or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Bush child credit stiffs low-income workers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush child credit stiffs low-income workers - Page 2

post #21 of 40
And what does the TAX CUTS ARE FOR PEOPLE WHO PAY TAXES mean? I've deliniated that part already, or did you not read the OP all the way thru? No one said that the credit should come to ppl who pay no tax. No one.
post #22 of 40
by the way, if President Bush really wanted to see this pass with this provision which would have taken care of the the children of the really low income...he could have called George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio and asked him to vote for it. Instead, the white house did nothing.....and just distanced themselves from this bill.

this stings.

In particular for those of us who followed white house antics last november. During that time several moderate rebublicans were horrified by the Eli-lilly rider being attached to the homeland security bill. In particular, both senators from Maine, both republican. The white house made calls to these senators and others via Trent Lott (and others) demanding that they vote for the bill and that they would take care of the other thing later. (eli lilly)
These calls came as late as midnight. They WORKED the phones. And what was this cause? protecting Eli Lilly. That's what it looks like when the white house gets behind something.
post #23 of 40
Word, Trabot! Thank you.

And great deconstruction, El's, thanks for the info.
post #24 of 40
Thread Starter 
As a follow up on who won and who lost in the Bush/Republican tax cut:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb

Quote:
Perhaps the biggest break for business was what did not make it into law. To offset the cost of the tax cut, senators included provisions to crack down on abusive corporate tax shelters, combat some accounting scams such as those pursued by Enron Corp., prevent U.S. companies from moving their headquarters to post office boxes in offshore tax havens such as Bermuda and limit grossly inflated deferred compensation plans for corporate executives.

Last year, at the height of the corporate scandals, such measures appeared unstoppable. But more than a year after Enron's implosion, none of them became law. This time, House negotiators tossed them aside, saying they would not agree to any provisions that could be called tax increases. That came as a relief to business lobbyists who mobilized to kill the measures.

"The things that mattered most were all the things that didn't get in," said a Republican tax lobbyist. "That kind of stuff really matters."
But I suppose that's ok - after all, any "tax increase" is bad under any circumstances, right? And it's not an "unfair" tax break (aka "welfare"), since they weren't paying those taxes to begin with, eh?
post #25 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by noahsmum

Maybe the Dems should've initially agreed upon Bush's first tax proposal and none of this would've happened. Something had to be cut from the tax plan.
Yea right, gawd forbid they take some $$ out of the pockets of the wealthy so the poor could get a fargen break. Im sorry NM but isn't this supposed to 'stimulate' our failing economy?

What your saying is, if the dems would have 'agreed' to the 'entire disaster package,' we would have provided for the poor....?? This country is in massive debt! Each family in this now OWES 28,000 towards the federal deficit due to W's management of our money. Democrats think cutting taxes now is irresponsible. However, they feel that if the Repubs 'really' want to stimulate pur economy (with this bs tax cut) the $$ should go to people who will actually spend it i.e. THE POOR!

Noahsmum~pay attention to the snip you provided and I've outlined below ...They 'crammed' in tax cuts for dividends/stocks and dropped the poorest people from the plan. Typical Rebublican priorities. And keep in mind again that this is some how supposed to 'stimulate' the economy. :

Great swammy makes a prediction....When the economy is in fact NOT stimulated, the Dems will be blamed for not passing the entire package.


Quote:
But the provision was dropped in the House-Senate conference, where tax writers spent days trying to cram many tax cuts — most prominently, cuts in the taxes on stock dividends and capital gains — into a bill that the Senate said could not be larger than $350 billion.
This is simply the 'Rebublican' way of punishing democrats who would'nt fall in line for their irresponsible tax cut. I hope the average family pays attention and votes Bush out in the next election....
post #26 of 40
Thread Starter 
The notion of economic stimulus is a red herring. I'm not tax specialist by any stretch of the imagination, but to date I have seen not a single explanation of how cutting taxes for corporations and for investors in said corporations could possibly stimulate the economy in its present straits. The problem is not inadequate production, but inadequate demand. If the problem is inadequate demand, then it would seem logical that one would put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it (namely, the lower and middle class) than in the hands of the most wealthy and corporations.

Perhaps someone could explain the alleged stimulus effect of the bush/republican tax cut to me - I would be most grateful.

