony capitalism, America wants a president who thinks and plans ahead. Edwards has the best health plan, the best tax plan, and a foreign policy that's tied for quality with Obama.

Edwards' tax policy

MK,MO — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:07:03 GMT

hillary = politics for the wealthy as usual, obama = ?, edwards = fair change and hope, edwards will have a tough time of it because he doesn't cater to the established wealthy elite that currently control our government, he's not going to ruin the investors stock market he will grow it, more people will be able to make investments not less, and the rich can still be rich, he just wants to make the nation a fair place for everyone who works, as it should be, and remember he is the only dem that can win the general election

Edwards' tax policy

P Listna — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:37:05 GMT

Its about time a candidate latched onto the disparity between how the wealthy are taxed and the rest of us. Its just immoral that people who actually work can be taxed at twice the rate (35%) of people who are fortunate enough to have invested (often inherited) wealth (15% cap gains rate). "A tax system to reward work instead of just rewarding wealth" is a great slogan he should run with.

Edwards' tax policy

Dale, Denver — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:37:24 GMT

Well, A Goldman, you're right about one thing: Edwards's wealth redistribution plan is certainly a "concrete proposal". Especially if by "concrete" you mean "really stupid".

Edwards' tax policy

Union Baby, Tennessee — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:46:09 GMT

Sounds like a wonderful plan to me. About time the upper crust has to pay like the rest of us, and they can actually afford it. Also, they have the most to loose should something happen to our democracy so they should pay more to be part of it. Also, they should want to do this - after all they are all so patriotic, at least to hear them talk. About time the neo-Cons put their money where their mouth is - if you are really a patriotic citizen and you really love this country you don't complain about your taxes and you don't cheat on them either. Everytime I see a big gas guzzling caddy on the road with a w sticker and a support our troops sticker on the bumper I want to pull over and loose my lunch. Those are the very folks who don't want to pay their taxes and will lie and cheat like dogs to keep from paying their fair share - but are only too willing to send our fine men and women in uniform to battle without the things they need. Wake up rich folks - Halliburton don't feed our troops for free!
Maybe we should double the taxes on anyone who supports the war - let them pay for it for a change, and as part of that support make it mandatory their kids serve in the actual war - not in a stateside cush job.
I pay my taxes on time and I do not cheat. "Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar." The Bible says it, I believe it and I live by it. It is a shame all those supposedly Christian repugnants don't.

Edwards' tax policy

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:47:09 GMT

Notice how hard the right wing is working to destroy Edwards. Proves to me he's the one they fear running against the most.

Edwards' tax policy

Mark Y; Westlake Village, CA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:57:11 GMT

Income taxes, by definition and practice, redistribute wealth. government makes the decision as to how it is to be redistributed. for most of our history, the rich have been taxed more heavily, largely because they can afford it, to fund social, military, education, environmental, etc. programs. what I find "stupid" is this administration not realizing our nation became great on the backs of the middle class. the present tax structure is shrinking the middle class since too much wealth (in dollars, not the number of wealthy persons) is at the top of the scale. If a larger portion of the middle class has disposable income, more industries will benefit. If wealth is concentrated at the top, fewer industries benefit.

Edwards' tax policy

Tim, Chicago — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:10:51 GMT

The idea that working families need/deserve a break from the government is symptomatic of the same attitude that leads to lawsuits over spilled coffee. I work, but I'm not in a union. I'm middle class, but I don't want a handout from the government. I expect I don't count for Mr. Edwards; as a result, he won't be able to ever count my vote.

Edwards' tax policy

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:45:00 GMT

The last 100yrs have been a historic economic miracle for America largely because of an unspoken compact between the wealthy and the lower classes. The wealthy are allowed to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don't get so greedy that the middle class can't survive. That's the way it's been since the late 1800s days of the Robber Barons and Grange Wars and it's worked pretty well. For the last generation the GOP has been working hard to dismantle that system and look at how it's turning out. Record high bankruptcies and foreclosures, a negative savings rate for the first time since the Depression, the slowest economic recovery since the advent of Economics as a science, and almost universal dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. We need to get a clue and get our society back in balance or the eventual backlash will get really ugly.

Edwards' tax policy

Tracy in the Phoenix area — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:25:00 GMT

"For a growing economy, we need to lift the people out of poverty and into the middle class." The only way to do that little number is to quit handing out our tax money in the way of entitlements to most of these people. All bumping them up to middle class would do is rob from Peter to pay Paul. 80% of the taxes are paid by less than 20% of the people in this country now so do the math. If this government would stop making it so easy for someone not to work, we could all pay our fair share and big daddy wouldn't have to worry about lifting anyone anywhere.

