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.

[netmilsmom]

>>What offends me even further is I have three kids, the youngest 17, the older two in college. What?! They're not costing me anything, you say?<<

I don't get the reason why one cannot claim a 17 year old. My kids are 5 & 3 so it doesn't effect me, but I feel it is unfair.

[Dave S]

refundable tax credits

READ: Income Redistribution

Could say the same for mortgage interest deduction, health insurance credit for self employed, etc. Besides why should parents get an exemption for children? They are just increasing the cost to society by every child they dont abort. Why arent they assessed a special tax for the privilege of each child?

[GraniteStateConservative]

Because this is entirely appropriate for Keynesian economics-- and Bush has used Keynes' theories to support his part-supply-side and part-Keynesian tax cuts.

[Pukin Dog]

The only thing this is; is a dead issue.

The sucker is going nowhere, unless you dont trust what Tom Delay said.

Nowhere.

This is how the Republicans get rid of Democrat issues. Dont forget what happened to CFR. The only way this passes, is if we get a lot more tax cuts for our side. The Dems will be faced with voting against their own issue, to prevent us from killing the Estate tax.

[RAT Patrol]

Let's say there are only 10 Americans. 7 of them pay over $1000 in taxes and 3 of them pay no taxes at all. The gov't decides to reduce taxes by giving taxpayers $100 back. That's $700. Then, like dummies, they decide the three guys not paying taxes should get $100 too. WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GET THE MONEY TO GIVE TO THEM? Obviously, it's from the 7 who pay taxes. Bye-bye rebate for taxpayers; hello welfare for non-taxpayers.

[Digger]

This is your "TWO-PARTY CARTEL", your oligarchy. They sell out the taxpayers each & every time but YOU keep voting them back. Don't bitch, don't cry. Don't do anything but perpetuate it. You have primaries to vote each one of them out but you choose not. YOU are the problem - not them.

[RAT Patrol]

I remember what happened with CFR. As it stands now, I don't have the same First Amendment rights that the liars over at the New York Times enjoy.

[Ga Rob]

Not really.....

I won't disagree with you that people will spend the money. I just don't think it does much for the economy, it's not enough in my opinion. Maybe I just hate this "rebate" for worthless people...soooo much.... who get part of my money, it should be me who stimulates the economy with my money!!!!

[Dave S]

WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GET THE MONEY TO GIVE TO THEM? Obviously, it's from the 7 who pay taxes

Not if you die soon enough. Its called deficit spending. Nobody is paying for it this fiscal year.

[Dave S]

Maybe I just hate this "rebate" for worthless people...soooo much.... who get part of my money, it should be me who stimulates the economy with my money!!!!

I hope everyone realizes that was meant as sarcasm. :-)

[Orangedog]

They may not be paying income taxes, but they are paying federal taxes.

You mean payroll taxes? The (un)Earned Income Tax Credit give nearly all of that back to them. This extra $400 is a transfer payment, plain and simple. We used to call it welfare.

[DeathfromBelow]

You are wrong.

They pay sales taxes GOES TO STATES and other non-income taxes Not Property Taxes (usually don't own property) Goes to state/locals anyway and fees who doesn't, on telephone, cable, water, sewer, you name it and payroll taxes Medicare, social security if they work But none of these go to the Fed except Social Security so the DemoRats can spend more on give-away programs, and Medicare to pay the old folks medical bills, if they live long enough.

[netmilsmom]

>>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!)<<

HA! The public schools aren't educating our kids anyway!

[RAT Patrol]

Is that supposed to make me feel better? I really wasn't planning on dying anytime soon.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I hope GW vetos this piece of crap."

When has he ever shown leadership to compensate for the lack of a Republican Congressional spine?

[GraniteStateConservative]

Those poor people will spend more of that rebate than you would. If you believe consumers can consume their way out of recessions, you should support giving money to the best consumers.

[eboyer]

"HA! The public schools aren't educating our kids anyway! "

Maybe not to our liking but literacy is fairly well under control in this country. Eliminate free schooling and that will change.

[DeathfromBelow]

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!)

And what percentage of "education" comes from the FED except the cost of regulations. Hell, if they give you money for construction, it will cost you 58% more to get the project done (govt. regs). Education is and should be funded at the LOCAL level.

[Digger]

Let's talk about GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Let's talk about dollar devaluation. Let's talk about fiat money.Speaking of fiat money here's a good line, ". Like war and death, fiat money always walks hand in hand with debt, usury, income tax, oligarchy, big government, militarism, and, in the end always produces tyranny and impoverishment".

[John Lenin]

I will repeat my other post. How come single people get NO tax breaks whatsoever ?