My suspicion, however, is that it's basically irrelevant to Bush and Co. how the cut will affect the immediate economy. Rather, this has merely been his gang's philosophy for years now, and now that Bush & Co. has an opportunity to implement it, they're going for it, no matter what its effects might be.
post #27 of 40
Thread Starter 
Here's an overview of an article out of the Brookings Institution evaluating the tax cut proposals that were on the table. I found it useful, as might others:

http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/gale/20030513.htm

Quote:
Our overarching conclusion is that the Administration, House, and Senate Finance Committee proposals are seriously flawed and are strikingly removed from the economy's current and long-term problems. Although each of the proposals would provide a short-term economic boost, almost any increase in government spending or cut in tax revenues would stimulate a sluggish economy (assuming the Federal Reserve cooperates). The three proposals on the table, though, would provide their stimulus at an unnecessarily high cost: they would reduce long-term growth, exacerbate looming budget problems, and impose significant burdens on future generations. In addition, they would be regressive and would not only fail to meet their ostensible goal of integrating the personal and corporate taxes, but could also open up new sheltering activity. Better alternatives would include substantial aid to the states, an extension of unemployment insurance benefits, and reform of the alternative minimum tax.
It of course goes on to provide a discussion.
post #28 of 40
I liked this article by J. Galbraith.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/3904253.html
post #29 of 40
Thread Starter 
And if you want a more "unbiased" source, here's an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3251&sequence=0

Quote:
The paper focuses on cuts to personal taxes (income and payroll) in the form of rebates, withholding holidays, and acceleration of scheduled marginal rate cuts; it also discusses a state sales tax holiday. Among the business tax cuts that the report examines are proposals related to the alternative minimum tax, the treatment of subpart F income, accelerated depreciation or the expensing of new investment, and investment tax credits. It also assesses the stimulative effects of reducing capital gains taxes. The paper ranks the proposals according to cost-effectiveness--that is, their first-year stimulus "bang" per total budget "buck." It concludes that most of the tax cuts that the report analyzes are unlikely to generate large first-year increases in gross domestic product.
and again:

Quote:
The payroll tax and sales tax holidays are likely to have the greatest bang for the buck of the proposals assessed in this report. The delays inherent in implementing the sales tax holiday, however, substantially undercut its likely usefulness as a stimulative mechanism. It is also the smaller of the two proposals for tax holidays in terms of its dollar impact. The bang for the buck of a payroll tax holiday would be reduced if the holiday extended to the employer's share of payroll taxes; that extension would add to the cost of the option without generating a significant increase in consumption. Both of the holiday proposals are uncertain in their effects, with significant downside risks.

Next in ranking by likely cost-effectiveness are the extended EGTRRA rebates and the two marginal investment incentives (partial expensing and the investment tax credit). If the investment tax credit was made incremental, its cost-effectiveness would increase substantially. Again, however, both the rebates and the marginal investment incentives are characterized by significant uncertainty. Advancing the cuts in marginal income tax rates as provided under EGTRRA would have a relatively small bang for the buck because of the option's cost. The remaining incentives--modifications to the tax treatment of subpart F income, repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax, and reductions in capital gains taxes--would be least likely to generate significant stimulus.
Note that the investment and capital gains tax cut options analyzed in the paper ranked lowest on the list. Moreover, no one can claim that a bunch of Commie Pinkos wrote it.
post #30 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by Marlena
My suspicion, however, is that it's basically irrelevant to Bush and Co. how the cut will affect the immediate economy. Rather, this has merely been his gang's philosophy for years now, and now that Bush & Co. has an opportunity to implement it, they're going for it, no matter what its effects might be.
I think you hit the nail on the head there.

What I want to know is, why wasn't any of this in the news before this thing was passed into law? Last night, Tom Daschle was on NBC news claiming that he and other dems were not included in negotiations about the new tax cut plan.
post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by daylily
What I want to know is, why wasn't any of this in the news before this thing was passed into law?
Yeah, kinda like the fact that we knew Iraq had destroyed its WMD wasn't on the news BEFORE we went to war.

I like on the the suggestions above--if we get this $400 per kid kickback--which would be $800 for us--it's ALL going to the non-Bush candidate of my choice, or a political group that supports MY approaches to society.
post #32 of 40
Thread Starter 
I guess the political fallout was too much:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/09/po...9CND-TAXX.html

Quote:
President Bush sent a strong signal to House Republican leaders today that he wants them to move quickly on enacting a child tax credit that would affect millions of Americans with low incomes.

