Clark's tax policy hypocrisy

[AP]

Clark criticizes Edwards's tax plan for not being sufficiently progressive.

Edwards wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts for earners over 200K, so he is very interested in progressivity. However, Clark wants not to tax income under 50K, so he can tell earners under 50K that he's going to give them more than Edwards.

However, what he's not telling voters is that Edwards is interested in something bigger than progressivity, and beyond progressivity, which Clark, as far as I can tell, doesn't talk about AT ALL (for good reason, as I'll show).

Edwards wants, above and beyond progressivity (measured by your income level) to to shift the tax burden off EARNED income and onto UNEARNED income. In addition to rolling back the cut in the dividend tax, he wants a two-tiered cap gains tax that starts on income over 350K with the higher tier of 25%.

Edwards believes that labor is the source of all wealth in America and we shouldn't make labor more expensive for people by taxing it at higher rates than we tax income earned on things other than labor. Money flows down the path of least resistance. America is rewarding activities other than labor, and saddling people who work for a living (who can't tell their employers to pay them in stock options) with the tax burden. This creates terrible economic incentives.

Now, Clark knows this. So why does he say what he says.

Well, let's compare the two candidates. John Edwards has made the vast majority of his money from being paid for his labor, with that money being taxed at the highest rates we tax anything -- every penny he has is from earned income or from an investment of income he earned. There is no gift money, inherited money, or wealth his wife accumulated. His clients never paid him in stock options.

How about Clark? Well, the most money he's making in his life he's getting from stock options from sitting on boards where he's expected to trade on his connections in the government and the military.

Clark can go tell TN and VA income earners that, if they make less than 50K he's going to give them more than Edwards. But is he going to tell them that, if John Edwards were president, those 1.2 million dollars worth of stock options he exercised last week would add 100,000 dollars to his tax bill, which means that people in that audience who work for a living would see their relative burden reduced?

Clark is trying to brag about 1.5K breaks per person. Well, he, alone, on a single transaction on ONE day of the tax year, could give 68 Americans 1.5K each if he were willing to have a REAL tax plan which shifted the tax burden off those 50K earners and on to people like himself who aren't really working for a living and reaping the huge rewards the capitalist system delivers to well-connected people at the top, like Clark.

[papau]

1. Good point - removing 90% of the rich's income - investment/gains -

is criminal.

It does nothing for the savings rate or growth - despite years of bull shit articles about how that is the way to go to get savings and growth.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I can't wait for the primary to end

Because I can't stand seeing my fellow Democrats take pot shots at each other like this. The bullseye (metaphorical) needs to be placed back where it belongs: on GWB's forehead.

[AP]

7. It gives me such a headache.

For emphasis, the difference (on the surface, albeit) between Clark and Edwards's plans is that Clark's plan would save Clark 1.5K by not taxing his income up to 50K. Edwards's plan would have added a 100K tax bill to that sale last week of those stocks which Clark really didn't do all that much to earn (he probably went to a few meetings a year ago and maybe wrote a report). And I presume those weren't the ONLY stocks he received last year.

Is that why Clark is criticizing Edwards?

Edewards's tax plan actually results in a higher tax bill for Edwards, but he doesn't care (since his earned income isn't as high as it used to be, he won't be benefitting from the breaks he proposes, and will actually get hit on his unearned income). He thinks America is better off for everyone if people who work for a living get a break.

That's conviction and principle.

I don't know what the hell Clark is thinking.

[BootinUp]

23. Comments

First it is a bit OUTRAGEOUS to suggest Clark's plan is based on bettering his personal situation.


I'll look at Edwards plan, sounds like it would take a chunk out of investment capital which would effect interest rates in a negative way and hurt small business.

Clarks plan is fair, it increases taxes 5% on All income over 1,000,000/yr.

[AP]

41. All I'm saying: full disclosure. If Clark wants to compare his and Edwards

plan to that room of people, he might as well tell them what the difference would mean to him.

How much income does he get from cap gains on shares he's receiving from sitting on corporate boards?

Edwards's plan would ask him to pay 25% on those gains. His plan doesn't even address taxing unearned income more than earned income.

[mmonk]

3. Most of what Clark earned in his life

was through military service. Where he invests his money now and how much of a return he gets is his ability to invest wisely.

[AP]

8. He's earned a lot of money in the last two years from corporate activity

and stands to earn even more from here on.

Edwards's tax plan is going to burden Clark more than it does people who will be working for a living.

Clark has a major financial interest in seeing that Edwards doesn't become president.

I'm not saying this is his motivation, but seriously, Edwards's tax plan would have cost Clark 100K on a single tax transaction last week.

Over the next ten years, it's conceivable that an Edwards presidency could cost Clark millions of dollars in income tax on stock sales.

[mmonk]

12. Give me a break

To suggest such nonsense is reaching. Here's news for you- the poor boy son of a mill worker is a filthy rich trial lawyer. If he's Robin Hood, tell him to donate his massive awards to homeless shelters and food banks.

[AP]

16. Clark made 1.2 mil on a stock sale last week. Edwards's tax plan would

add 100K to his tax bill for that. Clark's tax plan would lower his tax bill by 1.5K (or more). That's not progressivity.

[boxster]

21. So what? Clark has already said that his own tax plan would

cost him money. Is there a problem with that?

Geez, Mr./Mrs. Clark NEVER made more than $100k/year until a couple of years ago. Can Edwards say the same?

[AP]

25. Clark is making a ton of money off of corporate activity NOW.

Either from corporate money sitting around waiting to be spent on him for "speaking" to the corporations, or from selling stock options.

Edwards's tax plan actually asks for money that gets passed through corporate activity (specifically, cap gains on the sale of stocks for income earners over 350K) to be taxed at a higher rate. What does Clark say about unearned income (which is mostly, today, income that circulates thanks to corporate activity)?

[boxster]

31. So, what exactly is your point?

Clark wants to raise taxes on everyone making $200k or more per year. That includes Clark himself.

Edit: In addition, he wants a 5% surcharge on anything over $1 million a year. That would tax that $1.2 million you keep talking about.

