Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans: Same Gains Rate as Reagan

Don't expect to read that headline by the mainstream media.  But it's true.

More Americans pay capital gains on $250 or less each year than make over $200,000.

Some interesting things from the Tax plan are:

1.  no taxes on the first $250 of capital gains for all americans

2.  adding an additional $500 tax credit for low income families for saving each year.

3.  Allowing Families to deposit their Child Tax credits into Tax free investment accounts.

4.  savings bonds for the low income up to $500 to match savings.

5.  "taxing wealth like you tax work" - increased captial gains rates.

6. eliminating the estate tax for estates under 4 million

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releas es/20070726-economic-plan/

don't expect to read about tax cuts for the majority of the country.  Expect to read about tax hikes for a small percentage.

I wish they had a statistic on how many people will see lower taxes versus higher taxes under this plan but I can't find it.

I like this language.  It seems the populism is coming back.

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/200 70726-economic-fairness/

And third, in the past 10 years, the number of lobbyists in Washington has tripled to 36,000. That means there are sixty registered lobbyists for each member of Congress and 20 times more lobbyists than people in my hometown of Robbins, North Carolina.

That's all you need to know to know that Washington is the problem, not the solution. Something's wrong when we have 37 million Americans living in poverty and this kind of income disparity. When 45 million Americans can't get health care, but corporations can get whatever they want from Congress. That may be George Bush's America, but that doesn't mean it's right.

The crowd in charge now hasn't done anything to fix this. The truth is, Washington under George Bush and the Republicans has gone out of their way to make it worse, deliberately circling the wagons around success to ensure that those who have it get even more, instead of creating opportunity to give everyone an equal chance. But that doesn't mean it started when they came into office. Men in their 30s today earn less in real dollars than their fathers did 30 years ago. For an entire generation, regular workers haven't seen a raise. With this reality staring them in the face, it's not surprising that less than a third of Americans now believe the next generation will be better off.

Edwards is reminding the media who will endlessly point out he's rich, that he wasn't born that way.

None of this happened by accident. Washington is broken. The system is rigged. Cronyism and corporate interests prevail over fairness and the best interests of the American people. Washington puts Wall Street before Main Street. Pharmaceutical companies before patients. Agricultural conglomerates before family farmers. If you want to think about all this in a very simple way, it's that Washington values wealth over work. And it's no surprise - the people with wealth and corporate power are the same people who keep politicians in power. They scratch Washington's back and Washington scratches theirs.

But it doesn't have to be this way. I still believe passionately in the American Dream because I've lived it myself. I came from a family with very little - my father had to borrow $50 to bring me home from the hospital. Now I want for no material thing. I know that we can fix the mess we are in. I know that we can replace Two Americas with One America. We can end these divisions by recommitting ourselves to a government of, by and for the people, but it's not going to be easy.

There are powerful forces that will resist us. These are the same powerful forces I have fought against all my adult life. But I have defeated them before and we will defeat them together because no matter how powerful special interest America thinks it is, there is no one more powerful than the American people and together we can build One America and restore the American Dream we all believe in.

look for the media to paint this as strictly raising taxes while for most american households that make less than $45,000 they would likely see tax cuts.

More than half of all households pay no income tax already

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/206.html



Display:


Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (3.00 / 1)

This is great. Cutting taxes for small investors. If you're someone who has money set aside to save for your family's education, for health care costs, for retirement, this tax cut is for you. If you've got investements for big profits only, then its not.


by desmoulins on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 12:27:24 PM EST

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (none / 0)

It's a step in the right direction, but I don't see this making a major difference for small investors.   Sure, your first $250 is tax free, but everything after that is now being taxed 13% higher than it was before.  That means that if you are investing $1,000 a year, you are paying $210 in capital gains which would be a tax increase for small investors.  While the tax exemption is a good idea, it is way too low to have a real impact.  If Edwards really wanted to have his cake and eat it too, i.e. lower taxes on low and middle income investors and raise them on upper income investors, he would bracket capital gains rates just as we do with income tax.