"His advice to the House Republicans is to pass it, to send it to him, so he can sign it," the president's chief spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said. "He understands they're going to take a look at some other tax matters. That's their prerogative. But he wants to make certain that this does not get slowed down, bogged down. He wants to sign it."
*snip*

Quote:
The president's message to House Republican leaders, relayed through Mr. Fleischer, showed that Mr. Bush and his top advisers feel that it is time to put an image problem behind them.
Huh. Wonder whatever happened to the "compassionate conservatism"? Bush didn't even bother to trot the oxymoronic phrase out. I guess he's probably waiting till the campaigns get into full swing, by which time most folks will likely have forgotten what his (and most other Republicans') original position was on this matter.
post #33 of 40
I heard the new reference for GWB is

conservative compassionism.
post #34 of 40
Quote:
President Bush sent a strong signal to House Republican leaders today that he wants them to move quickly on enacting a child tax credit that would affect millions of Americans with low incomes.
I wonder where this leaves those of us who are "middle income" (i.e., those of us who hardly make enough to squeak by but apparently make too much to qualify for public assistance and enough to pay for assistance for everyone else)? Probably the same place as usual - screwed.
post #35 of 40
Thread Starter 
"Middle income" folks are supposed to start receiving their $400 per child credits sometime this summer (where "middle income" is defined as "people with at least one child who earn between $26,000+ and $155,000 or so").

The NY Times (or was it the Post?) published an article a week or so ago analyzing the so-called tax cuts and finding that, in fact, over the next ten years, the middle class can expect to see a tax RAISE as a result of the "cuts," whereas the "rich" (those earning over $350,000 or so, in this case) could expect to see a net reduction of 15% or so, and the "poor" (families (dunno about childless folks) earning at or below $26,000) would see a 7% reduction or so during the same period. Dunno if the Urban Institute has anything re this issue, but if so, their website re tax issues is http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/.
post #36 of 40
I am honestly and sincerely confused.

At first, i was angered, not by the OP, but by the fact that the federal government took $2750 out of my husbands paycheck on the 15th.....i rarely get any of that back. However, my cousin who would be considered lower income, wont get that $400 per child, but she does get an automatic $2500 back on her taxes because she is not married.....so i get $1200 (i have three kids), thats still less than the automatic money she gets back, plus the earned income credit (of which i dont qualify for). Besides, if someone makes $18,000 a year as a cashier, that would be low...but the percentage he or she pays towards federal/state taxes and SSI are far less than my husband who pays close to 20%. meaning that i am sure that a person making minimum wage is keeping more of their check than my husband, who lost almost 40%! am i making any sense? I am not speaking as a conservative or republican, i am speaking as a tax payer like the rest of you! honest, I swear!
post #37 of 40
Thread Starter 
I'm a tax ignoramus. So I have a response not based on numbers and knowledge of the tax code, but on experience - for whatever it's worth. I remember how painful it was trying to make ends meet when I was a low-income wage earner, before the EIC was instituted. As a result, I don't begrudge anyone their EIC even though I (and the rest of us who make too much to qualify for the EIC) personally pay more taxes in order to help fund the EIC, as long as they genuinely qualify for it (and most apparently do; in fact, until the last year or two, the IRS was focusing more of its efforts on stamping out EIC fraud than it was on ensuring compliance among wealthy taxpayers - talk about wasting one's bang for buck!!).

Consider how little those earning minimum (or near-minimum) wage have to spend on necessities such as food, clothing and shelter. Consider how much MORE you and I have to spend on such things, even though you and I may feel as if we're squeaking by and may be peeved at the amounts withheld from our paychecks. Looking purely at percentages does NOT tell a meaningful story when comparing the money in hand of the poor and near-poor versus the wealthy or even the middle class.

Incidentally, how does the fact that your cousin's children have two different fathers impact your cousin's tax liability (or lack thereof)? Perhaps it's the fact that she's not married, and not the parentage of her children, that counts re the tax code?
post #38 of 40
Marlena....My cousin gets a bit more because she isnt married and has two kids. I dont think the fact that each child has a different dad matters. (only to me i guess, when i reread the post). I edited as to not offend those in similar situations.

I just feel penalized because i am married.
post #39 of 40
Thread Starter 
Yeah, it sucks, taxwise (although allegedly that burden will be reduced at least somewhat under the tax cuts). But have you checked out how much you'd pay if you filed as "married but filing separately"? Holy Toledo! It'll make you grateful for the "privilege" of filing jointly.
post #40 of 40
Thanks for clearing that up for me, Marlena.

The 7% increase for the 'middle income', unfortunately, comes as no surprise :.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Bush child credit stiffs low-income workers