Reasons To Vote For Kerry: Things He Will Do To Improve America

[wasteofo2]

Alot of people are saying that the Democrats unity and desire to get John Kerry elected isn't really pro-Kerry, but rather anti-Bush, and that he just happens to be the guy who isn't Bush. Even if this is true, and no one thinks John Kerry is great, I think it speaks volumes about Bush's presidency when you bassically have Bush vs. This stiff, stuffy, distant guy, and they're tied in most polls, with the "other guy" having slight leads in many.

So, bassically, if you're actually for Kerry, and not just against Bush, I'd like to see why. I don't want to see what Bush's done poorly, but how you think Kerry will do better, things that are specific to Kerry and his vision for America. I'm not looking for things like "People hate Kerry less than Bush in the world", but things like I'm going to list below

Some examples I can think of:
- He wants to actually keep the tax cuts Bush instated for 98% of Americans, but roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%.
- He wants to raise the minimum wage.
- He is for giving federal funding to embryonic stem-cell research (at least I believe he is).
- He hasn't let the church shape his political stances (so much so that some want him ex-communicated)
- He wants to double the amount of special forces in our military.
- He was a war hero, made decisive decisions in battle and reportedly served outstandingly, and he would hopefully act just that way as the commander of our military.
- He will try to get NATO involved in helping the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan so that less American soldiers are needed to fight and die.

Also, if you are voting for Bush, and fear the prospect of a Kerry presidency, list specific reasons you think he'd do worse than Bush. I'm sure you get the point of what I'm looking for, and I'm sure Bush supporters could think of much better reasons that Kerry would suck than I could.

And of course, if the Bush supporters/Kerry detractors think that any of my reasons to vote for Kerry are wrong, off-base, misleading etc., please criticize them.

 

[Dissident Dan]

He also will work to better our environmental policy and reduce our dependence on oil. Given his extremely high environmental voting record (www.lcv.org), I find his promises to work toward these goals credible. He has also taken a position in favor of small farmers over corporate giants, which, if he follows through, would be a godsend.

 

[wasteofo2]

He also will work to better our environmental policy and reduce our dependence on oil. Given his extremely high environmental voting record (www.lcv.org), I find his promises to work toward these goals credible. He has also taken a position in favor of small farmers over corporate giants, which, if he follows through, would be a godsend.

Can't believe I forgot about the environment, alternate energy sources and fighting big corporations. Damn, I need to get back in touch with why I'm a liberal.

 

[russ_watters]

- He wants to actually keep the tax cuts Bush instated for 98% of Americans( a tax-cutting lefty), but roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%.

Hook, line, sinker.

He wants to keep taxes the same for some people, but increase taxes ("rolling back a cut" is an increase) for others. So where are these cuts that you say he's going to make?

In any case, this is more of the neo-liberal 'rich people are evil' mantra. But wait, is it really new or just re-emerging? What did Marx say about it...?

 

[wasteofo2]

Hook, line, sinker.

He wants to keep taxes the same for some people, but increase taxes ("rolling back a cut" is an increase) for others. So where are these cuts that you say he's going to make?

Yeah, he wants to keep Bush's tax cuts/re-institute Bush's tax cuts/make them permanent etc for the lower 98% of Americans. I'm not sure if he would introduce more tax cuts for the 98% of American's in question though, I worded that poorly, thanks for pointing that out.

In any case, this is more of the neo-liberal 'rich people are evil' mantra. But wait, is it really new or just re-emerging? What did Marx say about it...?

Honestly, I'm very sick of every attempt by a Democrat to tax rich people being compared to communism. As I'm sure you know, before Bush's $1 trillion tax cut, the American people payed $1 trillion more in federal taxes under clinton, would you have called 192-2000 America's "Communist" phase? If you want to draw comparisons between Kerry and Marx, I'm sure that Democrats could draw many comparisons between Bush and Nitzche or Bush and Machiaveli, but I think that kind of mud-slinging is just unproductive and childish.