The rest of Edwards' initiatives seem reasonable, but I would argue are somewhat small to have a major impact.  Also, I'd like to see what his proposal for implementing something like this would be.  The easiest way to encourage people to be able to take advantage of these matching funds and other programs is to keep the paperwork and bureaucracy at a bare minimum.  Average Americans don't have a militia of attorneys and accountants.  


by freepursuits on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not my understanding (none / 0)

the capital gains rate will be taxed at your overal rate CAPPED at 28%....

I don't think you pay more than your normal bracket UP TO 28%  (which is now capped at 15%)


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not my understanding (none / 0)

Okay, now I'm confused. ha ha ha.  If anybody who understands this thing can provide me a real numerical example of how this thing would help a middle-income family, I'd love to see it.  Some of this stuff can get really wonky really fast in the abstract.

The tax exemptions are a good first step, but I think they are too low and don't do enough to really encourage investment in one's retirement or college education.  We really need a revolution in that regard and I think that this plan is just a small movement.  Also, where is the Social Security tax reform?


by freepursuits on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:52:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

most americans have net (none / 0)

negative savings.

most americans will qualify for most of this.

And elimination of the estate tax up to 4 million certainly included me.

I've read somewhere else that the higher cap gains rate only applies to those making over 200K.  but I"m not sure.

IN the old days the cap gains rate was calculated at your normal bracket on AGI


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: most americans have net (none / 0)

First for this to apply to you, you have to be making more than $200,000.

Secondly, this is on capital gains income not on investment income which is taxed as regular income already.  

This tax is on those who buy and sell a lot of stocks or real estate or other capital gains.  Your house investment is already protected.  

I asked questions yesterday and BruceMcF answered many questions very well in this diary on Dkos.  You may find some answers there in the threads.  
UPDATE III: John Edwards: "It's time to end the president's war on work."


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (none / 0)

No, only those with incomes of $250,000 plus pay the 28% rate ... the vast majority of the population would face the exact same capital gains tax as they face today.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (none / 0)

Okay, that really answers my concerns regarding that issue.    

This is kind of inside baseball, but I'm not too hot on the closing of the hedge fund and private equity loopholes just yet.  I think in due time they need to be closed, just as I believed that in a better fiscal climate I would like to see the estate tax eliminated on principle, but right now I think there is serious concern that if we raise taxes on hedge funds and private equity groups we are going to see these groups move overseas.  This has been the stance of guys like Schumer and Bloomberg, for they see hedge fund and private equity investment as being a baby industry that we need to promote with low tax rates in the short-term in order to see it really blossom.  This issue is just kind of amping up on The Hill, so it was interesting that Edwards threw his hat into the ring on this one.


by freepursuits on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:59:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (3.00 / 1)

if you are investing $1,000 a year, you are paying $210 in capital gains

Note quite; the tax is on profits, not investments. So if you invest $1000 per year, and you're have a great year, you made $140 -- and thats taxable only if you pull it out of your fund or sell the shares to claim the profit. IF you're a family saving for college, health care or retirement, you're unlikely to pull your money out every year.


by desmoulins on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:10:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

here's a reasonable MSM (3.00 / 1)

take

http://www.cnbc.com/id/19973144


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 12:32:31 PM EST

However, this part is inaccurate ... (none / 0)

will today propose raising the capital gains tax rate to 28% from 15%, and use the money to finance tax cuts for middle and lower income families

Its only the top rate that will be pushed up to 28%. Of course, today the top rate is the same as the middle rate, but the capital gains tax on people making, say, $80,000, is not going to change.

Of course, if you merely make $80,000, you are not really the target demographic for CNBC.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:41:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The coverage (3.00 / 1)

I've seen thus far has been okay. Most journalists are picking up on Edwards's point that the 28 percent rate on cap gains was Reagan's rate--a clever framing meant to combat the fear and fury that's going arise among the corporate class.

