Clinton's Hostile Preschool Takeover

[Longview 0]

Fair point. So you agree that a household income of 200k in location A may make you rich, but may not make you rich in location B? I know you do, just want to say it out loud. People who want to raise taxes act like "200K" means the same everywhere. It doesn't.

Certainly. Mind you, what we normally refer to as the "Bush Tax cuts" are actually three separate provisions, from years 2001, 2002, and 2003 respectively. The 2001 and 2003 provisions were largely inter-related package deals (which had little to do with the upper-middle class bracket), while the 2002 package was a generally well-targeted proposal.

Were I in charge, I'd allow Bush's 2001/2003 package to expire (which will happen anyway), while keeping the business-targeted 2002 package. The 2001/2003 plan can be rewritten with a greater focus on the upper-middle class and small business, without all the gratuitous cuts the ultra-wealthy received. We can have a more sensible tax plan for the middle class, but Eggtra 01/03 isn't it. We can help the fourth and fifth income tax brackets without such gratuitous handouts to the sixth.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Longview

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Fair point. So you agree that a household income of 200k in location A may make you rich, but may not make you rich in location B? I know you do, just want to say it out loud. People who want to raise taxes act like "200K" means the same everywhere. It doesn't.

Certainly. Mind you, what we normally refer to as the "Bush Tax cuts" are actually three separate provisions, from years 2001, 2002, and 2003 respectively. The 2001 and 2003 provisions were largely inter-related package deals (which had little to do with the upper-middle class bracket), while the 2002 package was a generally well-targeted proposal.

Were I in charge, I'd allow Bush's 2001/2003 package to expire (which will happen anyway), while keeping the business-targeted 2002 package. The 2001/2003 plan can be rewritten with a greater focus on the upper-middle class and small business, without all the gratuitous cuts the ultra-wealthy received. We can have a more sensible tax plan for the middle class, but Eggtra 01/03 isn't it.

lemme guess......you don't fall into any of those categories eh?

and while on the subject of taxes, what are your thoughts on amt?

[Longview 0]

lemme guess......you don't fall into any of those categories eh?

Average teacher pay is $40K. You can do the math, I'm sure.

One note I didn't include earlier concerns the structuring of our tax brackets. We need more incremental brackets, to prevent problems like bracket five's. There's no reason for those making $150K a year (the "upper-middle class urban types") to be pegged to the $300K+ crowd (which is pretty wealthy no matter where you live, including expensive urban settings).

and while on the subject of taxes, what are your thoughts on amt?

The AMT for whom? The individual Alt. Min. needs work badly, if that's what you're asking; an inflation peg wouldn't hurt, and patching out the "upper middle" class again wouldn't hurt. It still serves an important purpose where the exploitation of loopholes is concerned, is all. I don't support it as it stands, but I don't support a repeal, either. The 20 million (I think 20 million, don't hold me to it) additional taxpayers who've become subject to the Alt. Min. weren't the tax's intended target, and Congress should act to amend the situation.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Longview

[Clarky and Tarah 0]

pre-school to me means kindergarten. it's not mandatory at the state level that i'm aware of. and all i can remember of kindergarten is being taught how to take a nap during school

Preschool is about teaching kids to socialize with one another.

It's also about letting parents who need a second income to run a household have that second income. This idea makes a lot of sense in a place like NJ where a household income of less than 150k means being lower-middle-class to poor. That second income is important here. Preschool should be left up to the states, I expect it doesn't make as much sense in Arkansas.

Pre-school is before kindergarden. Pre-school is just a babysitting place. So in effect we will have government mandated babysitters. I don't want my taxes going for that.

I don't think the goverment should be in charge of baby-sitting services, and in my opnion that's what pre-school is. If someone wants their child to go to pre-school it should be THEIR choice and no one else's. I'm not sure about other states, but I know that here (WV) there are pre-school's that offer low-cost services to people who cannot afford the full amount. It shouldn't be up to the tax-payers to pay to have children babysat.

I'm a democrat but I'm definitely against Clinton on this one.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

lemme guess......you don't fall into any of those categories eh?

Average teacher pay is $40K. You can do the math, I'm sure.