Wanting to tax the people who earn more money more than people who earn less money isn't saying that they are evil, I have no idea where you get that from. As many wealthy Democrats will point out, the wealthiest 2% of Americans are already VERY RICH, and don't need these tax cuts. Bill Clinton does not need a huge check in the mail just for being rich, while a poor family in a neighborhood near you might benefit greatly from that same money.

Also, we are fighting a war and trying to rebuild two countries. Guns, tanks, armor, soldiers pay etc. is expensive, who would you rather help pay for all of this, the family who's father works as a McDonald's cashier and a mother who works as a file clerk, or the family who's father works as a lawyer and mother works as a surgeon?

Around the time Bush asked for $81 billion for Iraq, Kerry proposed that in order to pay for that $81 billion, that reformations to Bush's tax cut plan be made, and that $81 billion of the $1 trillion was not given back to the wealthiest of Americans (though they would still get quite a bit back), and that it be used to fund the Iraq reconstruction. All Kerry wants is a multi-billion dollar tax cut, instead of a trillion dollar tax cut, only lessening the amount of money given to the very wealthiest of people who really don't need it anyway.

 

[kat]

While you're throwing this 2% wealthiest person number around, for my own benefit, could you please define what the actual income is of the 2% wealthiest?
What exactly is Kerry's plan to implement tax increases on the 2% wealthiest. How much and through what form of taxation?

 

[Njorl]

While you're throwing this 2% wealthiest person number around, for my own benefit, could you please define what the actual income is of the 2% wealthiest?
What exactly is Kerry's plan to implement tax increases on the 2% wealthiest. How much and through what form of taxation?

I believe Kerry wants to tax income over $200,000 per year at the 2000 rate rather than the rate instituted by the Bush tax cuts.

Kerry has two very good plans for medical insurance

1. A federal single-payer system covering any uninsured child.

2. Catastrophic reinsurance for medical insurance providers.

Njorl

 

[JohnDubYa]

Kerry has two very good plans for medical insurance

1. A federal single-payer system covering any uninsured child.

2. Catastrophic reinsurance for medical insurance providers.

For his sake, he needs to do a better job of rounding up support for his plan than Hillary.

 

[russ_watters]

Honestly, I'm very sick of every attempt by a Democrat to tax rich people being compared to communism. As I'm sure you know, before Bush's $1 trillion tax cut, the American people payed $1 trillion more in federal taxes under clinton, would you have called 192-2000 America's "Communist" phase? If you want to draw comparisons between Kerry and Marx, I'm sure that Democrats could draw many comparisons between Bush and Nitzche or Bush and Machiaveli, but I think that kind of mud-slinging is just unproductive and childish.

You miss my point. It isn't the government's total tax income that is getting on my nerves, its targeting the rich to create an us-vs-them division. It very closely parallels the marxist bourgeois (the 2% who are rich) vs the proletariat (everyone else who is not - regardless of the fact that most of that group is still quite well off).

Wanting to tax the people who earn more money more than people who earn less money isn't saying that they are evil, I have no idea where you get that from.

The implication is made the the rich are not paying their way (the top 1%, btw, pay upwards of 90% of all income taxes). They are a drain on society, they get their wealth handed to them, they exploit everyone else. Yes, "evil" is an exaggeration, but the message sent is 'these people need to be stopped before they can hurt us any more.'

As many wealthy Democrats will point out, the wealthiest 2% of Americans are already VERY RICH, and don't need these tax cuts.

Whether you realize it or not, that is Marxism. You have arbitrarily decided that their income needs to be capped.

Bill Clinton does not need a huge check in the mail just for being rich, while a poor family in a neighborhood near you might benefit greatly from that same money.

Another common fallacy (not unquely liberal). I hate it when my friends get all excited in April when they find out what their refund is. Yes, it is literally a check in the mail - but it is a refund. It means its money you shouldn't have paid. Similarly, a tax cut is not "a check in the mail," its just less money you have to pay.

And is another fallacy there: the poor pay so little in taxes (most pay just about nothing, and that's before you count the handouts they get), that you can't give them a tax cut. "Tax cuts for the rich" is redundant! Of course tax cuts will primarily go to the rich: the rich are the ones paying the taxes!