Incidentally, Obama has said he favors raising the tax on cap gains to 20, so as always, he's not willing to be bold as Edwards.


by david mizner on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 12:36:18 PM EST

Re: The coverage (3.00 / 1)

that's good however one lame outlet (Wash post?) is referring to Mondale although mondale had no tax breaks in it.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/ 2007/jul/26/dumb_journalism_on_edwards_t ax_plan


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 12:40:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wish I could have been there! (3.00 / 1)

I heard about the event earlier this week, but I was tied up this morning and couldn't head over to hear the speech.

I agree with you, Tarheel, about the media framing of this. I don't know what the answer is besides getting the word out directly to voters. Starting next month, I will be organizing a series of house parties for Edwards in my neighborhood, so that undecided voters can come hear the details about what Edwards wants to accomplish.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 12:48:56 PM EST

I'd like to see the campaign (none / 0)

put out a quick reference on what percent of the population would see tax cuts or tax breaks..

from the TaxFoundation (and Rush Limbaugh) more than half the people pay no income tax..

that right there means most americans would see a tax break.

I also do like the framing that bringing the capital gains tax rate back to what REagan had it at is a GREAT frame


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 12:53:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (none / 0)

This is a great idea, tax cuts. While I haven't looked at the specific plan, I've been advocating that the Dem nominee run on middle class tax cuts.


by world dictator on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 12:54:49 PM EST

I like the sound of that! (3.00 / 1)

Way to GO!

Edwards - I love it!


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 01:06:13 PM EST

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most (none / 0)

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Now that I have that out of my system.  No, the fact that the number of lobbyists has skyrocketed DOES NOT show that Wahington is the problem.  It shows that very rich and corrupt people understand that Washington is the solution and they are paying major dollars to keep control of that solution-providing mechanism.  I love JRE but as a populist or progressive he has to know this.  He does know this as his further comments show us, just wish he hadn't started with that whole "Washington is the problem" crap.  Sorry for the rant but this is one of my major pet peeves.
by Demo Dan in Dayton on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:29:33 PM EST

he's the only non-sitting politician (3.00 / 1)

and only surved one term in politics.

it's natural when people hate congress and the president to run against Washington DC.

you may have something about the subtlety - but running against DC is a winning strategy -- even obama is trying to do it.


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:38:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most (none / 0)

I don't think he was saying that. Did you see the video Tracy Joan put up in the breaking blue? He's saying that rich and corrupt people are hiring the lobbyists to get their way in Washington. Frankly, Washington is a problem right now because it's being overrun by the plutocracy, just like it was in the late 1800s. That doesn't mean that it can't be fixed. Obviously, JRE thinks so otherwise he wouldn't be running for president. It's not like he's staking out the Reagan claim of, "Govment isn't the solution to the problem, Guvment IS the problem".

I think it's pretty clear he's making the exact opposite case.


by adamterando on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:15:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I like this idea. (3.00 / 1)


by bookgrl on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:38:23 PM EST

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans: (none / 0)

I think that's great. Cutting capital gains taxes is very pro-growth as well.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:29:58 PM EST

How would cutting capital gains tax promote growth (none / 0)

Its real productive assets that are bought and held to be put to work that increase our productive capacity ... since disposal prices for those assets are invariably under their purchase price, capital gains taxes do not influence return on those assets.

Promoting economic activity does normally help wealth holders, but it doesn't always work the other way ... subsidizing wealth holders does not always help economic activity.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:45:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How would cutting capital gains tax promote gr (none / 0)

Capital gains taxes sharply cut into one of our best instruments for growing household savings particularly because it taxes the nominal gain of any investment without regard to inflation. Everyone invests in our capital market: young and old, rich and not rich, etc., etc. And to reduce the Federal tax would certainly improve market conditions for investors who want to grow their disposable incomes and yes, benefiting corporations, our government, etc and by extension reduce unemployment. There is a well-documented inverse relationship between the level of capital gains taxes and the rate of economic growth. That is why many countries around the world have been cutting their capital gains taxes  to compete.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:51:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How would cutting capital gains tax promote gr (none / 0)

Its well documented that it is the consensus position ... but support for the consensus position itself is not well documented.

