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.

[Consort]

Why should people who don't pay income tax get a refund? That makes no sense at all and is pure socialism...

They pay sales taxes and other non-income taxes and fees and payroll taxes if they work. So, the money they get back is from those taxes they payed. Everybody is getting back money that was payed in the form of one tax or another. I could be wrong.

[Sloth]

True... but 90% of what's done federally shouldn't be. Since both parties are raping the Constitution, I'd at least like my party to rape it in a way that produces a more desireable outcome.

[Orangedog]

No, he'll sign it. [sarcasm]It's important to "take this issue away" from the dems [/sarcasm]. If the republican keep taking these issues away from the dems, we're not going to have much of a platform other than "we're not as bad as the other party."

[NC28203]

An intersting thing to note about your table is that those receiving the tax credit do in fact pay taxes. They may not be paying income taxes, but they are paying federal taxes. This counters, in part, the argument that we shouldn't give the benefits of the credit to those that pay no income tax.

[Publius6961]

I am going to ask my senator to introduce a new bill, called The Definition of Act Act.

[CanisMajor2002]

Not because they voted to give more of my money to the permanent social parasites, but for hiding it under the label "rebate".

Now here's an idea for raising money! Fine public officials $1,000 for every misuse of the English language! :)

[Dave S]

I agree. Of course lowering taxes because of dependants is also socialism.

Damn right. If people want to bring children into this world they ought to pay for them, themselves and that includes education spending. Enough of this social engineering.

[rwfromkansas]

Well, I am not jumping up and down about this one.

We got part of what we wanted, but not all of it.

I do not like the idea of giving a rebate to someone that does not deserve it!!!! Maybe it will help the economy somehow though. Since the folks who will be getting it will immediately spend it instead of save it (these folks don't know the word "save"), it may help at least for a bit....maybe. But the impact may be so small as to not even be noticeable.

[netmilsmom]

Oh Geez OH MAN!!!!!
The school voucher idea is the best!

Let's do it!!!!

[GraniteStateConservative]

"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.

Sen. Lincoln is working hard in Washington to bring needed tax relief to Arkansas families-- and she's getting results. Re-elect Sen. Lincoln-- strong leadership for Arkansans.

Yeah, Arkansas didn't need any GOP senators anyway. Rev. Mike can join the Bush Administration in 2005, I guess.

[newgeezer]

Sooooo $400 gooses the economy??? Doing what??? It's not a blip on the radar screen...IMO.

That's $920 for that proverbial "average" family having 2.3 kids. Our 2 will get us $800, and we're going to spend it on a long-overdue vacation.

It's $3200 for my close friends with 8 kids. He's planning to buy a truck.

Most people will spend it. Retailers will love it. It'll certainly show up in the economic indicators.

Are we blipping your radar, yet?

[Dave S]

Why is it that there is no leadership from the White House on this issue? Why can't our President make the case forcefully that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't get a tax cut?

Were you out explaining that to every lower income person you know, assuming you know some? You seem intent on fixing the blame out there. What did you do positive other than whine after the fact?

[RetiredArmy]

The government stealing by the point of a gun from actual tax payers to give it away free to those who are unable to earn it for themselves continues.

[GraniteStateConservative]

We're supply siders. We aren't allowed to believe that increased consumption benefits the economy-- throwing dollar bills out of planes, and all that jazz.

[Pukin Dog]

Will everyone please just calm down?

The Senate agreed to this thing to get rid of it. Tom Delay has already said the sucker is dead unless they agree to attach killing the Estate tax to it.

Passing the bill gets the thing off the front pages, where it can die a slow death. Nothing has changes, they only got rid of the issue.

[eboyer]

"Damn right. If people want to bring children into this world they ought to pay for them, themselves and that includes education spending. Enough of this social engineering. "

I have a problem with cutting educational spending outright though. Within a few decades we would become a third-world country full of poverty and ignorance (and you thought it was bad now!)

[jocko12]

WHO DO I WRITE TO TO GET MY WELFARE CHECK ALSO,A TAX PAYER!!!!

[GraniteStateConservative]

Of course lowering taxes because of dependants is also socialism.

And also because people get married.

[RAT Patrol]

So let me get this straight. I get $400 dollars of my own earnings back only to return it so that I can make sure people who don't pay taxes get the money "refunded" anyway? Hello? I fail to see how that's a rebate for me, the taxpayer. It's a spending program. Giving the money to non-taxpayers wipes out my portion of the refund. Why can't they see that.

The guy who doesn't pay taxes is the only winner because he doesn't have to fund everyone else's "rebate." This is sooooo stupid and our guys fell for it. DUMMIES!!!!!!!

[ImpotentRage]

I HAVE called them mean names. (Do you suppose that is why I rarely get answers?)