Also, we are fighting a war and trying to rebuild two countries. Guns, tanks, armor, soldiers pay etc. is expensive, who would you rather help pay for all of this, the family who's father works as a McDonald's cashier and a mother who works as a file clerk, or the family who's father works as a lawyer and mother works as a surgeon?

The rich person already does pay for virtually all of that . Do the math: since the top 1% pays 90% of all taxes, that means that the averge person in the top 1% pays a thousand times more in taxes than the average of the rest of the population: 1/.1/.01 = 1000.

Around the time Bush asked for $81 billion for Iraq, Kerry proposed that in order to pay for that $81 billion, that reformations to Bush's tax cut plan be made, and that $81 billion of the $1 trillion was not given back to the wealthiest of Americans (though they would still get quite a bit back), and that it be used to fund the Iraq reconstruction. All Kerry wants is a multi-billion dollar tax cut, instead of a trillion dollar tax cut, only lessening the amount of money given to the very wealthiest of people... ? You agreed in your first sentence that Kerry wants to raise taxes, not lower them.

...who really don't need it anyway

Again, who are you to tell anyone what they can and can't do with their money? That's not the way America is supposed to work. If a rich person gets a nice bonus check from his company, let him buy a yacht. Who are you to say, 'sorry, you don't need it, so you can't have it'?

Every now and then, someone hits a $100 million jackpot in the lottery, and the government takes roughly $35 million of it right off the bat. Now, few people would argue that an indivudal really "needs" $65 million. Should we just take all but say, $1 million because the person doesn't "need" it? Is that freedom? Is that America? I don't think so.

In fact, you have it precisely backwards: "need" works from the bottom up, not the top-down. The government gives people what they need to survive - the thriving is up to you. If they don't have food, the government provides it. If they can't pay for their kids to go to school, the government provides it. If they get in a car accident and have no insurance, the government pays their hospital bills. Heck, if you go $200k in debt and can't pay it off, the government let's you off the hook. But what the government does not do is stand in your way. Yes, the government takes more in taxes from the rich and yes, rightfully so - but it is wrong to take money from someone simply because you say they don't need it. That sound like jealousy - and greed.

Rich people get lambasted all the time for being greedy - do groups of 1000 poor people ever get together and thank that one rich person who bought them dinner every night this year?

This brings me to another common democratic misnomer: "trickle down economics." It used to be connected with a specific theory, but has morphed into a catch-all for 'rich people's money.' If rich people spend money, it'll eventually trickle down to "the rest of us." There are two problems with that: 1. its true. Democrats hate that fact, but it is a fact that want based spending, not need based spending is what drives the economy - and rich people do more of it. That's why the Christmas shopping season is so critical to the year's economic picture. Needs never change - people always have the same needs for food, clothing, housing, transportation (caveat - an expensive car or house is both a need and a want). When someone gets a little extra money they spend it - on a vacation, toys for Xmas, a bigger car, a bigger house. That's money back into the economy.

The second problem with that is it again is an attempt to create a division where none exists. It paints a picture where rich people spend money and eventually it might find its way to "the rest of us." Wrong. Rich people's money is not separate from everyone elses. If a rich person buys a Lincoln Navigator because they go a $75,000 bonus check, how long does it take for that money to "trickle down" to "everyone else?" Well, let's see - that Lincoln Navigator was built by "everyone else" - they see the benefit immediately.

Ugh - that brings me to another issue: do the "everyone else" see the benefit immediately? If Lincoln sells one more car, "everyone else" won't get a bonus. But then, if The Rich Guy and a thousand others like him don't buy that car, they'll be out of a job. If enough Rich Guys buy Lincoln Navigators, the plant will have to increase production and hire another shift - employing 5,000 more of "everyone else."

 

[russ_watters]

More on "tax cuts for the rich." Let's say the government today passed an across the board reduction of every tax rate by 10%. Seems fair, right? Wrong. In Liberalese, that means the richest 1% got 90% of the tax cut! That second stat is thrown around all the time (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but that is the correct ratio) - I've heard it at the convention a handful of times, and I haven't even been watching much. Do any liberals really understand the difference?

