Democrats, in a stark shift in messaging, to make big tax-break pitch for middle class:

[Kingofalldems]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/democrats-in-a-stark-shift-in-messaging-to-make-big-tax-break-pitch-for-middle-class/2015/01/11/d4438468-9999-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

Reply from GOP: Benghazi!

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. And it's on ...

This legislation should be front and center for every Democrat and Democratic candidate, from now through November 2016.

It will, immediately, put every gop hopeful on the defensive and allow the left to focus on something other than attacking Democrats.

[senseandsensibility]

3. Will they run with this?

Will all Dems push it on all shows they appear on? I don't know. Time will tell, I guess.

[Orrex]

5. Sure they will, just like they did before the 2014 elections.

[SunSeeker]

2. I LOVE Van Hollen's proposals.

To spur employers to increase pay, the plan would target corporations, prohibiting companies from deducting executive performance bonuses in excess of $1 million, a benefit worth $66 billion from 2007 to 2010. To claim the deduction, companies would have to demonstrate that workers had shared in the company’s good fortunes by increasing wages about 4 percent, on par with inflation and productivity growth.

Other provisions would provide incentives to companies that give workers a share of corporate profits and invest in job training, through apprenticeship programs or partnerships with community colleges.

Blossoming wages would also stretch further under the plan, primarily through the paycheck bonus, worth $1,000 to individuals and $2,000 to couples. The idea is similar to Obama’s “Make Work Pay” credit, part of the 2009 stimulus package, but Obama’s credit was temporary and, at $400 per person, much smaller.

Van Hollen also proposes to:

●Increase the tax credit for child care from $3,000 per person to $8,000, or $16,000 per couple.

●Create a “saver’s bonus” of $250 for workers who put at least $500 a year into retirement or other savings accounts.

●And reduce marriage penalties for dual-income couples, particularly the working poor.

To avoid increasing federal budget deficits, Van Hollen proposes to limit tax breaks for the top 1 percent of earners, who are on track to reap more than $2 trillion over the next decade from favorable rates on capital gains, the mortgage-interest deduction and other “tax expenditures,” according to the Congressional Budget Office.

He also calls for imposing a 0.1 percent fee on stock trades, an idea under consideration by the European Union. That proposal would raise as much as $800 billion over the next decade, primarily from high-volume traders, Van Hollen said.

[kentuck]

9. Interesting ideas...

...it seems that there are still some in the Democratic Party that are willing to be a little more bold in their ideas...

[hfojvt]

30. I hate the ideas

they are mostly tax breaks for upper income people

http://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1015&pid=330077

Bold? It would be nice if they could think about the bottom 50%, instead of just the (upper) middle class.

[Kingofalldems]

25. That's my congressman.

Excellent.

[JustAnotherGen]

27. I like the proposal but on the marriage penalty

I got married in April 2012 - and marriage actually provided serious tax perks. I'll have to take a deep dive into what they consider to be penalties. As a single 'earner' post college for 17 years -

I saw a marked difference from January 2012 to January 2013.

[hfojvt]

31. I really thought

that they ended the supposed "marriage penalty" years ago.

And I never really thought it WAS a penalty, just a reflection of the fact that - a married couple making $32,000 a year (for example) simply IS economically better off than two single people each making $16,000 a year.

Especially with the child tax credit being $1,000 and the expansion of the EIC, the tax code is already tilted against the childless. This guy proposes making it more so.

[JustAnotherGen]

33. I think they did

I always paid additional money to Fed Gov when I was single. So did my husband. Regardless of what we claimed throughout the year.

Married - returns regardless of what we paid throughout the year.

Now I'm married - but I have a soft spot for the never married no kids. We shouldn't be shifting burdens to people who can't pool their resources for retirement and savings.

My best friend is in her late 40's, never married no kids. She has to rely on herself in her old age. My friend Scott is 51 and in the same position.

We inflict too much financial pain on "singletons" by singling them out when they very often take the least in basic public services.

Not trying to start a marred vs single war but I disagree with putting any burdens on single childless people that haven't been in a public school for 30 years.

[tkmorris]

4. When you are the opposition party

You can, and do, propose legislation you know you cannot even bring to a vote, let alone pass, because it would be popular with your base (and in this case the mushy middle). This is easy to do when you are the opposition because since you have no real hope of getting the proposal passed you don't have to deal with the consequences of doing it.

[Orrex]

6. Exactly

It's the bravery inspired by knowing that you'll never have to make good on your "promises."

