Bush Wants House to Pass Child Tax Refunds

Reuters ^ | 06-09-03

[Brian S]

Mon June 9, 2003 04:03 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush would sign a bill ensuring that low-income workers benefit from an increase in the child tax credit if the U.S. House of Representatives follows the Senate's lead and passes the measure, the White House said on Monday.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush wants the Republican-led House to pass the bill quickly so he can sign it into law.

"He understands they're going to take a look at some other tax matters. That's their prerogative," Fleischer told reporters. "But he wants to make certain that this does not get slowed down, bogged down. He wants to sign it."

Democrats have criticized both Bush and Republicans who control Congress for dropping a provision from the $350 billion tax cut bill Bush signed into law that would have allowed low income workers to benefit from the child tax credit increase.

Democrats have called the tax bill, which cuts taxes on dividends and capital gains on investments, a sop to the rich.

The Senate last week overwhelmingly approved a measure that would allow low-income families to benefit from the $400 increase in the child tax credit even if they do not earn enough money to pay federal income taxes.

House Republican leaders have suggested they may try to get more tax cuts out of the deal. Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, said he would only support the child tax credit measure as part of a broader tax cut bill.

[BlueNgold]

Another smart political move, like it or not. Bush backs the proposal and Bush wins.

It takes away some of the class warfare issue from the Dems in 2004. If it passes he simply says "I always wanted a bigger tax package." If it fails he is on record as having supported it.

Yes it's silly for people that already get back more in one lump sum than they pay all year to complain about being 'left out'. But you are asking the American public to suddenly wake up and understand a tax system that has conditioned them to think that getting back $457 of overpayment out of the $6000+ they payed in is somehow something to be looked forward to as a yearly windfall. This is a losing argument designed to feed class warfare in '04. I think the best strategey is to try to force a compromise to kill some of the 'sunsets' on more meaningful tax items.

[Fraulein]

Here is a related thread for those interested:

W Okays Tax Break For Poor

[Bill Davis FR]

at the same time congress should repeal the clinton tax on the old folk's social security...

[RockyMtnMan]

Try this one American First Party at least you'll know what they stand for.

[Hunble]

Oh I do agree, any tax reduction is a good thing!

However, my two daughters have grown up and are married now. Today, as my wife and I prepare for our retirement in the next 20 years, the government is taxing the hell out of us.

That is money that we need to be investing today, so that we do not require government welfare when we get older. Unfortunately, that time is getting shorter and shorter each year.

After working for the U.S. Army (10 years active duty and 10 years as a DoD Civilian) I accepted a "lump sum" retirement payment. They then added my retirement payment to that year's income and taxed me at a higher bracket. Poof, over 40% of my retirement money vanished.

Since I had just retired, my wife and I had to sell our homes (she owned a house when we got married) and moved to another State.

That second house my wife owned, taught us a very valuable lesson about "Capitol Gains Taxes" and we learned about that the hard way.

The result of my retirement after 20 years with the U.S. Army? We owed the government $2,000 and all of my retirement money vanished.

The next year, if my retired Mother had not helped us out, we would have been homeless. As it was, we lived on starvation rations that year while I worked at a gas station.

Food Stamps and Unemployment? No way!

[demolition angel]

I honestly don't understand the hue and cry about this issue.

Congress accelerated the child tax credit from 2009 to 2003.

Under the original 2001 tax cut, the child credit was to go from $600 to $700 in 2005. At the same time (2005), the refundability portion of the 2001 tax cut was to go from 10% of income above $10,000 to 15% of income above $12,000.

So far as I can tell, what Senate GOPers and Democrats wanted to do was to accelerate the 2005 refundability provisions, already enacted, to 2003, just as the 2009 dollar amount was accelerated to 2003.

I have a hard time understanding how its good to accelerate the child tax credit portion of the 2001 tax cut legislation, yet bad to also accelerate the refundability provision of the very same legislation.

[fooman]

Why did you take the lump sum? Would you do it that way again?

[Hunble]

I did not have much of a choice, since the Laboratory was being shut down and moved to the Washington D.C. area.

1) Accept the early retirement.

2) Move to the D.C. area.

3) Get laid off, since only 30% will be allowed to move.

Early retirement sounded like a great idea.

[katze]

Yes, me too. My only child is 40-something, and when she was growing up, we footed the bill for everything she needed, incl parochial school.

If this goes through, there may be more babies born just for the tax handout, and I would be willing to guarantee the kids will see nothing of the benefit.

[katze]

Similar situation here, retired feddie. Was very close to social security required quarters, so I worked for the census to complete. Of course, I qualified for the minimum, then it was offset (from $150 to $68) because of my pension. To add insult to injury, ended up losing more at tax time.

[goodnesswins]

I do not "work" for someone else for the VERY reason of what you speak....all my income would go to taxes, clothing, gas, etc......it isn't worth it.

[goodnesswins]

"Minimal" cost? I heard it was about 4 BILLION.

[Texas Eagle]

Effin Compassionate Conservatism. Get a clue! Those people aren't going to vote for President Bush and the RATS aren't going to stop demonizing him even if he gave them a check for a million dollars per child.

[fooman]

I am going through similar life stress WRT moving.

If you were less than 2/3 years away it might have been worth it to treat the gig as TDY.

In any case, I always thought they would let you take your buyout as an anuity or deffered comp.

That way, you spread out your income and don't get nailed by the 'progressive' tax for the 'rich'

[Hunble]

Looking back and knowing about the IRS rules, I would have done that.

I was ignorant and did not realize how much the IRS would take away if you are "rich." Today, I know better.

[fooman]

Not to beat you up. I used to work at Equitable where I launched www.equik.com -A 401K product.

BTW income is NOT wealth. If you really want to tax the rich, tax ALL wealth at 4%. The government cant do this because of capital flight, but its how you tax the rich.

Gates contested the 1MM tax bill on his 40MM house. Good for him and his laywers.

Your story breaks my heart.

[Jesse]

"Another smart political move, like it or not. Bush backs the proposal and Bush wins."

Spoken like a true doublethink conservative.

We live in interesting times, witnessing the wholesale, unabashed final transformation of the IRS by Congress and the president from its role to finance the necessary operations of government to its role as tax collector for the welfare state and the bureaucracy/power complex which has been created to sustain itself by vote buying politicians like Bush and the federal gigantocracy which feeds on his redistributionist policies.

I don't know how much of Bush's brand of "conservatism" I can stand or afford. Four more years???

[Sparta]

because one thing is for sure, the Republicans aren't doing a damn thing to earn my vote.

Ditto.

[goldstategop]

The House should say "NO" to President Bush on this. It isn't supposed to rubber-stamp presidential policies that are wrong-headed, like giving a child credit to people who DON'T pay any income tax.

[goldstategop]

Its really a guaranteed minimum income proposal a ala George McGovern. Or should we say McBush? <sarcasm