 

[Njorl]

The top 1% of income earners pay less than 30%, not 90%, of federal income taxes, as of 2000. Considering total federal tax burden, that goes down to about 20%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=221&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22

Njorl

 

[Dayle Record]

I read an article in Business Week, from which this information came.



This all helps to explain why wealth has taken on a much larger role in sustaining U.S. economic growth. But the growing importance of wealth widens the social and economic chasm between rich and poor. Ownership of assets is highly concentrated, far more than income. The top 1% of families, as measured by net worth, receive about 15% of income but own 30% of the nation's assets -- including stocks and bonds, homes, and closely held businesses. That's according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. The top 10% of families, as measured by net wealth, own 65% of assets, and the top 50% own a stunning 95% of assets. That means the gains from rising wealth have effectively left out half the population.


The entire article is located at
http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/14_16/b3879051.htm


When I read this particular section, I realized that our security as a nation becomes unbalanced when basically a slave class is being created, whether by intent, or consequence.

The figure was this staggering 50% of wealthiest individuals owning 95% of our economy. That means that maybe 85% of Americans have 5% of our economy to share among themselves, but they put in the effort to run the big machine. Also that means that both parents must work, and one parent, more than one job. It means that a jump in the cost of medical care, takes already limited assets away in a highly stressed system. Then they are expected to offer up their best and brightest to perpetuate this system. Or they are encouraged to die as foot soldiers to support the security of this nation.

We came to this nation to escape involuntary servitude, and feudal systems, are we returning to that mode, when the numbers are so out of balance?

Safety in numbers? Not in these numbers. When water to grow food is diverted to water golf courses, and hydrate expensive houses, they say oh, "What no food, let them eat mangoes from Mexico, the labor is cheap down there."

There should be no sub-middle class. If we are the most wealthy nation in the world, why are we poor?

I want to see a return to proper human values, I am hoping that John Kerry, John Edwards, and the American People can deliver it to us.

We have to realize as a nation that survival of the fittest is a big, big picture. We have to be fit to survive as a species, and the value of the most greedy, the most compassionless, the most convenient, has to not just take a back seat, but has to be demolished as an acceptible societal means. This is one of the big reasons that human values have to be taught in school, from day one, not religion.

 

[russ_watters]

The top 1% of income earners pay less than 30%, not 90%, of federal income taxes, as of 2000. Considering total federal tax burden, that goes down to about 20%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=221&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22

Njorl

I'll need to research this. I must be honest and admit that I was repeating an often cited number that I haven't researched myself (yeah, even I fall for it every now and then). Regardless, 30% for 1% is still 43 times the average of "everyone else." No, it isn't 1000 times, but its still an awful lot. Anyway, I'll look into this more and respond fully tonigh.

edit: math error.

 

[russ_watters]

However, I must respond to some fo these now:

But the growing importance of wealth widens the social and economic chasm between rich and poor. Ownership of assets is highly concentrated, far more than income. The top 1% of families, as measured by net worth, receive about 15% of income but own 30% of the nation's assets -- including stocks and bonds, homes, and closely held businesses. That's according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. The top 10% of families, as measured by net wealth, own 65% of assets, and the top 50% own a stunning 95% of assets. That means the gains from rising wealth have effectively left out half the population.

The conclusion in the last sentence doesn't follow from the rest - the rest of the paragraph says nothing at all about "rising wealth." To say 50% have been "left out" of the gains from rising wealth, you have to show that that 50% has not gotten more wealthy.

When I read this particular section, I realized that our security as a nation becomes unbalanced when basically a slave class is being created, whether by intent, or consequence.

Again, "being created" implies that that bottom 50% is getting poorer. It isn't.

There should be no sub-middle class.

Since income classes are defined by population percentages (first fifth, second fifth, etc) there will always be a "sub-middle class" because we have defined it that way. What you are missing is that that "sub-middle class" is also getting richer. No, not as fast as the top 5%, but they are still getting richer.