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. But it does give you something to campaign on and ...

fight for.

[BrotherIvan]

8. Also, why in the hell is the only thing the Democrats can come up with the Republican platform?

Tax breaks? Really? Not jobs? Not education? Not improvements to the ACA, i.e. actual health care? Tax breaks????

[SunSeeker]

12. Read the article. The headline misleadingly only mentions tax breaks for the middle class.

They are proposing a lot more than just tax breaks for the middle class.

Other provisions would provide incentives to companies that give workers a share of corporate profits and invest in job training, through apprenticeship programs or partnerships with community colleges.

...

To avoid increasing federal budget deficits, Van Hollen proposes to limit tax breaks for the top 1 percent of earners, who are on track to reap more than $2 trillion over the next decade from favorable rates on capital gains, the mortgage-interest deduction and other “tax expenditures,” according to the Congressional Budget Office.

...

He also calls for imposing a 0.1 percent fee on stock trades, an idea under consideration by the European Union. That proposal would raise as much as $800 billion over the next decade, primarily from high-volume traders, Van Hollen said.

That last one is key. That is how we will get the money to create more jobs, improve healthcare, education, etc.

And tax breaks for the middle class is not the Republican platform. Tax breaks for the 1% is what the GOP is all about.

[BrotherIvan]

13. I agree with the tax on stock trades

I dunno, it just seems like the same kind of pablum. On one thread we're talking about Norway and on this one we're talking about tax breaks. It's all just a bunch of babble.

I think Americans wouldn't have so much problem if they felt like they got something for paying taxes like our European counterparts do. I have lived in Canada and visit Europe frequently, soon to live there. People are taxed highly and the cost of living is more expensive. But it's obvious where those taxes go: education, mass transport, health care, clean, safe cities and a very strong social safety net. So while nobody likes paying high taxes, they benefit.

In America, your no one likes paying taxes because they go into a black hole, or more specifically, the Pentagon. Why are we talking about tax breaks and cutting things like Social Security and the social safety net at the same time??? Why don't we turn it around so people can actually see government working, that they don't have to go into debt forever to go to college or they don't have to pay every last cent on health insurance. How about jobs, lots and lots of jobs? How about any number of things? How about going back to the Democratic Platform on working on that?

I'm reacting to the idea that this should be the platform to run on in 2016. It surely isn't.

[SunSeeker]

15. That is not the only thing that will be on the 2016 platform.

The Dems are NOT "cutting things like Social Security and the social safety net at the same time." Jeebus. Stop watching Fox News. That is the House GOP that passed a procedural scheme that will make it easier to cut Social Security Disability payments, not Dems.

The Dems and President Obama are pushing for free community college, they're pushing mass transport, they're pushing clean and safe cities. Sadly, unlike in Norway, the red states' governors are not on board. If you are lucky enough to live in a blue state, you have seen benefits. Here in California, we just broke ground on a bullet train. California school funding is up, after years of cuts. Thanks to CoveredCA (California's ACA marketplace), my brother has health coverage for the first time in his adult life. You want "jobs, lots and lots of jobs"? When Obama took office the economy was in free fall, we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs each month and unemployment hovered around 10%. Since Obama implemented his stimulus package and rescue of the auto industry, Obama has presided over 58 straight months of job growth. The US unemployment rate fell to 5.6% in December, the lowest level in six and a half years, as the country capped its best year for job creation since 1999. That is no "babble" or "pablum."

[BrotherIvan]

17. I live in California

I'm very happy to see the great things Democrats are doing in my state. And you know how they are doing them? Raising taxes. Thanks for the perfect example.

[SunSeeker]

18. CA raised taxes on the rich, not the middle class.

That is what Van Hollen is proposing to do.

[hfojvt]

32. it IS the Republican platform though

They always, always, always claim their tax cuts are NOT favoring the rich.

And here the Democrats just give them mileage by proclaiming "tax cuts are good"

and look at the tax breaks they call "middle class" tax breaks. This is a rough guess, but I am betting (from what I know about taxes and income distribution) that 80% of the benefits of that plan will go to those making over $50,000 a year.

Of course, many DUers, being high income themselves, think $50,000 a year is poverty level anyway, but about half of the country makes less and will get very few benefits from these tax cuts. Again, I am betting that something like 50% of the benefits will go to those making over $100,000 a year, all the way up to $200,000 a year.

Is somebody making $187,000 a year really MIDDLE class? Is that REALLY the Democratic base?