One note I didn't include earlier concerns the structuring of our tax brackets. We need more incremental brackets, to prevent problems like bracket five's. There's no reason for those making $150K a year (the "upper-middle class urban types") to be pegged to the $300K+ crowd (which is pretty wealthy no matter where you live, including expensive urban settings).

and while on the subject of taxes, what are your thoughts on amt?

The AMT for whom? The individual Alt. Min. needs work badly, if that's what you're asking; an inflation peg wouldn't hurt, and patching out the "upper middle" class again wouldn't hurt. It still serves an important purpose where the exploitation of loopholes is concerned, is all. I don't support it as it stands, but I don't support a repeal, either.

as i thought. there are a few on vj who are in that 200k bracket. i also expect the amt to bite me this year.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

One flat tax.

X% on every dollar earned above poverty line.

Period.

No exemptions, no write offs, no loopholes, no nothing.

No other tax either.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bite me. I like to dream every now and then.

[Widge 0]

but the demonisation of both sides really doesn't exactly facilitate a decent discussion of the issues.

So true !!!!!!!!!!

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

One flat tax.

X% on every dollar earned above poverty line.

Period.

No exemptions, no write offs, no loopholes, no nothing.

No other tax either.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bite me. I like to dream every now and then.

i'd agree to that as long as there was even a token tax on those below poverty, if even as low as $10.

[Longview 0]

i also expect the amt to bite me this year.

I agree with you that the AMT started "biting" far too many people, and that its metaphorical jaws need a trimming back. It needs some crucial action to bring it back to its narrow, intended purpose.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

One flat tax.

X% on every dollar earned above poverty line.

Period.

No exemptions, no write offs, no loopholes, no nothing.

No other tax either.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bite me. I like to dream every now and then.

i'd agree to that as long as there was even a token tax on those below poverty, if even as low as $10.

No probs.

[smoke20 0]

One flat tax.

X% on every dollar earned above poverty line.

Period.

No exemptions, no write offs, no loopholes, no nothing.

No other tax either.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bite me. I like to dream every now and then.

i can agree w/ that except the above poverty line part. maybe a much smaller percentage. but no free rides.

[Longview 0]

I've seen a few people describe refer broadly to "pre-school" as "babysitting." Are we talking daycare here, or pre-Kindergarten? I went to pre-K, which was decidedly educational. There's a difference between Canada's daycare program and Sen. Clinton's pre-Kindergarten proposal, I think.

Daycare for 3 and under is certainly babysitting, but pre-Kindergarten tends to be a focused, curriculum-based grade level (in my experience).

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

One flat tax.

X% on every dollar earned above poverty line.

Period.

No exemptions, no write offs, no loopholes, no nothing.

No other tax either.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bite me. I like to dream every now and then.

i'd agree to that as long as there was even a token tax on those below poverty, if even as low as $10.

No probs.

the reason for that is (as previously mentioned on another thread tonight) a girl i was dating who lived in arkansas made 7k a year. had eic and so on.....and got back a whopping check at tax time. what is not considered is she lived rent free in her mom's second house, so that 7k + free rent = more than poverty line. oh and she got free medical from the state

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

One flat tax.

X% on every dollar earned above poverty line.

Period.

No exemptions, no write offs, no loopholes, no nothing.

No other tax either.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bite me. I like to dream every now and then.

i can agree w/ that except the above poverty line part. maybe a much smaller percentage. but no free rides.

It's a free ride for everyone, though. If the poverty line was, say 10K and you made 100K, then you'd be taxed on 90K. So, nobody would pay on that first 10K. Seems fair to me.

[smoke20 0]

One flat tax.

X% on every dollar earned above poverty line.

Period.

No exemptions, no write offs, no loopholes, no nothing.

No other tax either.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bite me. I like to dream every now and then.

i can agree w/ that except the above poverty line part. maybe a much smaller percentage. but no free rides.

It's a free ride for everyone, though. If the poverty line was, say 10K and you made 100K, then you'd be taxed on 90K. So, nobody would pay on that first 10K. Seems fair to me.

i don't see how no taxes & no taxes on 10 percent is a free ride for everyone