If we are the most wealthy nation in the world, why are we poor?

What we define as "poor" in the US, people would kill or die for in much of the rest of the world. People risk death every day(Cubans) for the opportunity to live "poor" by American standards. In the US, "poor" means only one tv, 3 people using one bathroom, and a slightly leaky roof. For a high percentage of Chinese (I'm not sure how many - 20%? 50%?), "poor" means never having seen a tv, used a bathroom with plumbing, nor lived in a structure with a fixed roof.

This is one of the big reasons that human values have to be taught in school, from day one, not religion.

On that I'll agree.

 

[amp]

You will find that Njorl was probably being a bit generous with that 30% figure. It is likely with the tax shelters and loopholes the ultra wealthy pay less than 30%. A lot of very rich multinational corporations pay less than 10%.

Its a wonder that the so-called right that harps on Christian values would ignore the words of the one they call their Savior for he said "if you would be great (meaning receive the approval of God) then minister to your brother(sister) who is in need " Have a care for the orphaned, have compassion for the homeless, uplift the destitute those are the kinds of actions and behaviors that will result in a better America for everyone. It doesn't mean a wealthy person must give away all their worldly goods, just spread some of it around to relive the misery. Sure some of you will say - these afflicted people need to get off their behinds and work for what they can get. A lot do but its like being on a treadmill for them they expend a lot of effort and don't seem to get ahead. Still others are unable because of various complications in their lives and then others don't have the skills, the literacy, or the education to get or sustain employment. Kerry's wife, Thersa Hinz-Kerry gives away millions but she hasn't gone broke and she would more than likely receive the love back if trouble came her way.

I think Kerry will put the enviornment first, I think he will shrink the deficit and give us another surplus, I think he will manage to give us universal health care, I think he will reform our educational system thus giving all children a good chance to realize the promise of opportunity America offers. And I know he will pull in our (Bush)estranged allies to help us with the work we must accomplish in the middle-east (I'm including Iraq, Isreal, Palistine and Afganistan)

 

[Robert Zaleski]

He wants to raise the minimum wage.

What do you think the hourly minimum wage should be?

 

[amp]

at least ten per hour.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Why not $50/hour? This way everyone will be rich.

 

[loseyourname]

There's a living wage requirement in place in many parts of California where certain jobs created by companies on government contracts are required to pay at least $12/hr (I think that's the rate). It's nearly impossible to get these jobs. I don't even want to imagine how difficult it would be to find a job if every job paid that much. Haven't you people taken Econ 101? Why do you think illegal workers are never unemployed?

 

[JohnDubYa]

And who would want to start a new business?

I'm going to invest in self-checkout machines.

 

[wasteofo2]

First off Russ, thank you very much for keeping this pretty civil, mad props to you cuz.

Secondly, I believe that the figure of the top 1% paying 90% of the federal taxes is off base, I've heard people like Sean Hannity saying that the top 10% pay 50% of the federal taxes, and I really doubt Hannity was low-balling it. I'd be more inclined to believe Njorl's stat.

Also, for reference, here's the current tax rate for different income brackets
http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html

You miss my point. It isn't the government's total tax income that is getting on my nerves, its targeting the rich to create an us-vs-them division. It very closely parallels the marxist bourgeois (the 2% who are rich) vs the proletariat (everyone else who is not - regardless of the fact that most of that group is still quite well off). The implication is made the the rich are not paying their way (the top 1%, btw, pay upwards of 90% of all income taxes). They are a drain on society, they get their wealth handed to them, they exploit everyone else. Yes, "evil" is an exaggeration, but the message sent is 'these people need to be stopped before they can hurt us any more.' Whether you realize it or not, that is Marxism. You have arbitrarily decided that their income needs to be capped. Another common fallacy (not unquely liberal). I hate it when my friends get all excited in April when they find out what their refund is. Yes, it is literally a check in the mail - but it is a refund. It means its money you shouldn't have paid. Similarly, a tax cut is not "a check in the mail," its just less money you have to pay.