The crux of the reasoning is:

In general, there is significant consensus that broad-based reductions in taxes on capital have the potential to boost economic growth over the long run. Reductions in capital taxation increase the return on investment and therefore the formation of capital. The resulting increase in the capital stock yields greater output and higher incomes throughout much of the economy.

But this confuses two different things, both of them called "investment". One is accumulation of financial assets, which can be strongly affected by capital gains taxes. The other is the purchase of newly produced goods and services in order to expand productive capacity ... which is not strongly affected by capital gains taxes.

Now, certainly, strong growth in productive capacity ... "investment" in the macroeconomic GDP sense ... increases saving and therefore wealth accumulation. However, there is no strong direct relationship in the other direction.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:32:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How would cutting capital gains tax promote gr (none / 0)

I can't see how you would say that macroeconomic investment would not be affected by gains in financial investment. All so-called financial investors, large and small, benefit from a capital gains tax reduction not just for the increased gains they stand to get (and btw, I disagree with the notion you presented that that is a subsidy) but also because the American capital market at large becomes more favorable. Increased corporate profits, tax revenue, and employment directly relate to increased savings. And the increase in household savings has everything to do with macroeconomic investment in the form of entrepreneurship. New businesses and small businesses be they sole proprietorships, etc. draw their financial resources directly from household savings or may be used directly, vouched for as a basis for obtaining a business loan, or in rarer circumstances, borrow directly on a security, in order to make macroeconomic/business investment. That is also a fairly consensus view.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:29:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How would cutting capital gains tax promote gr (none / 0)

All so-called financial investors, large and small, benefit from a capital gains tax reduction not just for the increased gains they stand to get (and btw, I disagree with the notion you presented that that is a subsidy) but also because the American capital market at large becomes more favorable.

Yes, but there is not a strong relationship between this and the amount of investment in productive capacity that takes place in a country. The expected level of demand for the products of that capacity is a far more important driver for acquisition of productive equipment.

The activity in markets for used financial assets is far more relevant for the process of mergers and acquisitions than for the expansion of productive capacity.

Of course using the same word to mean two distinctly different things in economic jargon and in the business press is a wonderful aid in spreading the misconception that "more investment" (primarily buying used financial assets from their previous owners) is good for the economy because "more investment" (purchase of newly produced productive equipment) expands the economy's productive capacity.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No change in Gains Rate under 250K (none / 0)

the gains rate won't change for anyone under 250,000K

I did not know that until late last night.


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:57:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No change in Gains Rate under 250K (none / 0)

There will be a nice change in people under $250,000 getting the first $250 in gains for free. It would be better if the numbers could be re-jiggered so it was the first $2,500 or so. It would be also interesting to see what could be done for people who are retiring/retired. Maybe they could pay less on gains up to a certain cap per year on the understanding that they're taking some gains to pay for their retirement.

Removing the cap on FICA taxes needs to be looked at too. It currently stands at about $92,000, the cap should either be removed entirely and the flat rate kept, or better the cap removed and the rate changed to a progressive one so that those who make less income pay less tax just as with the federal income tax.


by Quinton on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (none / 0)

I didn't see anything there in the list that would support the claim of tax cuts for "most americans".

I saw specific tax breaks for low income people but not something for middle income people who have their non-retirement savings in a bank (like most people), where you get interest/dividends not any "capital gains".

To tell you the truth, this list was very underwhelming when compared to things said by Al Gore or even John Kerry in 2004.  They all wanted to get rid of or replace the payroll taxes (that eat up a chuck of your paycheck before you see the money) and do effect everyone who works.  Poor and Middle class people suffer the brunt of payroll taxes because the the rich people make most of their money from investments and assets.  