If you really believe that he's fighting for the presidency to save himself money, you cannot be serious or expect anyone to take you seriously. No amount of tax savings is worth what he (or any candidate) goes through in an election like this.

[AP]

39. Clark's tax plan isn't more progressive than Edwards's

especially when you take into consideration HOW people earn money (unearned vs earned income).

And, stunningly, Edwards's tax plan would ask people like Clark, who gets a lot of money from corporate activity, to bear a bigger tax burden, yet Clark is telling voters that his plan is better for them. Full disclosure, please Mr Clark. Your plan would save you more than it would save that roomful of people you just misled.

[BootinUp]

43. This is ridiculous

Clarks plan is very progressive. It allows him to eliminate Fed Income tax on families of four making 50,000 or less, and give a 1500 tax cut to families of four making 100,000 or less, without reducing revenue because the revenue is vbalanced by increasing taxers on income over 1 million dollars.


Edwards plan will reduce investment capital in our economy correct?

[AP]

46. Reduce investment capital?

It will create the proper incentives for the economy. All wealth comes from work. It will reduce the tax burden on work by asking people who transfer wealth through unearned sources to pay a bigger share of the tax burden.

[BootinUp]

49. It will also cause interest rates to go up and

make it more difficult on small businesses.

Although I would like to hear more about it before I condemn it. Its just that this will be even harder to sell right now than Clarks plan in my humble opinion.

[AP]

55. No it won't. The tax code is a huge subsidy to size. It's as bad for

small businesses as it is for lower and middle class individuals.

If you have a small business that makes less than 350K a year that it can deliver in the form of cap gains, it will benefit hugely from the second tier for higher cap gains earners.

And who's able to disguise income from labor as income through financial tricks? Huge companies or small businesses?

Don't worry. Edwards's tax plan will shift power away from the power corridors and to small businesses.

[boxster]

54. AP, you're (unintentionally, I'm sure) hilarious.

"Clark, who gets a lot of money from corporate activity"

What the hell was Edwards? He was a trial lawyer, for God's sake! If you're going to keep making these arguments, you should probably look at your own candidate regarding how they apply. Between that and your claim that Clark is so incredibly wealthy, blah, blah. This is ludicrous.

(Edit: John was obviously a trial lawyer, not a corporate one. My intent was to point out the money he has made rather than what he did to make it.)

"yet Clark is telling voters that his plan is better for them"

If it saves more people more money (which it does), isn't it better? Who is setting the standard of "better" here? You?

If Clark is going to save his target audience more money through his tax plan than Edwards will with his, then to that audience, IT IS BETTER. How hard is that to understand? Families who make less than $50,000/year pay NO federal income tax. Think Edwards can beat that? Not unless he's going to start offering rebates, which I haven't seen him mention.

[AP]

57. LMAO. Edwards wasn't a corporate attorney. He represented INDIVIDUALS

against corporations and insurance companies.

If he sued anyone Clark made money off of, it would have meant less money to give to Clark for speaking fees.

Clark on ONE stock sale, has a tax plan which might costs 68 people in that room more than he promises to save them. And Clark isn't the ONLY person who sold 1.2 million worth of stock last week (let alone last year).

He could be honest and tell that audience as much.

[boxster]

61. Let's see Edwards' financial documents.

If you don't think Edwards made a ton of money as an attorney, you're dreaming. The Clarks never made more than $100k a year until 2 years ago. Can you say the same about Edwards?

Let's see the docs, since you seem to think higher taxation is only going to affect Clark and no one else.

Edit: in fact, one count has John responsible for more than $150 million in awards in just 63 cases. I'd say your candidate has a hell of a lot more potential for "unearned" income than Clark.

[AP]

63. He made a ton of money from WORKING FOR A LIVING -- EARNED INCOME

taxed at the highest rates we tax anything except inheritiance (which is EASILY circumvented).

Now, if you work for a corporation, you can also circumvent income tax, because you can get paid in stock options, and then pay the tax on appreciated value as earned income. Or you can never sell them and just take the dividence income, which is taxed at a third of the rate it would be taxed if it was earned income.

Could Edwards get paid by his NON-CORPORATE clients in stock options or stocks? Nope. He had no other option, just like a school janitor, or a doctor, or 98% of American workers -- no choice BUT to get taxed at the highest rates.

Savy?

[SahaleArm]

65. As opposed to fleecing doctors and insurance companies...

Thereby cranking up my insurance rates. Here's to looking out for the little guy; maybe I should spill some coffee in my lap.

[AP]

72. Yeah, those great HMOs and corporate hospitials who only have

crazy lawyers standing between you and fabulous care which they never want to deny you in order to make a profit.

[BootinUp]

So Clarks plan is tougher on the malpractice Lawyers?

:nopity:

[AP]

71. Yeah. That's Democratic. Criticize lawyers who represent individuals

against corporations and insurance companies.

[BootinUp]

82. I didn't criticize them for the good stuff they do

Rather like just about everyone on this dustbowl, they are looking out for their interests by supporting Edwards in large numbers with their pocket books. I'm sure they would like to pay less taxes on those million dollar rewards, and they don't want those rewards to be limited, etc.

I don't know what the best answer is on the whole personal injury law situation. I am open for suggestions. I doubt the lawyers have the best most equitable ideas by themselves.

Why don't you get off your high horse for a minute and admit that lawyers too have their own interests at heart. The only hypocrisy would be continuing the argument that only Clark would like to make, have, pay less taxes etc.

If you really think Clark is all that bad becuase he finally made some real dough then don't vote him. And as soon as Edwards offers to return his take to the injured plaintiffs, then we can approach Clark on returning his ill-gotten gains OK?

[boxster]

74. If you can't see that your argument applies more to Edwards than to

Clark, I can't help you.

Besides, your main assumption in this entire argument is incorrect. I have seen nothing that says that Clark's income is in stock options. In fact, the past two years, the income has been stated, so it obviously is NOT stock options.

Feel free to provide some documentation proving otherwise. Otherwise, your argument applies to your own candidate more than the others, with the possible exception of Kerry. Edwards likely has more unearned income through investments than any of the others.