2012 was one of my best years for income (this year I was sort of forced into semi-retirement) and my total income was $31,541.84 and from that I put $6,000 into my IRA. It would take me almost six years to make $187,000. In the meantime, Mr. $187,000 will have made $1.1 million to my $187,000.

But in politifact, so-called "tax breaks for the middle class" means $5,000+ for him and $50 or less for me.

I call that George Bush lite.

It tastes terrible and it fills you up with b.s.

[SunSeeker]

34. Nope, Van Hollen proposes a more progressive tax structure, not less overall taxes.

Van Hollen proposes lessening the tax burden on the middle class, to be paid for by higher taxes on the rich. This is to address income inequality. There is nothing like that in the GOP platform. The GOP is all about moving the tax burden from the rich and corporations to the poor and middle class.

[hfojvt]

36. that may be slightly more progressive

but it is only taking money from the top 1% and giving most of the money to the top 20%.

The bottom 50% will get crumbs, next to nothing.

You want me to analyze each piece? Because I can do that.

1. Increase the deduction for child care expenses.

Who benefits? Since the deduction is not refundable, then households with less than $50,000 and two children will get about ZERO benefit from that - they already pay no federal income taxes.

2. credit of $250 for somebody who saves $500

Does he know current law?

Somebody who puts $500 into an IRA already gets
a. a deduction on line 32 of the 1040 (one which phases out/is limited for higher income people)
b. another credit on line 50 of the 1040.

That credit is up to $1,000 for single people making less than $16,500 up to $400 for those making less than $18,000 (note though, my form 8880 that I just grabbed is from 2009, so these incomes will likely be higher by now) and up to $200 for those with incomes less than $27,750. For heads of household, the top income is $41,625 and for married people smoking jointly it is $55,500.

So this new proposal mostly benefits - those with HIGHER incomes. People who mostly are already saving for retirement, because they can afford to, and because they already get decent tax benefits. (When the IRA limit was raised from $2,000 to $5,000 who benefitted? Mostly the higher income people who could afford to put $5,000 in their accout ($10,000 if they are married, as most high income people are).

But it's cool, thanks to all the tax cuts for people making over $100,000 a year, we cannot "afford" to fix social security, and so poorer people are just gonna have to work until they die.

God bless the "middle class".

Sorry for the rant. I feel a little bit like I am blasting away with both barrels. I get fired up about this excrement.

[SunSeeker]

37. No, a LOT more progressive. The stock trade tax raises $800B in 10 years.

That is huge. That would go to healthcare, education, childcare.

I get why you are instinctively distrustful though. "Like a dog that's been beat too much" (to borrow a phrase from Bruce Springsteen), every time the middle class sees a raised hand, it assumes it's about to be hit.

[hfojvt]

38. and the $800 billion

doesn't even equal the $1.3 trillion in permanent tax cuts that Obama already gave to the top 5%.

I get distrustful because clearly I am NOT part of what a politician means when they say "middle class". That would require me to make more than $100,000 a year.

And to me, it becomes LESS progressive when you give $600 billion in tax cuts to the top 30% and $20 billion in tax cuts to the bottom 40%.

I think those with income over $100,000 should pay MORE taxes, like they did when Clinton was President, to say nothing of when Carter was President.

[SunSeeker]

39. The stock trade tax is not the only tax on the rich Van Hollen is proposing.

But I see you just want to rant. So go ahead, knock yourself out. Bye.

[hfojvt]

40. no I do not just want to rant

I want politicians to STOP making proposals that benefit people who make over $100,000 a year.

Try, just try, if it could be possible to think of all the people who make less than $50,000 a year.

I get it that a $170,000 a year congressman who moves in circles where people make millions of dollars in a year, cannot realize that tons of Americans make far less than $100,000 a year. I get that, but what is YOUR excuse?

[SunSeeker]

41. Silly insults will not get you anywhere.

Nor will claiming a family earning $100,000 per year is rich and should not be benefited by any legislation. That is middle class for places like LA, NY and Miami. Your toxic disdain for these people will drive them to the GOP.

I am deeply aware of poverty. I grew up on food stamps with a single mom who scoured Goodwill racks to clothe me and my brother.

My brother never escaped poverty. He struggles to pay his rent and put food on his table. He WISHES he made $30,000 per year like you do. He would be homeless without my support. Don’t fucking insult me, claiming I don't know tons of Americans make less than $100,000 per year. What a load of offensive crap. But then I guess I should have known that is where you were going with this from your first inane post in this thread.

