Senators Strike Child Tax Benefits Deal

AP | 6/05/03 | MARY DALRYMPLE

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Unable to shake Democratic demands that minimum wage workers get the same benefit from a $1,000 child tax credit as other families, Republicans in the Senate struck an agreement to expand the benefit for low-income families and extend the benefit to more high-income couples.

"There is a deal," said a spokesman for Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., who has been advocating the change since President Bush signed a $350 billion tax cut last month.

The strategy, designed to diffuse a growing storm over a bigger child tax credit for middle-income but not low-income families, gives both Republicans and Democrats a reason to back the bill.

Minimum wage workers would get the same rebate check, worth $400 per child, going to other families later this summer — giving Democrats a rare victory in a Republican-ruled government.

Married couples making up to $140,000 could claim the full credit for two years at the end of the bill's 10-year horizon. That change would limit the so-called "marriage penalty" in the credit and give Republicans a win.

Republicans resisted changing the law, which currently offers the credit to families who pay income tax and gives minimum wage workers — those who get enough tax benefits to see their income taxes eliminated — a partial refund.

Some Republicans have historically supported refundable tax credits, such as the much larger earned income tax credit, as a way to encourage low-wage workers to stay in the labor force and avoid welfare.

Backed by a strong push from community activists, Democrats pointed to the tax cut enacted last month as concrete proof that Republicans favor the wealthy over the poor.

"This administration is waging war on poor children," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. "The reality is that they are steadily and surely trying to turn the clock back on all of the programs and supports that working families and their children need and deserve."

The legislation also reduces the five definitions of a "child" used for different tax deductions and credits to a single definition. The bill's $10 billion cost will be offset by an extension of customs fees.

[MEGoody]

"Those poor people will spend more of that rebate than you would."

How can one spend more than all? And even if someone chooses to invest the money rather than just buy goods it is a boost to the economy.

Only people who pay taxes should get tax cuts.

Period.

[tnlibertarian]

"Some Republicans have historically supported refundable tax credits, such as the much larger earned income tax credit, as a way to encourage low-wage workers to stay in the labor force and avoid welfare."

You know, another way could be to take away the dadgum welfare. Sheesh! Let's give away other people's money in order to avoid giving away other people's money. Only in Washington does this pass for logic.

[kattracks]

The repubs DIDN'T CAVE! They got an increase in the tax credit for higher income people -

Both of these provisions were in the original bill, which the Democrats said was too costly.

So, now they are BOTH back in.

Yes, those who don't pay taxes shouldn't get a "rebate", but there was no way a tax cut would have passed without that provision being included.

The Dems can complain all they want to now about how costly the tax cuts are, but they have just added to that cost.

[Consort]

What more palatable?

No, but do we want more tax money returned to the people or don't we? Make up my mind.

[John Lenin]

I want to see Charlie Rangel go on TV and give the same sob story he gave for people at minimum wage for single people. Single people pay the highest tax rates in the nation.

[jtill]

When I looked at my pay stubs, it was evident that the social security contribution was from gross income, just like the income tax.

[MEGoody]

"Have you seen the taxes on a gallon of gas or carefully read your phone bill? So the working poor actually are paying federal taxes."

True enough. So instead of a rebate on taxes they didn't pay, cut the rates for EVERYONE on gas and phone bills.

[tnlibertarian]

Those poor people will spend more of that rebate than you would.

I hope that was sarcastic. Do you think rich people, or middle-class people for that matter, are going to stuff their rebates under their mattresses?

[ancient_geezer]

A NEGATIVE income tax?

Earned income tax credits often exceed the individual income tax owed. Libs justify it as a rebate on FICA.

[eboyer]

Jill you misunderstood my question.

Right now income tax is calculated after fica is subtracted. Hasn't that always been the case?

[eboyer]

oops jtill. Honest mistake...really :-)

[RAT Patrol]

I believe you addressed educational cuts. Clearly we cannot and should not reduce it to zero. But I do not think the tie between dollars and success is direct at all. If it were, then socialist countries should produce geniuses.

Learning is a formula of about 4 parts student effort, 4 parts excellent curriculum (bells and whistles don't count), and 2 parts supervision (something like that). The first part is free, the second part doesn't cost more than poor curriculum, sometimes less. The third part is a parent/teacher joint effort. It should happen from the bottom/up, not the top/down. That is, family, culture, church, etc...should build strong values and character to equip the student for learning. In this value-challenged, faith-hating, amoral culture, THAT's a big problem. They've been replaced by an expensive know-it-all nanny government who takes my money to concoct weird (even immoral) programs to fight problems that only a changed, willing, and humble heart can accomplish.

That's my view.

[Dave S]

It's not income redistribution when you pay less taxes to government. You are simply keeping your own money. It IS redistribution when people who don't pay taxes get a 'tax cut'.

Wipe that self-righteous smirk off your face. What does your mortgage interest have to do with your tax payment, you didnt pay it to the government. Its a welfare payment for homeowners as is your child care credit and per child exemption.

And what makes you think that low income wage earners dont pay taxes? Ever hear of FICA, sales taxes, and those only include the visible taxes. They also pay corporate income taxes and excise taxes, and tarriffs. Low income people generally pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle income tax payers when you include their entire tax load.

[DeathfromBelow]

I've made up my mind, I want more of MY tax money returned to ME not the People who don't contribute.

If you can't make up you mind... Then There is a tax fund for those who don't think they pay enough. The IRS will always accept your donation. Just keep your hands off MINE!

P.S. I don't want to "consort" with you anymore.

[GraniteStateConservative]

No, they'll pay off debt or put it into savings. The poor consume more and save/invest less.

[FourPeas]

The Republicans couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

Ain't THAT the truth. It's amazing that when the Republicans control the White House and both houses of congress, the STILL feel the need to give-in on the most stupid things. *sigh*

[OldFriend]

As far as I am concerned......any money that leaves Washington is a gift from above. The more the better.

[RAT Patrol]

This is not directed at you personally:p>To all the parents buying into the "protect school funding" mantra of the left, are you buying books and magazines for your kids, or just video games and movie tickets? Are you investing your own money in your child's education first, before asking for more of mine?

[gueroloco]

Yes, yes, and YES! No more throwing good money after bad. Here in Texas, for example, the state education board is pulling off a fraud on the taxpayers. Under the guise of "higher standards and improved accountability", they replaced the TAAS student assessment test with a (they claim) "much tougher'' TAKS test. They then had the teachers "teach to the test" for the whole year, and cheered when a "much higher than anticipated" percentage of students "passed" the TAKS. The truth of the matter is that the standards were watered down so as to assure a positive outcome for public consumption. Third graders had to get 20 of 36 correct (55%!!!!) to "pass" the reading portion. What's even more frightening is that 11th graders only had to score 37/73 in English and 25/60 in Math to be "passed". A previous poster opined that literacy levels would be even worse without this "free" education. Well, I'm sorry, but a young person who performs at a 51% level in English and a 42% level in Math hardly fits the description of a literate person!

Thanks for a good post!

[clintonh8r]

Is Trent Frist still in charge?