[AP]

78. Show me what you're looking at for Clark's income.

He's clearly getting paid in stocks and from corporate activity.

[boxster]

85. Wrong. Much of his income is from speech fees, as anyone who has brought

up the Republican fundraisers would gleefully tell you.

Stock options do not show up as income, so any income he stated in the past two years and paid taxes on (about a million bucks each of the past two years) doesn't include stock options.

If he's so "clearly" getting paid in stock options, where's your proof? You seem quite willing to make accusations that you can't seem to back up.

[AP]

90. You can pay for speeches with stocks, which is what Bush I did.

Didn't Bush I get global crossing stock worth 100K for a speech, which he sold for 10 million? (My numbers might be off.) That's 100K in earned income, and 9.9 mil in cap gains.

[boxster]

92. Yes, but is that income? No, it isn't.

See my other responses.

"Clark's documents show he regularly received $25,000 to $30,000 per appearance in speaking fees. As a military analyst, commenting mostly on the conflict with Iraq, he earned between $10,000 and $38,000 a month from CNN."

Stock options? No. And, by the way, what the hell does Bush have to do with this? If you're using a completely unrelated Bush story to justify your false claims, you're stretching a bit, don't you think?

[AP]

98. Um, actually it is. You'd have to declare the value of the stock as

income, and then you'd pay cap gains on the appreciation.

Those two paragraphs aren't Clark's entiere FEC filing, and, since he just sold 1.2 million worth of stocks in company whose board he sat on, you know that isn't the whole story.

[boxster]

103. No, you don't. Stock options are not taxable income at the time...

of issuance. You do NOT declare stock options as taxable income when they are issued.

From the IRS web site: "For most options, there is no taxable event when the option is granted and the fair market value of the stock received on exercise, less the amount paid, is included in income when the option is exercised."

The million bucks a year Clark made was TAXABLE income, therefore NONE of it is stock options. None.

Are we clear on that? NONE of it is income from stock options issued to Clark. It is ALL income from speaking fees, CNN analysis, and so on.

[AP]

106. If you're paid for a speech in STOCKS (not options) you pay the value

as earned income, and the appreciation as cap gains if and when you sell the stock. That's how Bush got paid for some of his speeches to companies he benefited as president.

Why no link to the IRS site, by the way?

I'm going to guess what this is telling you:

For the kind of option it is addressing it says that, when you exercise the option you pay tax on the FMV of the stock when the right to it it vested. Selling the stock triggers the need to pay taxes (and there are outside limits so that you don't sit on it forever). The difference between the FMV when the right vested and the price you actually get for the stock is taxed as earned income only if the option was an NQSO. But even for NQSOs sold more than a year after the right vested you only pay the LTCG rate of 20%.

It's just a fact that getting paid in stock opitions is the way that rich, connected people avoid paying 38% marginal tax rates on super high levels of income.

[boxster]

110. Fine. Provide a link to ANYTHING that EVER said Clark has gotten

paid in stocks or stock options (nice to see that you are now changing tactics and claiming "stocks" and not "stock options".)

Don't make assertions you can't back up. This assertion is one you certainly can't back up. If you could, you would have done so already.

I didn't provide a link to the IRS site because what I posted is common knowledge to anyone who has ever dealt with stock options. In fact, it's common sense - you don't receive the stock in an option situation until you exercise that option, so how could you claim income for something you don't even own yet? Duh.

You can search for "stock options" on their site just as easily as I can.

[Lurking Dem]

107. That is exactly right.

If my husband's options were taxed before they were exercised we'd be bankrupt.

The other situation is the "paper millionaire" thing. You can sit and watch stock and news will come out or something will be announced and BOOM, on paper you make a million bucks in one day. Then the bottom feeders move in the following day to take their profits and BOOM you lose all of it the next day.

It's almost meaningless as an officer since the SEC rules forbid you from selling except during specific windows. It's like it isn't real money.

[AP]

112. Many silicon valley employees sat on their stocks when their rights

vested and were hit with huge tax bills because they didn't sell enough to cover the inevitiable tax bill they triggered, and the stocks themselves became worthless.

There are different kinds of options, and some are triggered by the rights vesting and some aren't. The kind that were screwed a lot of regular people who would have been better off if they had been paid salaries instead of stock options.

Of course the higher-ups made off like bandits.

[boxster]

118. Yes, but MOST stock options are NOT taxable income upon issuance.

The vast majority are not taxed income at the time of issuance. My point was that you keep claiming that Clark's income *must* be stocks, stock options, blah, blah.

It's pretty obvious that you're mistaken. He gets paid cash, he claimed it as income, and he paid taxes on it, to the tune of $200,000 if memory serves.

You can change the subject all you want, but the underlying issue here is that with the exception of one stock sale last week, everything Clark has earned nearly his entire life is earned income.

In fact, I would bet that Edwards makes much, much more money in unearned income than Clark ever will. Edwards has not released his financial details, but different organizations have estimated that he made $50 million or more during his legal career. The interest on that $50 million is more than the $1.2 million you seem so concerned about where Clark is concerned.

[AP]

122. The point of getting stocks rather than salary is to avoid paying 38%

He sits on boards. This is what they do.

Clark made 1.2 mil on ONE under the radar stock sale. You just watch what he does to make money for the next decade or so and ask yourself whose tax plan -- his or Edwards's -- asks him to take on more of the tax burden.

[boxster]

87. Here you go. Where's your proof?

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/040116/ap/d80419400.html

"Speaking fees and serving as a military analyst for CNN provided Clark more than $1 million in income in 2002. He received $25,000 to $30,000 per appearance in speaking fees. As a military analyst, commenting mostly on the conflict with Iraq, he earned between $10,000 and $38,000 a month from CNN. "

Yeah, he sure made all of his money in stock options.

Ok, called your bluff. Where's your proof?

[boxster]

89. In case that's not enough, here are some more sources....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3977630/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3631949,00.html

Ok, where's your proof that he was "clearly" getting paid in stock options?

[AP]

91. He sold stock last week worth 1.2 mil. We talked about it hear yesterday.

[boxster]

93. That's irrelevant to your claims.

Your claims are that his income was from stock options and corporate activity. In fact, I think this entire thread was built on that false asumption.

