Posted on 05/09/2006 5:16:25 PM PDT by lauriehelds
WASHINGTON - Republicans in Congress reached agreement Tuesday on a five-year, $70 billion measure to extend tax breaks for investors and prevent more middle-income families from being hit by a tax aimed at the wealthy.
The bill would hand President Bush one of his top tax priorities, a two-year extension of the reduced 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, currently set to expire at the end of 2008. Republicans credit the tax cuts, enacted in 2003, with boosting economic growth and creating many jobs.
Over five years, the bill would cost $70 billion, but over a decade, it would cost slightly less — an estimated $69 billion — due to several provisions that raise revenue over the second half of the decade.
Treasury Secretary John Snow said the 2003 bill "by reducing the taxes on investment, ushered in a period of rising business investment, strong (gross domestic product) growth. ... When you get investment occurring and strong GDP growth, you get jobs."
The measure also would keep 15 million families from being hit this year with the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to make sure the wealthy paid taxes but is ensnaring more and more middle-income families because it is not indexed for inflation.
The accord paves the way for House approval of the measure Wednesday. The Senate could clear the bill for Bush's desk by week's end.
"This is a responsible bill that protects families and small business owners from tax increases, while also providing investors with a bigger window of certainty — critical to continued economic growth," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif.
Critics, including many Democrats, have attacked the tax rate reductions on dividends and capital gains as being largely tilted to the wealthy and have argued that the provisions should not be extended at a time of large budget deficits and massive spending for the war in Iraq.
The development capped weeks of often difficult talks between GOP lawmakers as they wrangled over how to advance their party's tax agenda. Under budget rules, up to $70 billion in cuts can be advanced under fast-track rules that would prevent a possible filibuster by Senate Democrats.
That rule prompted Republicans to devise a strategy under which they would advance the investor tax breaks and alternative minimum tax relief in a first, filibuster-proof bill while using a second bill to approve various tax changes left out of the main legislation.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, had been holding off on finalizing the main measure to preserve negotiating leverage on the second bill, which is to contain a number of widely backed tax breaks.
They include a popular education tuition tax deduction, a tax break for teachers who buy their own school supplies and a research and development tax credit for businesses. That measure also would preserve tax deductions for state and local sales taxes.
Democrats said the framework put together by Republicans chose wealthy investors over regular taxpayers and that it is more important to extend tax cuts that have already expired rather than provisions that won't run out for more than two-and-a-half years.
Sen. Max Baucus (news, bio, voting record) of Montana, top Democrat on the Finance panel, said Republicans should have "chosen to renew important tax provisions like the R&D tax credit, the college tuition tax deduction, and the credit for teachers who spend their own money to improve our children's education.
"Instead, they chose to extend capital gains and dividends tax breaks that have not expired and won't expire for years to come."
As talks dragged on the second measure, pressure built from GOP leaders and the White House to complete the main measure. Thomas said negotiations continue on the second bill.
The main bill would allow wealthier people to transfer retirement savings into Roth IRAs, providing a shorter-term revenue boost that helped lawmakers fit more provisions within the bill. That's because money moved from traditional IRAs into Roth accounts is taxed immediately, instead of later, when taxpayers withdraw their invested money.
Opponents say the Roth plan would help the Treasury now but shortchange the government in future years because funds saved in a Roth IRA grow tax free.
The bill also would extend for two years provisions sought by small businesses to let them write off up to $100,000 in investments in equipment.
Over five years, the bill would cost $70 billion, but over a decade, it would cost slightly less — an estimated $69 billion — due to several provisions that raise revenue over the second half of the decade.
This is how it should be..
Over five years, the bill would deprive the government of $70 billion in excess taxation, but over a decade, it would provide slightly more in revenue — an estimated $69 billion — due to increased investment and business growth spurred on by needed capital funds remaining in business and private investors hands.
It doesn't really matter, IMO. There's no way this gets through the Senate - Reid will filibuster it. No way he allows George Bush to have this kind of victory.
Reid can blow until he is blue in the face - they don't have the votes to hold a filibuster.
Ah, the agreed upon portion, the first part with the cap gains and dividend rates extention is part of the budget process, it can't be filibustered.
The Capital gains tax should be eliminated, period. Even 15% is too dang high.
It cannot be filibustered, having or not having 41 votes doesn't matter.
we tax passive income too little in this country, and earned income too much.
Oh, how right you are!And, can you imagine what it would do for the stock market if they would, at least, allow the sale of one stock and not tax the gains if the entire amount were rolled over into the purchase of another stock?
I can dream can't I?
The government taxes both too much, and that's because the government spends too much.
yes, but something must be taxed - in my opinion, we tax work too much, and tax passive income and consumption - to little.
I wasn't aware that we taxed anything "too little" in this country.
something has to be taxed, so its question of choices.
Something has to be taxed, but in my opinion, as little as possible should be.
How can anyone other than a troll post a comment on a supposedly conservative forum that we tax anything "too little in this country"
Are the tax cuts intended to stimulate economy?
The prime interest rates were raised several times in the row. Does it make sense?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.