Edwards' tax policy

Lee Holmes — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:38:30 GMT

John: The ''backlash''will come when all of what you have described is coupled with high middle-class taxes and unemployment.John only tells a portion of the story,as economics is as partisan-driven as any other science or discipline. This negative savings rate for example.The FDIC observes that American banks are bulging at the seams with record amounts of money,nearly six and one-half trillion. All economists either liberal or conservative label ''savings''not as accumulated wealth[the couple-hundred stashed in the cookie jar or ''emergency/rainy-day funds'',but as non-disposable savings which are used to establish a long-term financial goal or for the purpose of investment. This is where reality parts ways with Johns gloomy contentions.The undisputed fact is that more Americans are socking dough away in banks and other financial institutions than ever before, and that their ''negative savings''are from the spendings of disposable incomes. Thus Americans are saving less in disposable income but are saving more through such devices as automatic payroll deduction which is also at record use by Americans[FORBES Magazine,Oct.2006].
Record home sales. [record homeownership by minorities as well.[source:National Assn.Of Realtors,US Commerce Dept.Nov.2006]. Record purchases of disposable income items such as RVs,motorcycles, motorhomes, entertainment systems,electronics,and home upgrades. [any combination of sudden disposable income squandered,however,usually tied to home purchases using adjustable-rate mortgages,will lead to an uptick in bankruptcies, as observed universally by economists who say that Americans are spending money as never before].
Actually, it becomes the Carterian model economists which to most avoid. This is high taxation of the working-middle class exactly at the time high unemployment, energy, and ballooning homepayments and property taxes hit their post-WWII records,leading to the highest inflation rate since the end of WWI. Economists ,such as the legendary Greenspan,Keyes as well,were as equally distrustful of the Republican ''trickle down''economics made famous by the Reagan ''voodoo''period[which nevertheless cut inflation and unemployment in half from the Carter period],as they are Democrat ''tax and spend''schemes which history plainly shows to be placed always on the backs of the working-middle class,with the singular 20th century exception of the 1962 John F.Kennedy,who yet bucked his Dem-dominated Congress in order to get a taxcut through,which immediately raised tax revenues[which are again at a forty- five year record].
Obviously,even with the Iraq War aside,Democrats will again look to the middle class in order to pay for their new schemes. Pay no attention to Dodds beancounters. Their ''70 billion a year''for universal medical coverage will exceed several times this amount forcing any Democrat president to reach for the wallet of Regular Joe.

Edwards' tax policy

Taylor, PHX — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:40:14 GMT

By rewarding work and not wealth, does Edwards want to cut benefits to those that sponge off the government and never work?

Edwards' tax policy

The Dogg — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:38:48 GMT

According to the latest available statistics (at least that I could find) from the US Treasury, the top 5% of taxpayer paid 53.6% of all individual income taxes, but made 30.3% of the income in the country. Taxpayers in the top 50% paid over 94% of the personal income taxes. Someone tell me how this is "dismantling the middle class" or "shrinking the middle class"? People at the top pay a disproportionate amount of the income taxes. Seriously, this seems like wealth redistribution to me.

Edwards' tax policy

Tio Williams — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:01:04 GMT

Dogg: "People at the top pay a disproportionate amount of the income taxes. "

Yes they do. And that is with a Republican adminstration and Congress in place (save for the last 8 months or so).

Just imagine what it will look like if any of the current Democrats get in office.

Edwards' tax policy

John Adams, Ocala, Fl — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:13:26 GMT

If people don't understand that the middle class is shrinking and that opportunity for all Americans is eroding then they are not paying attention. The Super Rich grow richer and the average American struggles to stay afloat. Our government makes the rules and writes the tax code, and everything that has been done in the last 6 years has tilted the table even further in favor of the wealthy.
Dividend and capital gain tax rates have been slashed which overwhelmingly favors the rich!
John Edwards is spot on an I will eagerly and enthusiastically support him as my canidate for President. I just hope it's not too late.

Edwards' tax policy

The Dogg — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:20:31 GMT

John...the personal income tax rates have been cut ACROSS THE BOARD, and the % of the tax burden carried by top wage earners has increased. Total tax receipts have been increasing. I don't see how the tax code is causing these problems. To me, the problems are more on the spending side of things.