"Clark's documents show he regularly received $25,000 to $30,000 per appearance in speaking fees. As a military analyst, commenting mostly on the conflict with Iraq, he earned between $10,000 and $38,000 a month from CNN."

This just in: CNN didn't pay him in stock options. And, stock options aren't stated in financial records as $25,000 to $30,000 transactions.

Nice try.

[AP]

94. You know, you could cite his FEC statement, and then we could see

what he's got in terms of stocks, and we could cross ref that with the boards on which he sits.

[boxster]

99. Feel free. I provided you with documentation. You have provided nothing

but accusations which are baseless. You have no proof that he's getting paid in stock options, because there isn't any.

All you have to do is read. He got paid $25k to $30k per appearance. That's cash, AP, not stock options.

Seems pretty easy to figure out.

[AP]

116. I gave you as much as you gave me.

No FEC filings. Just an uncited quote from DU. Yesterday, there was an article here that said he made 1.2 mil from selling stocks in a company on whose board he sat.

He got a loan from Goldman Sachs to buy the options. No risk. No mention of collateral.

Clark is making money off of and is part of the problem, not the solution. And he's criticizing tax plans which try to address the problem while touting his own which makes no distinction between people making money the way he makes it now, and people who work for a living.

[boxster]

119. Where? I provided links. You provided nothing.

An uncited quote? I gave you three different links providing the same information. If you think all three of them are wrong, I can't help you there.

[AP]

123. I encourage everyone to check Clark's FEC records & cross-ref the

boards he sits on with his stock holdings.

If I didn't have to talk about pro bono lawyering down below, I'd have time to do it myself.

[boxster]

127. Take your time. We'll wait.

And, if you hadn't ludicrously claimed that John Edwards spent his entire professional life doing pro bono work, you wouldn't have to respond below.

[AP]

131. Boxter, I have no doubt that I'm making the more persuasive argument.

I'm not in a position where I'm defending super-wealthy corporations transferring wealth through low-tax schemes to people trading influence.

And I'm defending the civil justice system.

[boxster]

136. No, you're not. You're making unsubstantiated claims about the

candidate that I happen to be supporting.

Your post has nothing to do with any of that. Your post is simply a rant based in some apparent hatred you have against Wesley Clark and your complete misunderstanding of his tax plan.

You claimed to have read it, yet you misrepresent it saying it only affects people under $50,000/year.

You completely ignore the fact that he's raising his own taxes and you ignore the parts of the plan that raise the tax rates on people earning $200,000/year or more.

I've provided documentation proving that your assertions are incorrect. You change the subject. You make blanket accusations and false assertions and provide no documentation.

But, then again, I guess you're never wrong. Because you believe it, it must be true, even when evidence exists to the contrary.

So, since you're never wrong, you win. Have a nice day.

[AP]

142. I've said that he doesn't distinguishe between earned and unearned income

and it's interesting because he could stand to make a great deal of money from stocks.

Am I wrong? Does he distinguish between earneda and unearned income?

[boxster]

20. Hehe.

Funny how people make arguments that look quite silly when applied to his/her own candidates.

According to financial docs, Mr. and Mrs. Clark didn't break the $100k/year mark until two years ago. Somehow, I think Mr. Edwards made a tad bit more than that a bunch of times.

[AP]

27. Funny how time stopped for Clark two years ago. He made 1.2 mil last week

and where the hell do you think he'll be getting most of his money from here on? UNEARNED income, or income that skims off the top of the huge corporations willing to pay his speaking fees (ie, money left over for corporations since their activities won't be taxed so much).

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. If Clark were worried about his own income and taxes

One: He would not have served 34 years in the United States Army.
Two: He would not have run for President. Remember, unlike all the elected politicians, Clark had to give up his personal sources of income to run for President. He had to quit those Boards, he had to stop being a consultant. He walked away from all of those new found richs you seem to want to dwell on when he answered the Draft movement call for him to represent us as a Presidential Candidate. Edwards kept his day job and his pay, though he hasn't been able to tend to Senate business as well on the campaign trail.

[boxster]

14. Much of his income the past couple of years has been speaking fees.

Obviously, there was some corporate income, but Clark made some serious bucks on the speaking circuit.

[AP]

18. Bush got paid his speaking fees in stock options. Is Clark?

And who's paying these speaking fees? For Bush, it was corporations who were using the money that Bush saved him by lowering corporate taxes.

[LiberalBushFan]

4. Don't try to make Edward's career as an attorney seem more honorable

than serving in the military. Clark didn't become rich until he was old. While Edwards was making big money in court Clark was serving and his son was living in a trailer. I never bring this sort of thing up, but trying to make Edwards out as some humble pauper while hinting that Clark didn't work for his money is bull.

[AP]

9. We're talking about working for a lving. Clark will have little earned inc

-ome from here on.

I read through his tax policy and it doesn't look like he's asking people like himself to take up much of the tax burden.

[boxster]

34. Hell, he worked for 34 years in the military.

What more do you want? Isn't that "working for a living"? Guess not - I guess that working full-time for most of your life isn't enough for you.

AP, you're apparently even more cynical than I am, and I wasn't even sure that was possible. If you think that he hasn't worked for a living, you're not paying attention.

[AP]

60. What more do I want? Perhaps full disclosure. If Clark is going to tell

people the difference between his tax plan and Edwards's for the audience, he might as well tell them the difference for him.

[digno dave]

59. 34 years of military pay

34 years earning military pay versus 3 years earning corporate pay. Yeah, he is one greedy bastard!!!

[AP]

62. How has he made his living for the last 2 years? How about next 20?

He's going to make lots of money from the ways Edwards wants to tax.

Now, if he were living off social security, he might not lie about Edwards's tax plan. If he were at the beginning of his career, he might actually prefer Edwards's plan.

But he happens not to be giving full disclosure about the impact of Edwards's plan on him. Wonder why.

[digno dave]

66. s-t-r-e-t-c-h

If he was so concerned about holding onto every last penny he owns don't you think he would be out on the speaking circuit making 30K a pop and sitting on boards of those greedy corporations instead of running for president?
This thread is garbage. bye

[AP]

73. I think running for president is making him a more valuable commodity.

Don't you?