I don't believe that the democrats are waging a class war in the way you seem to think, I think they just want to bring about a better sense of equity in this country, since currently we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had.

My belief that the tax rate should be increased for the rich isn't arbitrary, I believe they have the most money to give, would be hurt least from having more money taxed from them, and that the money collected from them could do a lot of good for our country.

And is another fallacy there: the poor pay so little in taxes (most pay just about nothing, and that's before you count the handouts they get), that you can't give them a tax cut. "Tax cuts for the rich" is redundant! Of course tax cuts will primarily go to the rich: the rich are the ones paying the taxes! The rich person already does pay for virtually all of that . Do the math: since the top 1% pays 90% of all taxes, that means that the averge person in the top 1% pays a thousand times more in taxes than the average of the rest of the population: 1/.1/.01 = 1000.

Around the time Bush asked for $81 billion for Iraq, Kerry proposed that in order to pay for that $81 billion, that reformations to Bush's tax cut plan be made, and that $81 billion of the $1 trillion was not given back to the wealthiest of Americans (though they would still get quite a bit back), and that it be used to fund the Iraq reconstruction. All Kerry wants is a multi-billion dollar tax cut, instead of a trillion dollar tax cut, only lessening the amount of money given to the very wealthiest of people... ? You agreed in your first sentence that Kerry wants to raise taxes, not lower them. Again, who are you to tell anyone what they can and can't do with their money? That's not the way America is supposed to work. If a rich person gets a nice bonus check from his company, let him buy a yacht. Who are you to say, 'sorry, you don't need it, so you can't have it'?

If you look at that chart, the dirt poor pay 10%, the poor pay 15%, and the lower-middle class pay 25%. It may be almost nothing in terms of the amount of money the federal govt. collects, but if you're only earning $30,000 a year, paying 1/4 of that means a lot to how you're able to live.

Yes, as people get richer they start paying a larger percent of the total federal income tax, but I'd be interested to see what percent money the top 1% of Americans actually make in a year, and what percent of the total money earned in America it is.

I agreed that Kerry wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest 2%, and keep them the same on the other 98%.

In response to your "who are you to say..." question: I am an American citizen, and I support the idea of taxing the richest 2% of Americans more than they currently are being taxed. Kerry will do this, so I support him, if enough people support Kerry, he will be elected and instate that policy, which is how democratic republics work. Politicians have beliefs of what should be done, and if enough people think that the politicians have a good idea, the politicians get to implement that idea.

Every now and then, someone hits a $100 million jackpot in the lottery, and the government takes roughly $35 million of it right off the bat. Now, few people would argue that an indivudal really "needs" $65 million. Should we just take all but say, $1 million because the person doesn't "need" it? Is that freedom? Is that America? I don't think so.

I'm busy right now, but will submit replies later.

In fact, you have it precisely backwards: "need" works from the bottom up, not the top-down. The government gives people what they need to survive - the thriving is up to you. If they don't have food, the government provides it. If they can't pay for their kids to go to school, the government provides it. If they get in a car accident and have no insurance, the government pays their hospital bills. Heck, if you go $200k in debt and can't pay it off, the government let's you off the hook. But what the government does not do is stand in your way. Yes, the government takes more in taxes from the rich and yes, rightfully so - but it is wrong to take money from someone simply because you say they don't need it. That sound like jealousy - and greed.

Rich people get lambasted all the time for being greedy - do groups of 1000 poor people ever get together and thank that one rich person who bought them dinner every night this year?

This brings me to another common democratic misnomer: "trickle down economics." It used to be connected with a specific theory, but has morphed into a catch-all for 'rich people's money.' If rich people spend money, it'll eventually trickle down to "the rest of us." There are two problems with that: 1. its true. Democrats hate that fact, but it is a fact that want based spending, not need based spending is what drives the economy - and rich people do more of it. That's why the Christmas shopping season is so critical to the year's economic picture. Needs never change - people always have the same needs for food, clothing, housing, transportation (caveat - an expensive car or house is both a need and a want). When someone gets a little extra money they spend it - on a vacation, toys for Xmas, a bigger car, a bigger house. That's money back into the economy.