Edwards' tax policy

MK,MO — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:35:44 GMT

The Dogg / if you do some investigating into how those numbers that the republican u.s. treasury pushes are concocted you will find that they are very deceptive in the overall income tax farce that the wealthy regurgitate upon the wage earner, take a look at how much money someone getting a weekly paycheck gets taken out each pay period, the percentage is quite astonishing, remember social security is not considered income tax even though that is exactly what it is, what percentage of those mistreated wealthy peoples income goes to social security? how much income can the wage earner hide from the i.r.s.?
how much wealth do the rich attain each year that isn’t counted as income at all? the numbers you mentioned were created by the rich for the rich, nobody ever wants to compare apples to apples on this subject for obvious reasons, so before you shed too many tears about what a raw deal the wealthy are getting look at some realist data on the subject, you might come to the conclusion that being rich may not be such an awful burden

Edwards' tax policy

Amy B Portland, ME — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:08:05 GMT

Warren Buffett is raising money for the Democratic Party. Do you think he knows something about the importance of Universal Heathcare, and rewarding people who work two jobs to support themselves rather than the top 1% to the ecooomic future of our country?

Edwards' tax policy

Steve P., Phoenix, AZ. — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:40:11 GMT

Edwards was a Trial Lawyer who did nothing to deserve his wealth. In my opinion he basically is a thief in who stole from one group of working people to enrich himself. Lawyers have ruined this country and contribute nothing to society.
ALL TRIAL LAWYERS ARE SCUM!!!

Edwards' tax policy

Mike, Cedar Rapids IA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:49:52 GMT

Buffett raises money for both parties. The man didn't get where he is by not covering his bets.

Amy, what huge leaps of faith you make. Someone raises money for the Democrats, and that makes them for UHC? Kind of blinded by the light there aren't you?

And people think UHC is the answer to all of life's problems. It sunk like a rock in 1993 when Hillary headed the Task Force on National Health Care Reform and tried to run her program down our throats. Remember those times? Secret meetings, 1000's of pages of complex rules and regulations written by liberal interest groups, a lost and confused HRC in front of a bunch of congressional committees.

And even if Buffett is for UHC, he's not for it on principle. He's for it because he's a rich guy that willget richer making money off of it.

The Democrats will talk the talk with UHC. But as is usually the case, the devil is in the details, and details look really poor to the people of this country for UHC.

Edwards' tax policy

John B, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:06:39 GMT

Steve P, if all trial lawyers are scum then I assume your opinion of Fred Thompson is the same? Mike, Warren Buffett states regularly that the inheritance should be retained and that it isn't fair for him to pay a lower proportion of his income in taxes than do his secretary and house keeper. How much money does he make on that? Conservatism is now so morally bankrupt it can't imagine anyone doing anything just because it's the right thing. Sad.

Edwards' tax policy

Mike, Cedar Rapids IA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:09:09 GMT

The Nation Tax Payers union graphs who pays taxes in this country. Using 2004 numbers, the top 1% of wage earners that Amy refers to pay nearly 37% of the taxes. The top 5% pay 57% of the taxes. The top 10% pay 68%. The top 50% of wage earners in the US pay 96.7% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% pay less then 4% of the federal income tax burden.

And now the liberals want more from the people that are already burdened with the tax load?

Again, the top 1% pay 37% of the federal income tax burden. How much more do you want them to pay?

Edwards' tax policy

John B, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:25:42 GMT

Mike, why shouldn't the top 1% pay more than 37% of taxes? They own more than 50% of the nation's wealth. That would make them under taxed, not over.

Edwards' tax policy

Mike, Cedar Rapids IA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:07:07 GMT

John B: "why shouldn't the top 1% pay more than 37% of taxes? "

Not saying they shouldn't. I'm asking how much more people expect them to they pay if there are additional social programs, like UHC. One slight quibble, wealth and income are quite different. Don't have the numbers for income+property taxes available, but I digress.

Something interesting is going on across the river from us in Illinois. The IL state govenment is all Democrats, top to bottom. Governor, state-house, state-senate, both Senators, and the guy in charge of it, Mayor Daley in Chicago. You would think getting a state budget in place would be a cut and dry operation. Nope. The governor wants to implement UHC for IL to the tune of $5 billion dollars a year. The taxes to support it would come from tax increases on businesses and gambling expansion in the state. The state-Senate is on board, but the House isn't - once again both houses are heavily Democratic. The House realizes the amount of burden businesses would have to contribute to the plan would force an exit of a considerable amount of jobs from the state.