[robbedvoter]

29. Attorney? That would be injury lawyer - and I'lleave it there.

never defended one case pro bono. never a civil right. Moderatos, is the word chickecnhawk allowed on this board on candidates?

[AP]

81. It would be professional negligence for a laywer to take on a claim

for which he wasn't qualified. Would you ask a general to perform brain surgery? Why would Edwards take on a civil rights case if he's never done one before.

Incidentally, beating the Helms Machine is probably the biggest thing anyone has done for civil rights in America since 1998.

Edwards used his skills to get the maximum benefit for society. He did the right thing.

Clark is selling connections to government.

[kiahzero]

5. For what income level will taxes be lower

under Edwards' plan?

[AP]

10. Not just income level, but income source. People who get unearned income

will take up a higer burden.

Also, you'll get a tax credit if you save money, and if you buy a home. And if you go to a public school and work 10 hours, you reduce your tuition by a 1/4 (which will make a big difference in interest payments if you have to take out a loan to pay for college).

[kiahzero]

17. You still haven't explained much of anything

Your suggesting that the tax burden be shifted in a certain manner. Both Clark and Edwards are doing things for the lower and middle class.

You claim that because Edwards is increasing taxes on cap gains, everyone else (including Clark) is hurting the poor.

So, what does Edwards do, over and above what the others are doing, with that increased income, in terms of tax cuts?

Otherwise, it seems you're just saying that Clark should propose raising taxes on cap gains as a self-flagellation measure.

[AP]

22. Edwards is shifting the tax burden off of earned income.

Where in Clark's tax policy does he address the difference bewteen earned and unearned income?

I'm guessing, but, Clark first 50K would apply to people who live entirely off of unearned income too? Right?

[kiahzero]

30. WTF?

You're suggesting that there are a significant number of families of four or larger, that live entirely under 'unearned income'... that makes less than $50,000?

I really don't think such a thing exists. Assuming there were someone in the family who was qualified to take a job, I'd imagine that they would, so that they could have a better life than 50,000/year grants.

[AP]

45. I'm saying that Edwards cares about the distinction. Clark doesn't.

The problem in America today is the shift in the tax burden on to people who work for a living and off of unearned income.

Where does Clark show an interest in this issue?

He doesn't distniguish between the two.

[kiahzero]

48. So it's a rhetorical thing, then (n/t)

[AP]

51. It's a ECONOMIC thing.

[mmonk]

24. So the elderly in retirement

that have to rely on how well they invested now that they are retired will be hit the most?

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Wow. I am amazed at how lightly you brushed this off.

"However, Clark wants not to tax income under 50K, so he can tell earners under 50K that he's going to give them more than Edwards."

You make that sound like a fancy gimmick that isn't going to really matter to working Americans. Excuse me, it matters. It matters BIG TIME. We can talk about whether it is sound economics or whatever, but to brush right past it, as inconsequential to a progressive tax code, is an intellectual delusion. That is where the rubber meets the road, whether or not struggling families have to pay Federal income taxes on their earnings is as progressive an issue as tax codes are capable of generating, period.

You know why Clark is making the most money he's made in his life from stock options and boards (though I can actually challenge that statement)? It's because, unlike Edwards, Clark didn't make multiple millions of dollars for most of his adult career being a trial lawyer. Please note. I am not saying anything negative about being a trial lawyer, just stating facts. Clark made middle income pay serving his country in the military for 34 years, having to pick up roots every two or three years to move to where his nation needed him.

Most of Clark's income subsequent to the military has been from speaking fees and book writing, by the way. Check your facts. The business that most enabled Clark to use his military connections was one that invented and marketed small and efficient alternative energy engines for small motorized vehicles, like bikes. Clark pitched some to the military, yeah you got him on that.

[AP]

11. It's good. But Clark says nothing about asking people like himself --

unearned income earners -- to take up a bigger share of the burden.

Clark is done working for a living. He made 1.2 million on a no-risk stock sale last week. Edwards's tax plan would have cost clark 100K on that single transaction. And Clark is going around telling people that his tax plan (which would have saved Clark 1.5K) is more progressive?

[LandOLincoln]

28. Just one question re this Edwards as Robin Hood meme

you seem to be flogging:

Is it true that John Edwards has never taken any cases on a pro bono basis?

If so, how does that square with your theories?

[AP]

36. His entire professional life was pro bono. If he didn't win, it was pro...

...bono -- free.

You know who does pro bono work? NOT public defenders. NOT civil rights lawyers. NOT plaintiffs lawyers who represent poor people. They are helping transfer wealth from the bad guys to the good guys.

Edwards's cases were big and complicated and he did them best when there was a potential for financial rewards. His cases changed business practices if he won, because they were so big. What's he going to do? Do a case for free that's small that has no chance to make a big impact on society like the ones that required expert witnesses and complicated arguments and lots of discovery?

Here are the lawyers who do pro bono: criminal defense lawyers who represent drug dealers, insurance defense lawyers who make their money denying people justice, corporate lawyers who get paid 100K just to write a stock purchase agreement.

Get it?

[LandOLincoln]

68. Most lawyers do

pro bono work, Mr. AP, if only because it's good PR and their firms require it.

And it seems to me that what you're really saying is that Edwards took only major cases where the possible rewards to him--in money and in publicity--would be substantial.

I would be far more impressed if he had also taken on at least the occasional minor case just because it was the right thing to do.

[AP]

77. That's actually not true. Many big firms don't do it very seriously.

And I challenge you to find one civil rights lawyer or public defender or plaintiffs lawyer who consistently represents individuals against large corporations in high-stakes cases who thinks it's more productive use of their time to work for free.

Do you think Ralph Nader ever did a pro bono case? I guarantee you he took every penny he made suing corporations and put it back into his organization so that he could reach higher and do more good.

The only lawyer I really know who does pro bono work (and it's not even legal work) is a medical malpractice defense lawyer who consideres it a good day at the office when he stops a brain-damaged baby's family from getting the standard 1 million dollar judgment in order to pay for a lifetime of 24 hour medical care that will be needed long after anyone who loved that child will be dead and that person is alone in the world living in a home.