Gore wanted to scrap the payroll taxes and replace with a carbon pollution tax.  This is compelling because it combats global climate change while giving the working & middle classes a better deal. Why aren't other candidates picking up on that very straightforward proposal?



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:51:53 PM EST

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (none / 0)

Because the payroll tax is an extremely steady source of revenue for extremely important social programs. One of which, (social security) is directly tied to retirement income.

So replacing them with a carbon tax sounds nice, but what happens when we cut carbon emissions by 80%-90% then (as Gore and the other candidates hope we do by 2050)? What happens when you set up a tax stream that is set up to have a steadily declining income stream?
It hasn't worked out so well with cigerette or gambling taxes.


by adamterando on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:18:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (none / 0)

I guess the main point is that is that we have far too many taxes levied on working people for their labor, and, instead we should tax wealth, consumption, and the whole gamet of Corporate abuses (such as pollution, outsourcing, etc.)

I want to hear candidates talk about fundamental reform and not little obscure tacked-on things to an already horrifically complex and indefensibly inequitable system.



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:41:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (none / 0)

Edwards is talking about raising taxes on wealth and corporate abuses. I don't think we should tax consumption - that's a regressive tax.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:53:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (none / 0)

> "I don't think we should tax consumption - that's a regressive tax"

I know a lot people feel that way, but I'm not sure why.

People of great means consume much more than poor people do. The rich buy both more things and more expensive things.  Therefore, consumption-based taxation is inherently progressive as the burden of taxation would fall on the big consumers.  It is also corruption-proof because you don't need 40,000 of forms, charts, deductions, and have to invest a lot of time (or money) trying to beat the system.

Mike Gravel takes this even further by exempting basic necessities. So under the Mike Gravel plan, the poor/working people get to keep all of their paycheck and in addition are given an exemption of their main consumption needs.  

Tinkering around with capital gains (Edwards) does nothing for me, because all my non-Retirement money is in a bank (no capital gains) and with the market so volatile it doesn't make sense to play the market - and most poor can't afford to, to begin with.



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:52:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (none / 0)

To make a revenue-neutral switch from an income tax to a consumption tax, we would have somewhere between a 40%-50% sales tax. In order to make it progressive (by exempting certain items), the tax would have to jump a lot higher. Strange that Gravel has seized on such a conservative idea.

Tinkering around with capital gains (Edwards) does nothing for me, because all my non-Retirement money is in a bank (no capital gains) and with the market so volatile it doesn't make sense to play the market - and most poor can't afford to, to begin with.

Well, the money Edwards would raise from raising the capital gains rate would be reinvested in social programs like rural and urban infrastructure, subsidized savings accounts for low-income families, and the expanded education programs.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 09:00:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans (none / 0)

> "To make a revenue-neutral switch from an income tax to a consumption tax, we would have somewhere between a 40%-50% sales tax."

First of all, again, a consumption tax is inherently progressive (and not regressive) because working folks do not consume the same volume as rich people and the shift is moved toward the rich (not the poor).  And, by eliminating the "bottom-up" payroll taxes, which are truly regressive, that means working folks then get to keep a larger amount of their paycheck money for good (no April 15th bill).  So it is very clear that working class people do much better here and have a higher standard of living under this plan.

Secondly, I agree that revenue nuetrality is an important consideration, but this does not mean a 50% sales tax. In Mike Gravel's case, he would cut the bloated $800 National Defense, cut off Corporate Welfare, and create more revenue by ending all the exceptionalism of the current corrupt income tax system. The current tax system today hurts small busineses, while letting monopolists and ellite corporations escape taxes altogether.  So, the point is, if we reorder our priorities properly, we can have both lower taxation on working people (and a system that enforces that principle), the vital services we need, and a far less Militaristic and violent society.



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:35:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.