Bush child credit stiffs low-income workers - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 40 Old 05-30-2003, 07:20 PM
 
gurumama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
gurumama is offline  
#32 of 40 Old 06-09-2003, 03:52 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Marlena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,673
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Marlena is offline  
#33 of 40 Old 06-09-2003, 03:59 PM
 
Tracy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: "It's Chinatown, Jake"
Posts: 12,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I heard the new reference for GWB is

conservative compassionism.

Check out New Moon on my Astrology Site

http://tracyastrosalon.blogspot.com/

 

Tracy is offline  
#34 of 40 Old 06-10-2003, 06:20 PM
 
Dragonfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: On the Brink
Posts: 6,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Dragonfly is offline  
#35 of 40 Old 06-10-2003, 06:36 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Marlena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,673
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"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/.
Marlena is offline  
#36 of 40 Old 06-10-2003, 06:57 PM
 
Lucky Charm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: brett favre's house
Posts: 7,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!
Lucky Charm is offline  
#37 of 40 Old 06-10-2003, 07:13 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Marlena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,673
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
Marlena is offline  
#38 of 40 Old 06-10-2003, 08:05 PM
 
Lucky Charm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: brett favre's house
Posts: 7,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Lucky Charm is offline  
#39 of 40 Old 06-10-2003, 10:51 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Marlena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,673
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Marlena is offline  
#40 of 40 Old 06-11-2003, 01:00 AM
 
Dragonfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: On the Brink
Posts: 6,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for clearing that up for me, Marlena.

The 7% increase for the 'middle income', unfortunately, comes as no surprise :.
Dragonfly is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off