That lawyer gives his time to help in homes where those children (who didn't get favorable judgments) go after their parents die and nobody is left to look after them.

Edwards, on the other hand, uses his time to make sure that those kids have a little money.

[LandOLincoln]

96. Ralph Nader? Ralph NADER????

Here's all you need to know about Ralph:

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

And Johnny Sunshine ain't lookin too good either, sad to say (because he's my second choice and always has been):

http://www.realchange.org/edwards.htm

Finally, in the interest of fairness:

http://www.realchange.org/clark.htm

[AP]

104. You don't want to address the rest of my post?

[LandOLincoln]

111. Well, okay:

I worked as a paralegal for 15 years in Los Angeles. Virtually all the lawyers I worked with did some pro bono work, and the best of them--mostly sole practitioners, of course--did as much pro bono work as they could afford to do and still make a halfway reasonable living.

Now, how's about you addressing the Nader issue?

[AP]

113. What kind of law did they do, and what kind of pro bono work did they do?

[LandOLincoln]

135. The attorneys working for the big firms...

mostly associates working pro bono more or less because they had to, were generally tax, bankruptcy, or probate specialists IIRC.

The sole practitioners, not surprisingly, mostly did family or real estate law.

Now, about Ralph Nader...?

[AP]

138. Those are exactly the kinds of lawyers who owe it to society to do probono

They're making tons of money off the fact that society creates a great deal of wealth for not everyone.

(And, generally, the young lawyers are doing it so they can get practice drafiting briefs and taking depositions in low/no-risk scenarios berfore they take on corporate clients -- what's "pro bono" about letting your yound lawyers make mistakes with poor people so they don't when there's money on the line?)

Edwards was already addressing that problem in his practice. To put that down and do something on a smaller scale would make as much sense as if he traded files for a day with the lawyers in the firms in which you worked.

[LandOLincoln]

144. Generally, the young lawyers were doing it because it

was expected of them. Good PR for the firms, as I said. I have no illusions about that aspect of pro bono work.

However, your arguments in support of Edwards' conspicuous lack of pro bono cases are specious in the extreme.

Now, about Ralph Nader...?

[AP]

147. So you're cynical about pro bono, but you're mad at Edwards for going

farther than just doing a coupld of low value pro bono cases? Go figure.

I'm not sure how you want me to respond to the Nader thing.

Are you saying he did do pro bono? My point isn't about Nader the man. My point is that people who pursue cases which are changing society (ie, not corporate and real estate attorneys) generall don't step back from what they're doing really well and start working for free to do the same thing on a smaller, less valuable scale.

If a paying case for Edwards could change the way hospitals run themselves, which means better care for the citizens of NC, why should he stop doing that?

[Justice]

75. Not Pro Bono, Called Contingency

ProBono is work lawyers do for free -- whether the outcome is positive or not -- the work is done for free.

What John Edwards did was contigency fee work. If he lost, the client paid him nothing. If he won, he shared in the client's recovery.

Lawyers who do contingency fee work are okay -- but don't say they do it for free, cuz they don't. In fact, the good ones evaluate cases up front, so they only keep the strong cases.

[AP]

80. If Edwards lost, it was free. Those families could never pay for the cost

of pursuing those claims. To put on an effective case against a big insurance company, it sometimes costs 100,000-300,000 dollars.

[LandOLincoln]

83. Excellent point. Thank you, Justice. nt

[boxster]

79. That is not pro bono. Not even close.

The guy made $50 million, so don't pull this "contingency is pro bono" crap.

Pro bono means no charge, period, not $5 million if we get a $15 million award.

And, pro bono is work done free for the public good. Show me ONE case where Edwards did that.

[AP]

86. NOBODY is ever going to do a pro bono case worth 15 mil. Know why?

Because if it was worth that much, the defendant would get 100 lawyers working on it, would change venue to a friendly judge, would run test trials on mock juries, and would win easily.

By asking Edwards to do pro bono work, you're de facto asking him to take time when he could be working on one of those huge cases which often resulted in coporations changing their policies (which saved more lives from misery) to go work on some $5K claim for which there are plenty of good, committed, young lawyers ready to sharpen their skills.

[boxster]

95. Then, don't call it "pro bono" and don't try to claim that Edwards did

pro bono work! Those assertions are just flat-out false.

[AP]

97. If a lawyer did a year of conditional fee or contingency suits and didn't

win a single one, I guarantee you the state bar isn't going to get on his or hier ass for not doing enough pro bono work, especially if his or her clients were people suing big corporations and insurance companies.

[boxster]

105. Did Edwards ever go a year without winning a case?

Nope, therefore this is irrelevant to the conversation.

And losing cases is most definitely not "pro bono". Pro bono is doing work for the public good with an understand that you will not get paid regardless of the outcome.

[AP]

108. Are you going to hate him for winning cases for individuals against large

corporations and insurance companies?

The fact is, he used his time as productively for society as possible. It turned out to be lucrative for him.

Clark is going to have a very lucrative retiriement. Will it be bringing value to society, or is he just skimming from the billions that circulate in economic activity that is making society WORSE?

[boxster]

115. I don't hate him at all. I like John Edwards. I was objecting to your

inaccurate characterization of some of his work as pro bono. It has been documented that his firm didn't do pro bono work.

I also find it hilarious that you continue this "Clark doesn't have to work for a living" line of reasoning.

He worked for at least 34 years, not counting high school or college jobs and the like.

Have YOU worked for 34 years? I certainly haven't. After 34 years, do you think that you'll feel like you worked for a living as an adult? Geez, what a ridiculous argument.

[AP]

117. I was being a literalist: "FOR GOOD" -- all his work was for good. If he

lost, it was also FOR FREE.

[boxster]

121. No, you said, "His entire professional life was pro bono."

Could that be further from the truth? I think not.

[AP]

124. Yeah. I still say that.

It was "for good."

Do you really think I was trying to say that he never ever got paid?