The second problem with that is it again is an attempt to create a division where none exists. It paints a picture where rich people spend money and eventually it might find its way to "the rest of us." Wrong. Rich people's money is not separate from everyone elses. If a rich person buys a Lincoln Navigator because they go a $75,000 bonus check, how long does it take for that money to "trickle down" to "everyone else?" Well, let's see - that Lincoln Navigator was built by "everyone else" - they see the benefit immediately.

Ugh - that brings me to another issue: do the "everyone else" see the benefit immediately? If Lincoln sells one more car, "everyone else" won't get a bonus. But then, if The Rich Guy and a thousand others like him don't buy that car, they'll be out of a job. If enough Rich Guys buy Lincoln Navigators, the plant will have to increase production and hire another shift - employing 5,000 more of "everyone else."

 

[Dayle Record]

The middle class, and the poor are getting poorer. When the price of oil rises sharply, the price of shipping food causes a rise in the price of food, and oil for heating, price of goods rise, due to shipping cost. When medical costs triple, and all other costs rise, but wages don't rise, and unemployment rises, and jobs go off shore, then the bottom drops out on people. I haven't even mentioned the fixed income people. They are really hurting.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

at least ten per hour.

Right now the minimum wage is $5.15. Kerry wants to raise it incrementally to $7.00 by 2007. I would assume most people with entry level jobs make that much now. Do we have any entry level employees out there that can provide us with numbers?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Why not $50/hour? This way everyone will be rich.

Wouldn't the 'Food Nazis' love that. The cost of a Big Mac $350.00. Would you like fries with that?

 

[loseyourname]

I don't believe that the democrats are waging a class war in the way you seem to think, I think they just want to bring about a better sense of equity in this country, since currently we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had.

See, now how exactly is this gap measured? If the average middle class person makes $30K a year, and the average upper class person makes $100K a year, and their respective salaries increase over 20 years to $60K and $160K, the numerical gap has widened, even though the middle class salary went up 100% and the upper class salary only 60%. It would take a little more detail to make the statement "we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had" meaningful.

 

[wasteofo2]

See, now how exactly is this gap measured? If the average middle class person makes $30K a year, and the average upper class person makes $100K a year, and their respective salaries increase over 20 years to $60K and $160K, the numerical gap has widened, even though the middle class salary went up 100% and the upper class salary only 60%. It would take a little more detail to make the statement "we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had" meaningful.

I can tell you for one thing that the new jobs which were created under Bush has created pay on average around $9,000 less than the old jobs which were lost under Bush. Not necessarily Bush's fault, but you're having people loosing their jobs and the only opportunities open to them are lower paying jobs. I'll try to get some more meaningful data though.

 

[Evo]

See, now how exactly is this gap measured? If the average middle class person makes $30K a year, and the average upper class person makes $100K a year, and their respective salaries increase over 20 years to $60K and $160K, the numerical gap has widened, even though the middle class salary went up 100% and the upper class salary only 60%. It would take a little more detail to make the statement "we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had" meaningful.

Your numbers for income are a bit off. I don't have time to find the current numbers, but here is a ballpark figure for 2001, the numbers would be higher now.
------------------
"A recent nationwide survey by the Gallop poll and CNN/USA Today, found that, by income, the average middle class household earns around $40,000 total in income, the lowest bracket covers no earnings at all up to about $17,000-- the lower class definition by income is about $17,000 to $31,000. Middle class, by this survey is around $31,000 to $49,000, upper middle class from $49,000 to $76,000 and that top 20% bracket, over $76,000. Interestingly enough, this survey found that middle class households tend to be clustered right here in the middle west as well as the east and west coast. "

http://www.hiringnetwork.com/common/article88.html

Although I cannot believe that someone making only $76,000 per year would be considered upper middle class. I think Russ had some more realistic figures.

There is also this.