[JustAnotherGen]

35. +10000

[hedda_foil]

22. Precisely. It will never become law, so they can safely pander to the upper 5% instead of the .001%

Notice that the proposed tax cuts go all the way up to $200,000 annual household income ... the folks who consider themselves middle-class when most consider them rich.

[Doctor_J]

24. yeah, this looks like kabuki theatre to me

But I am still glad they are doing it

[PSPS]

10. I don't like this

Here we go again with the definition of "middle class" being "under $200,000." The median wage in the country is about $50,000. A $200K income is the top 1% (top 5% if married.)

I can understand saying one has to make $200K to have a very comfortable "middle class" lifestyle, but the problem here isn't that the taxes are too high. The problem is that wages are far too low for most people to live anything resembling a comfortable "middle class" lifestyle.

[midnight]

11. "The plan also would use the tax code to prod employers to boost wages, which have been stagnant

for four decades despite gains in productivity and profits."

[SMC22307]

14. Well, at first glance I see it's the WaPo and not The Onion.

Next observation -- with Republicans in complete control of Congress, Democrats are attempting to do this?

[midnight]

23. Yes… I would of assumed that right after the banks were bailed out this would of been the next

move to jump start this economy.

[JDPriestly]

16. It sounds like a good start, especially the inclusion of an incentive for people to save.

It is a good idea to reduce the taxes on the middle class and increase them on the rich and those who make enough money to pay taxes on it on Wall Street. Lots more is needed, but this sounds like a good start.

Interesting that people think more growth is very important. It is of course, but growth does not help the middle class if, as under the trickle-down economics of the past 30 years, the increased profits from growth go only to the top percentages of the population.

[Recursion]

19. Depends

but growth does not help the middle class if, as under the trickle-down economics of the past 30 years, the increased profits from growth go only to the top percentages of the population.

Depends. If growth means wider access to cheaper "stuff" of various kinds (and it tends to) then stagnant wages still lead to a higher consumer quality of life (as it has). From an hedonic standpoint there's a certain nonsense in saying things like "1997 dollars" vs. "2015 dollars": 2015 dollars can buy things that simply weren't available in 1997. Now, hedonic analysis has its problems, but it seems to be one of the closest models for voting preferences out there.

[JDPriestly]

21. The big problem is housing. The cost of housing rises because the rich can buy properties

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)

especially in desirable cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, New York, Boston.

Cheap goods do not make housing cheaper, and rent or a mortgage payment is a big expense for Americans. Food prices are rising. Rapidly. We are noticing it. Childcare can be very expensive, and a college education is really a huge expense.

Cheap, imported junk doesn't make much of a difference because the junk we import lowers our wages and the gain we enjoy from paying less for say a toaster or a microwave or even a computer must be balanced against the loss in our wages from the fact that jobs wit good wages are more scarce.

When college graduates are working in fast food places for minimum wage -- and they still are -- you can see that importing cheap junk from other countries is a lose, lose for middle class Americans.

The average house in Los Angeles costs over $525,700.

http://www.zillow.com/los-angeles-ca/home-values/

In Des Moines it is $110,200.

http://www.zillow.com/des-moines-ia/home-values/

On edit, another problem is the cost of education compared to our wages and cost of living.

Remember, our country was built on the premise that we Americans would have private property. Land was relatively easy to buy or claim through homesteading. The role of home ownership is more important in the US than in some other countries I have lived in.

Young people in the US are having a tough time buying houses. Americans have far too much personal debt. The low prices on manufactured consumer goods merely aggravate the discrepancy between wages and on the other hand, debt for the major and most expensive and most important expenditures in life.

[Unknown Beatle]

20. Why didn't they do this before

the repugs controlled both houses?

Is it just for show and realizing that it will fail, will say, "Well, we tried. But the other side struck it down, so don't blame us."

I just don't know anymore. I'm becoming very jaded.

[dawg]

26. Because they might have won.

And then people would have expected them to *actually* do it.

[Kingofalldems]

28. It is puzzling for sure.

[TheKentuckian]

29. Well, in one of those 10 - 20 piece jigsaw puzzles for very small children fashions

but the puzzle is easily put together even by luck with a minimally sustained effort.

They like ideas they can campaign on but can't be held responsible for actually executing. By the time the House can be realistically taken all of this discussion will be well past the memory hole window.

I think for many in high places 2010 couldn't come quick enough, the expectations of Democratic control just can't coexist with the Turd Way agenda.