[boxster]

128. No, I think you misunderstood "pro bono".

[AP]

130. No. I think you misunderstood me.

[boxster]

133. "His entire professional life was pro bono. "

Your statement, correct? What's to misunderstand? It's obviously false.

You just don't (or didn't, since I'm sure you understand it now) understand what the term means or what it refers to.

It certainly doesn't refer to John Edwards making millions on cases that he *might* have had a chance of losing.

[AP]

134. I have this kind of argument with people who are losing the real arg-

ument.

Pick one out-of-context statement, pretend it has meaning it doesn't, and repeat it in other parts of the thread in a desperate attempt to change the subject. I've seen this before.

[boxster]

139. Or change the subject.

You're pretty good at that.

[LandOLincoln]

141. The only person losing this "argument" is the one who

started it, and immediately got his head handed to him on a platter.

Give it up, AP. You are never going to succeed in convincing anyone that John Edwards' extremely lucrative career as a trial lawyer is somehow more noble than Wes Clark's 34 years of public service as a military man, during which time he seldom made more than $50,000/yr--and despite the fact that he could easily have opted out of the military after Vietnam and started raking in the big bucks when he was in his early 30s.

You are also making the extremely cynical and insulting assumption that Wes Clark decided to run for president simply to pad his resume even further. In fact there were two Draft Clark movements (three if you count Wes Jr.)

Exactly how many Draft Edwards movements do you know of?

[AP]

143. Hello. I never compared Edwards's and Clarks former careers.

But I have compared what Clark began doing two years ago to what the people in that audience do for a living -- the ones he told that his plan was more progressive, even thought it might make him pay less than Edwards's plan.

And you all started talking about Edwards's law career, which I defended without ever making a reference to anything Clark did more than two years ago (and without reference to Clark at all).

[BootinUp]

120. Where did you get the idea that

Edwards and other personal injury lawyers were using their time as productively FOR SOCIETY as possible and then it JUST HAPPENED to be lucrative? I am not saying he did not accomplish some good. I really don't know. But trust me when I say:

Personal injury lawyers have an extremely high incentive to take cases against big corporations for THEIR OWN PROFIT!

You would have to look at each case on its merits as to whether good was done for society or not. It bothers me that you think Edwards had no personal interest involved just societies. That is really hard to believe.

Clark did nothing illegal. He served his country for 34 years at great personal risk. What do you want from the guy????

You are the one who seems to have some kind of hate going on here.

[boxster]

125. No kidding. Some sources say Edwards made $50 million in his career.

One count - from this article: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html - says he received $152.4 million from 63 cases.

Even at a conservative 30%, that's $45 million!

[AP]

129. They say he won over 250 million for his clients. I doubt any candidate

could claim they transferred that much wealth from misbehaving corporations to the public, although I'd bet Kucinich comes close by not letting Cleveland privatize the electric comany.

[AP]

126. From reading Four Trials.

[BootinUp]

132. Well, then the book would have to be fiction

Because Edwards is not a modern day Robin Hood.

[AP]

137. Which other candidate has transferred 250 mil from neg corps to individual

who were the victims of negligence?

None.

Only Kucinich can claim that he was responsible for a similar transfer in economic power from top to bottom.

Even Dean is a wash on this front. Property tax in VT is 7 times as burdensome for the bottom quintile than it is for the top 1 or 10% (can't remember). He made some big corporations very wealthy at the same time he was lessening tax burdends and gving the working class some health benefits.

Kerry has been in a Senate which has unsuccessfully fought off the corporatocracy.

Clark? He's part of the problem, not the solution these last two years.

[BootinUp]

140. In the world according to you

There would be no corporations left for anyone to work in, because personal injury lawyers took em all down. In your world, there would be no-one to start companies becuase there was no incentive for them to do so, we would eliminate any incentive to invest.

I tend to believe everything in moderation. That includes personal injury lawsuits and also hate of corporations and board members.

[AP]

145. In the world in which we're heading towards, there will be 7 corporations

for everyone to work in, and they'll drive down wages to the point where the best anyone can do is continue to pay interest to make the banks wealthy, and their cable bills to watch ESPN, and the food bill for overpriced junk food.

We'll have better, more competitive corporations, employing more people, at competitive wages, and people will be able to save and have options in the world I envision.

As I've said, Clark has been more a part of the problem than the solution the last two years, and his criticism of Edwards's tax plan really has sent me over the edge today.

[mmonk]

32. People who make over 1 million

will pay an extra 5% even after their tax cuts are rolled back is the way I heard Clark say his tax plan would work. Did I hear wrong?

[boxster]

35. No, you didn't hear wrong. That is correct....

http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/summary/

[AP]

37. If their extra million is from cap gains, they'll pay 10% more w/ Edwards

And Clark says his plan is more progresssive?

[mmonk]

53. Defend Edwards' tax plan from

top to bottom as a more progressive plan. Since you keep mentioning capital gains, what kind of rate does he propose for capital gains? Show how that will help spur investment and how it won't hurt retired persons or disabled persons that might have to depend on investing or is it just a millionaire sur charge on transactions?

[boxster]

58. Your definition of progressive needs some work.

How much more progressive can you get than requiring that families making $50k or less a year pay NO INCOME TAX?

And increased child tax credits.

And incentives for lower-income families to work.

And shifting the tax burden to the wealthy through higher rates and a 5% surcharge on $1 million or more a year.

What's your definition of progressive? Tax just investments? Tax just capital gains? Keep the tax burden on the lower and middle classes?

[AP]

67. Progressivity: doesn't stop at 50K. Our society delivers a HUGE amount of

wealth to a very vew people very high up on the wealth pyramid. How does not taxing the first 50K in all income (earned and unearned income) for all Americans even begin to reach that wealth at the very top?

Well, since most people who make money that far up the ladder aren't getting it from EARNED income, a good way to have a more progressive tax code is to shift the burden onto unearned income.

[boxster]

76. You obviously didn't really read his tax plan.

Read it again. http://clark04.com/downloads/pdf/Clark04_TaxReform.pdf

Families up to $100k get a tax cut.

Reduced marriage penalty.

Increased child tax credits.

Families with $200k or less in income will pay no more under Clark's plan.