In 2001, taxpayers reporting adjusted gross income of $127,904 ranked among the nation's top 5 percent of earners, and $292,913 was necessary to break into the top 1 percent. A year earlier in 2000, the income threshold for the top 5 percent had been $128,336, and the threshold for the top 1 percent had been more than $20,000 higher, $313,469.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html

Of course that is "adjusted" gross income, no telling what the actual income was.

 

[loseyourname]

My numbers weren't off. I said "if."

 

[loseyourname]

Interestingly enough, this survey found that middle class households tend to be clustered right here in the middle west as well as the east and west coast.

Now what the heck does that mean? Clustered in the midwest, as well as the east and west coast? That spans the entire continent. How does that qualify as a cluster?

 

[Njorl]

Now what the heck does that mean? Clustered in the midwest, as well as the east and west coast? That spans the entire continent. How does that qualify as a cluster?

It leaves the South, and the West that is not the west coast. Still, it seems odd. Is there more wealth distinction in the South and non-coastal West?

I would be suspicious of class definitions based solely on income. A family of four living on 50k in New York is barely getting by. Put them in Oklahoma and they're doing okay.

Njorl

 

[amp]

Whats the name of that country over in Europe where most of everyones income goes to taxs but the Gov't provides universal healthcare, complete unemployeement insurance, free training to the unemployeed (I think), and a host of other services, is it Sweden or Switzerland ?

How about this, what if the average income per household(family) were $200,000 ? What do you think the Bell Curve would look like? Could the tax code be restructured so that such a redistribution could take occur? What would the poverty level be in such a case?

 

[Artman]

This question got me wondering what he would do. So I figured the man is currently a US Senator, so he should be trying to do those same things through his current office, right? So I read his bill summary.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d108:FLD003:@1(sen+Kerry)

The positive impression I got from reading these was a vision of an idealist with respect for the military, an interest in helping small business, and low income families.

The negative impressions I got were that he was pretty ineffectual in getting his legislation through (many Bills stuck in committees), that he also has some Bills pending that made me think of special interests such as duty-free treatment for certain tuna (I tried to read this bill but could not access it), tax breaks for stock sales, Federal historical site creation and preservation money designated for his home state and a neighboring state.

Would he be a bad president? Probably not. Can he do all the things he has promised? No way.

 

[BobG]

The top 1% of income earners pay less than 30%, not 90%, of federal income taxes, as of 2000. Considering total federal tax burden, that goes down to about 20%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=221&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22

Njorl

Are you sure you and Russ aren't mixing apples and oranges? I think you're talking about tax RATES. 30% of 150,000 is 45,000. 25% of 40,000 is 10,000. With a 5% difference in income tax rate, the TOTAL tax paid is over 4 times as much.

Add in the other taxes one pays - sales tax for every purchase, inheritance taxes, property taxes, etc., consider which class is most likely to be affected by them, and the wealthy are paying much more than 30% of the total taxes taken in.

Not that that is a bad thing. The people gaining the most from the nation's economy should be the ones financing the nation - they have the most to lose if it isn't financed. The ones paying the lowest tax rates (or no taxes at all) are still struggling to for the opportunity to be the people financing the nation. A worthwhile goal everyone's striving for, right?

I know I considered it a pretty significant milestone when I started getting back less in refunds than I'd paid in taxes instead of getting refunds larger than what I'd paid in. I guess still owing yet more taxes come April 15 is an equally significant milestone, but, somehow, it's not quite as fun as the first milestone.

And don't raise the minimum wage. It's fun to pretend raising the minimum wage will increase the number of jobs that are capable of supporting families, but the real effect is to steal those first 'pay your dues' jobs from the young. As John said, increasing minimum wage just lowers the cost of going automated and eliminating the job altogether.

 

[kcballer21]

I know this thread has diverted somewhat from its original topic, but I just wanted to add a link that elaborates on Kerry's healthcare plan that some people have already mentioned:

Medical Class Warfare

Sounds good to me.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Here's the poop.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-3.htm

In 1995 the top quintile bore 65% of the taxes. That's now lower with Bush's selective tax cuts.