Posted on 06/04/2003 4:47:05 PM PDT by FourPeas
MISSING OUT: Poor families face the reality of no tax rebate Wednesday, June 04, 2003 By Ted Roelofs
With six children to look after, a broken-down van and an annual income of about $15,000, Kalala Palmer figures she could use a break. She shops at Goodwill for clothes for her kids and buys them new shoes only on their birthdays. She struggles to pay the YMCA membership she hopes will keep them off the streets. The 26-year-old Grand Rapids resident also is among millions of working-poor families left out in the cold by the $350 billion tax cut signed in May by President Bush. "It hurts, but when you've been poor as long as I've been, you just deal with it," Palmer said. "What do you have to do to get on top?" It's a question under debate this week in Congress, as politicians come under fire for omitting working-poor families from the $400-per-child tax credit going to much of middle-class America. According to analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the tax cut measure leaves families earning up to $26,625 a year with no tax credit. That affects 8 million children. At the same time, $400-per-child rebate checks are expected to be in the mailboxes of millions of middle-class households by July. Though Bush officials defended the measure, it is a void some Republicans are looking to fill before it becomes campaign ammunition for the Democrats. Senate Finance Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced a provision Monday to expand the number of families eligible for per-child tax credits -- and to increase the size of those credits -- as part of a broader effort to make the middle-income child credit permanent. Grassley's proposal would cost up to $90 billion over 10 years. In contrast, Sens. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, introduced legislation to aid the same poor families, at a 10-year cost of $3.5 billion. Bush aides say the measure signed by the president May 28 is fair, because low-income families like that of Kalala Palmer pay no income tax. White House spokesman Ari Fleisher said poor and minimum-wage families receive government benefits in other ways, through programs such as food stamps, Medicaid and earned income tax credits. "By actually forgiving all income taxes and then giving people money beyond that, it's not the same way other people on the income scale are treated," Fleisher said. U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, agrees. "Tax reform is not about payments to the working poor," Hoekstra said. "Per-child tax credit is exactly that. It is a credit against liabilities owed to the federal government." Hoekstra said he is willing to consider extra help for the working poor but would make no promises. "If there are certain people in the Senate that want to make direct cash payments to the poor, then we should have that discussion. I don't know whether or not I would vote for it." But U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, believes Congress ought to revisit the issue. "I think it's a reasonable sort of thing to do," Ehlers said. Though working-poor families might not qualify for a tax credit because they pay no income tax, Ehlers thought it reasonable to give them some help, too. "Since the purpose is to help people with children, then it makes sense to be sure it applies to everyone who has children." Though her circumstances are anything but easy, Kalala Palmer tries to find the humor in life to keep her spirits up. She recalled a recent discussion with a friend, who informed her that Congress was going to pass tax breaks for individuals who get stock dividends. "What in the world is that?" she said of stock dividends, starting to laugh. "I ain't got no stock. There's no way I got that stuff. You got to laugh about this stuff because it hurts too much to be crying." Until January, Palmer worked as a nurse's aide, sometimes working double shifts to try to make ends meet. Then she became worried about her oldest son, Terrell, whom she feared was getting into trouble on the streets. She quit her job to keep an eye on him, and now earns money making clothing and doing alterations out of her home. Her aunt pitches in to help with child care, and Palmer also gets a federal subsidy to pay most of her rent. On the wall in her dining room, she keeps a series of sayings she posted at the suggestion of her church pastor. They include such sayings as, "Be Kind to Each Other" and "No Shouting to Each Other," and one reads: "The Palmer name is a good name and we are good people." Outside her house, Palmer looks at her 1989 Chevy Astro van, with sagging suspension, rusty doors that don't open and a large dent on the right side. She muses what it would be like to get a better car. "If I had a car and a nice house, I wouldn't know what to do. One day, all these rainy days are going to end."
The Grand Rapids Press
Of course it is. That's the only kind of "logic" a liberal is capable of understanding.
For some unaccountable reason, my wife insists on watching NBC Evening News. If I have to hear that simple-minded buffoon Brokaw chant the "no tax cut for the poor" Democrat mantra one more time, I'll have to drive over to Best Buy the same evening and pick up another Sony to replace the one with the smashed-in screen.
...from procreating with deadbeats like an animal and producing children she cannot afford, is what I hope she means.
Actually, Kalala,it is we taxpayers who needed the break from supporting the likes of people whose irresponsible sexual choices, and their failure to hold themselves accountable for their own circumstance, have led to their own poor quality of life. And THAT, as paltry as it is, is what we got.
There are a number of links available for welfare research at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/dataportal.asp
IMHO, the debate is not whether the income tax of the bottom 50% of those that even bother to file a tax return is too high. It's not. According to the IRS, the tax burden is more progressive now than it was under Clinton. (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in03at.xls)
The debate is whether there needs to be additional transfers of income from half of us to the other half through mandated government programs like EITC and others. The debate is what happens when 50% or more of us are dependant on the government taking from those that study, sacrifice and strive to finance others' retirement, disabilities, poor choices and desired quality of life.
For example, try the link (http://www.connect2jobs.org/connect2cash/) and type in hourly wages of $5.15, $7.20, and $12.80 for 40 hour weeks, 52 weeks a year and either One or Two+ children.
The bottom line is that the current structures of wealth redistrubution between classes and generations will go bankrupt because of demographics in a few decades. Either we start having serious discussions without the polemic partisanship, or we pay a much higher price with fewer options later.
The actual Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report is at http://www.cbpp.org/.
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.