Everyone above that pays higher rates, plus the 5% surcharge at $1 million.

[SahaleArm]

15. Keep repeating uninformed tripe about how options are taxed...

Stock grants and options are taxed as ordinary income when exercised. Non-qualified options are treated as earned income. For any stock grant the grantee pays income baed on the Stock Grant Price.

[AP]

19. They're taxed on their value when the vest. Any increas is taxed as cap...

...gains.

That 1.2 mil was worth much less when they vested.

[SahaleArm]

26. No you are taxed on what you make - option spread.

For imaginary tax purposes only:)

Say I get a an option grant at $10 and sell at $20 on 1000 shares. I get $20-$10/share or $10/share for a total of $10000. The bottom $10 gets paid back to the option granter. On that $10000 I made, I pay ordinary income, not cap-gains, regardless of whether I convert to cash or convert to stock.

Say I get a restricted stock grant of 100 shares at $20 dollars and sell the shares at $30 dollars. When I receive the grant I pay taxes on $2000 dollars and capital gains on the next $1000. Restricted stock grants are further complicated by grant date versus sell date under AMT rules.

[AP]

33. You have to pay as earned income the value of the shares on the day your

rights in the stocks vest. Appreciated value is taxed as cap gains. You could sit on your stocks forever (get dividends, which you'd pay at the lower dividend tax rate) and you'd only be responsible for the earned income tax measured by the value on the day they vested. You could die, and give the stocks to your wife tax free. She could die and put them in a trust for your grandchildren tax fee. They can vest 150 years from today to those grandchildren finally taxed at their individual rates.

You're talking about value on the day of sale. Yes. That's earned income. But if you don't sell on that day, but your right has vested on that day, you'll have a tax gain (cap gains) if the price goes up.

The whole purpose of paying board members in stocks is so they can avoid higher earned income taxes. If they didn't, they'd just get paid outright.

[SahaleArm]

38. Again where are you getting this data? It's ordinary income.

There's no unearned income from non-qualified stock options (NQSO) stock options. NQSO's are treated as ordinary income regardless of how long you hold it. They usually expire within 7-10 years by which either you sell or don't. When you sell it's all ordinary income and treated as such by the IRS.

http://www.fairmark.com/execcomp/nqo.htm

[AP]

42. I guarnatee you Clark isn't paying earned income rates on the income he's

making off selling stocks form the boards of the companies he's sitting on.

Why do you presume that these are NQSO?

He's paying CG and LTCG rates. If he isn't he either needs to brag about it on the campaign trail, or he needs to get a better accountant.

[BootinUp]

44. He's not sitting on boards, he has resigned.

[AP]

47. He stills has the shares and options, and he's selling them, and he's

getting the dividend income from the shares he didn't sell, and he'll be going right back to getting huge amounts of income from those same sources in about 6 weeks.

[BootinUp]

52. Can I borrow that crystal ball?

I wanna take it to the races.

[AP]

64. You think he's going to turn down millions? If he had it in him, he might

have made that choice BEFORE he ran for president so that he could have taken the high ground on this issue.

[SahaleArm]

56. NQSO's or Restricted stock - You still pay income.

Stock Options are the #1 way board members are compensated. The other is restricted stock unless you received founders shares when the company was started (Clark was not a founder). Restricted stock has a higher risk and less return than options. Take a look at how Michael Eisner is compensated at Disney - It's NQSO's. The reason is that capital losses are limited to $3000/year for individuals.

[AP]

69. Hold even an NQSO for a year, and you're paying 20% tax on it.

In fact the ONLY option which you pay as ordinary income is as NQSO which you exercise within a year of the rights vesting, right?

[TexasSissy]

40. What's the pt. of this post? Both these guys are out of the race, dude.

Kerry's got it nailed down, unless he does something really, really stupid (a la Gary what-s-his-name with Donna Rice).

Both these guys should be focused on Kerry if they want to make any ground. But, sigh, it seems the writing's on the wall.

[AP]

50. Actually, that's part of my point. Isn't it interesting that Clark is

taking shots at the candidate whose tax plan might cost him theh most when goes back to doing what he did for living up to the time he decided to run for president?

[maxr4clark]

70. This isn't hypocrisy.

Clark has put forth his plan, which is very progressive.

Edwards put forth his plan. If you want to claim that Edwards' plan is better, why not go with the "be nice" approach Edwards has gone with, and point out the advantages of Edwards' plan? As for your point about Edwards' plan, I think voters will care more about their tax being reduced, rather than their "relative burden".

Instead you have chosen to use a charged word to attack Clark. Clark is just touting the advantages of his plan; that's what politicians do. To claim that Clark is against Edwards' plan because it is bad for Clark personally is just ludicrous.

[AP]

84. Clark should tell people the difference between the two plans on his own

income.

[MaddogTerp]

146. Not hypocrisy

not smart, but not hypocrisy.

[andym]

88. Both are good ideas!

Taxing capital gains (unearned income)
Progressive taxation.

Combine them!

Combining them gives the best of both worlds. Edwards should listen to Clark and Clark should listen to Edwards.

[Bread and Circus]

100. Tall tale of the day:

"John Edwards has made the vast majority of his money from being paid for his labor"

[Julien Sorel]

101. LOL

Once upon a time I decided to become a lawyer, and took the LSAT -- scored really well, too. I started talking to friends of friends who were lawyers, and then I discovered what lawyers really do: they lie amd cheat and distort reality for a living, and a very good living at that, if they're successful. I decided on graduate school instead. Money isn't worth my soul.

[AP]

102. How much of his lifetime earnigns do you think weren't taxes as earned inc

?

How much did he inherit, given as gift, received from exercising stock options?

[Kbick]

109. Read Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki

Get a chance to read this book, and you will understand why Clark's plan is a better choice between the two.

Kiyosaki explains there true process of wealth creation. It is not from labor. Any tax plan that promotes labor over wealth creation is not in the best interest for our country.

[AP]

114. Clark doesn't distinguish between income from work and from investments

in his tax plan.

If you made a million in investment income, you'd be treated the same as if you made a million from work.

Edwards's plan makes the distinction.