[ Author Prev][ Author Next][ Thread Prev][ Thread Next][ Author Index][ Thread Index]
Re: A little off topic - on the tax cut
Sue:
Former governor Howard Dean spoke Sunday to the State Council of the
California Teachers Association. He pointed out that for the cost of the
Bush tax cuts we could have universal health care, with money left over to
fund all the federal commitments under NCLB.
At 12:38 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Interesting choice of title, don't ya think?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1302-2003Jun1?language=printer
washingtonpost.com
Children Left Behind
Monday, June 2, 2003; Page A16
EVEN FOR A DEBATE over taxes, the public discussion taking place right now
about child credits in the new tax law is particularly galling,
hypocritical and ill-informed. The new law bumps up the credit for each
child from $600 to $1,000 (though the benefit phases out for families that
earn more than $110,000). This increase, part of the 2001 tax law, was
pushed forward to this year under the new law. The 2001 law also allowed
some low-income families that don't pay income taxes to benefit from the
child tax credit; these families receive money from the government, just
as with the Earned Income Tax Credit. Those amounts were set to increase
in 2005 -- but that part was not speeded up under the new law. If it had
been, it would have cost $3.5 billion, or 1 percent of the supposed cost
of the tax bill, and would have helped almost 12 million children whose
families make between $10,500 and $26,625.
Stiffing these children was not a last-minute oversight or the unfortunate
result of an unreasonably tight $350 billion ceiling. "Adjustments had to
be made," a spokeswoman for the House Ways and Means Committee said, as if
those on her side would have preferred otherwise. In fact, the
administration didn't include this provision in its original, $726 billion
proposal. The House didn't include it in its $550 billion version. The
Senate Finance Committee didn't include it in its original package. Most
Republicans wanted relief only for those who pay income tax. As White
House spokesman Ari Fleischer framed it, "Does tax relief go to people who
pay income taxes . . . or does it go above and beyond the forgiving of all
income taxes, and you actually get a check back from the government for
more than you ever owed in income taxes?"
But it's not as if these workers pay no federal taxes; they shell out 7.65
percent of their earnings in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.
More fundamentally, if it makes sense to help families with children, why
shouldn't the aid go to those who need it most? If speeding up the tax
credit makes sense for some, why not for everyone? If one goal of the tax
bill is to pump money into the economy quickly, why not give it to those
most apt to spend it? Such relief could be paid for by cutting the rates
for those in the top brackets (people with taxable incomes of more than
about $312,000) just a smidgen less. These folks already get the biggest
rate reduction of all, from 38.6 percent to 35 percent; merely edging that
up to 35.3 percent would have paid for the extra child credits. If
anything, the question lawmakers should consider is why those who make
less than $10,500 shouldn't be entitled to some credit as well. The theory
has been not to subsidize those who choose to work only part time, but in
this economy any number of people are working fewer hours because that is
all that is available. Some 8 million children live in families who earn
below the current threshold.
Indeed, the discussion should be broadened to include the question of why
the bill, in a similar fashion, speeded up marriage penalty relief for
everyone but the bottom tier, those who qualify for the Earned Income Tax
Credit. This is arguably even more unfair than the failure to accelerate
the entire child credit: the backwardness of the social policy --
discouraging marriage -- is obvious, and the marriage penalty is
particularly steep in this category. For example, two single parents, each
with one child and each earning $10,000, would receive about $2,500
through the tax credit; if they married, their tax benefits would drop by
more than $1,000.
Democrats, who somehow never managed to get traction with an argument
about the unfairness of the cuts before the bill was passed, are seizing
on the new attention to the child credit. Today Sens. Blanche L. Lincoln
(D-Ark.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) plan to introduce a bill that
would accelerate the credit, paid for by curbing corporate tax shelters
and imposing some user fees. We're looking forward to the debate.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
-------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe ARN-L:
http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html
George Sheridan
Northside School
Cool, California 95614
Post a Message to arn-l:
|