Even the politicans in a liberal state like Illinois realize the impact and the burden UHC will put on people. Remember, businesses are made up of people and jobs. You can't continue to have them take on additional burdens and not expect a negative economic reaction.

Now, project something like this to a national scale. It would be 1993 all over again. Even with a Democatic President, House and Senate back in 1993, the plan never even came to a vote in the House, where only a simple majority was needed to pass it.

The idea of UHC is just that, an idea. Once the details and impact are known, it will not pass.

And in Illinois, the state is being held hostage by the government because they are late passing the budget. It is mostly the schools at the moment that can't pass their budgets until they know what the state will support. But it will expand to all state agencies and service in the coming weeks.

Edwards' tax policy

The Dogg — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:36:39 GMT

John B...when talking about income taxes only, the top 5% pay a bit over 53% of the personal income taxes despite reporting just over 30% of the personal income. You're numbers were kind of apples and oranges...the top 1% pay 37% of income taxes, but they don't make over 50% of the nation's income. As Mike pointed out, it's the difference between wealth and income. They pay different taxes on investments and what not.

Edwards' tax policy

John B, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:24:05 GMT

Dogg, a worthy point of debate. From my point of view people above a certain level can live quite comfortably and therefore find it much easier to accumulate wealth. At the paycheck to paycheck level it becomes nearly impossible to accumulate wealth because you need essentials. Yes, some people live paycheck to paycheck because they throw money away on luxuries when they don't have to, but it's hard to dispute that the Middle Class is losing ground. No wonder when the median income would be $71,000 if adjusted for inflation since 1960 instead of the $43,000 current figure. The figures for wealth accumulation make a pretty strong supporting argument for the progressive income tax. If you can more easily support the society that makes it possible for you to maintain a superior standard of living you should pay more taxes. It was considered bedrock through the most prosperous decades of American history but now is under attack.

Edwards' tax policy

Mike, Cedar Rapids IA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:49:00 GMT

We have a progressive system of taxation, and it is strongly skewed to the richest 1-5% supporting the system. John B., you make the exactly the correct argument as to why it is that way.

The question still stands. How much more can we expect the upper 1%, 5%, 25% and 50% of this country to support?

It is at the point now where the people that will not be impacted by raising taxes are the strong majority, and in a position to "vote themselves a raise".

Not so sure on your medium income numbers either. Is that household? If so, is it somehow adjusted because in the '60s there was usually one wage earner, the man, now there are usually two wage earners in a family.

Edwards' tax policy

Lee Holmes — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:56:04 GMT

And another point should be raised here. Edwards,Obama,and others, taking pages from a dysfunctional leftwinged playbook, [who know as much about economics as Casey Stengel did about quantum physics], speak of the ''grinding poverty''envisaged by other nations. Other liberals and leftists,use this as a ''gotcha'' as a means to describe why there is as much terrorism in the world as there is.
Yet these candidates desire to retreat into a new era of American capitalist and trade isolation at the precise moment that these capitalist theories are lifting people from this very ''grinding poverty''on a global basis. The centrist Bill Clinton immediately saw this. [whose brainchild,the DLC,is now being spurned by Democrat candidates who are opting for the Trotskyist fanatics of DAILY KOS instead, which shows not only their alleged respect for the American centrist majority, but their pitiful knowlage of economics as a whole]. Reagan and Bush I, Bush II,Gore as well,also saw it.
As a result,the global gross domestic product [or GDP] has increased over 100% in less than a decade over an amount that it took nearly thirty years to achieve. [Presently,4.6% according to the United Nations,the World Bank,the European Union,and the US Dept.of Commerce]. It is rising rapidly in Asian, eastern European, South American, and African nations that are unfettered by the deathgrip of strongmen.
While China is all to often seen as bogieman,far less attention is paid to the rising fortunes of a Bangladesh[ To use only one example.Only three short decades ago,an impoverished nation so wretched,that it inspired rock stars to form a ''Concert for Bangladesh''in the 1970s. George Harrison didn't do an iota of good for these people. Globalization,as realized by Republican and centrist Democrat economic philosophies,did. Its textiles manufacturing centers in Dhakka have lifted ordinary Bangladeshis from this ''grinding poverty''and have put their stamp on clothing sold worldwide,with their chief importer,the United States.
Bolivia,The Phillipines,Poland,Rumania,Chad,Zaire,India,Pakistan[which along with Bangladesh,holds down a near lock on western-style ''snap button,yoked''shirts worn by cowboys,their style affectianados,and rodeo rough-stock riders throughout the US creating a multi-billion dollar-a year trade alone].Chilian wines and grapes. Peruvian textiles. African art and clothing. Indian,Bangladeshi,Sri Lankan,Indonesian,Javan,and Micronesian furniture,all sold in the US to the tune of billions per year in the ''affordable chic''stores of PIER ONES and COST PLUS,not only alleviating poverty, but increasing the GDP of nations now under contest by al Qaeda and other radical organizations.
Yet Edwards and Obama would take this all away, stupidly trading useful work for American welfare to be paid by the American taxpayer who would not see a dime,a shirt,a stick of furniture,a vehicle,a bowl of fruit,a bottle of wine,a ham,a videorecorder,a blouse,or a pair of pants for his or her efforts.And yes,it would be the working and middle-class footing the bill.
Worse,that these things which allow Bangladeshis,Indians and others to put meat on the table in their homes far away are those which can be afforded by the poor and working class in this nation. It is the height of economic lunacy to turn this clock backwards. That these Democrats are mere stooges of the domestic unions there is no doubt. Yet[and the vastly declining fortunes of Americas unions prove this],Globalization,spearheaded by the US[the global giant.We are involved in over 71.5% of trade purchasing and monies flowing back to these nations], has returned a now-proven track-record for keeping taxes and prices low at home, expanding American employment through foreign-owned businesses, increasing gross domestic product in developing countries,[which is an undisputed fact as the above world bodies attest to],and creating stability both social,political,as well as economic in these nations enhancing the health of world financial markets further allowing billions of people to invest and own stocks and bonds. And all without war. This new Monroe Doctrine being peddled by Democrats is crazy and totally counterproductive. They are far too much in thrall to the Left[who are as Luddite as their fundementalist Islamic peers], and their economic schemes are ruinous to the fortunes of this and too many other nations. They would create new poverty and exascerbate it in other nations seeking to shed it from their societies. Worse still,we have been down this road before with disastrous effect,as the multi-trillion-dollar ''Great Society''programs of the 1960s bearing upon welfare and poverty allieviation created even more of it, assisting in the destruction of a generations worth of American poor, especially,minorities who are only now starting to benefit from the fruits of the new economy, global in its scale.

Edwards' tax policy

Mike, Cedar Rapids IA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:11:59 GMT

Lee Holmes writes the following:

[A lot of stuff]

Good, no, check that, great explanation!

It is almost as if the Left of the US believe the taxpayer is a never ending spigot that they can turn on just a little more when they feel like it. The populist theme being shown by all the Democratic candidates shows that there are the two-nations that John Edwards speaks of; the people that have it, and the people that will take it from them.

Another way to put it is that 'consumers will take it from the producers'.

The Great Society programs of the '60s had initial success. You throw that kind of money at a problem, and it should. But, for the last 40 years, poverty has remained unchanged. And rather then ask why, those programs are allowed to continue unchanged.

Edwards' tax policy

John B, Des Moines, IA — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:21:13 GMT

Lee Holmes, Poverty in the US was reduced by half from 1960 to the era of "welfare reform" in the late 1990s. How exactly is this a failure of the Great Society programs.

Edwards' tax policy

Mike, Cedar Rapids IA — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:21:46 GMT

John B writes "Warren Buffett states regularly that the inheritance should be retained and that it isn't fair for him to pay a lower proportion of his income in taxes than do his secretary and house keeper"

If Warren Buffett believes he is not paying his fair share, he has every right to sit his desk, take out his checkbook, and write a check as large as he wants to the IRS. Nothing in this world would stop him.

He hasn't done it though. Ever wonder why?

Edwards' tax policy

Lee Holmes — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:09:32 GMT

John B.-Whence did you come by such a number? [and while the American population actually increased by tens of millions over the same period,predominantly,poorer immigrants,legal and otherwise].Then again,the very definition of what it is to be ''poor''is the center of raging debate.One fact remains undisputed however. Globalization is taking already poor people and making them less poor.

Edwards' tax policy

David Hale, Owensboro, KY — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:49:39 GMT

Edwards will soon be the front runner in the 2008 campaign for presidency because he is offering concrete solutions to difficult problems our nation is facing. Watch his Iowa bus tour and hear his ideas. I am convienced that you will be on board with the rest of the United States and finally we can rebuild a little respect in the World opinion of how others feel about America.