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.

[F16Fighter]

"Your going to win anyhow, but you buy it [Water Works] anyhow just to take it off the table and NOW YOU OWN IT...And why prolong this thing?

Then when do we get to cash in all our crispy orange $500 bills before getting that pesky 'CHANCE' card -- the one where we have to pay assessments on all our houses and hotels...;-) Things can change pretty quickly in this "game."

[Republican Wildcat]

I saw that--Ford was out of control. LaHood was the acting speaker--he let Ford have it. If Ford hadn't of stopped when he did, he would have been thrown out.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

Why are you people so HATEFUL to those who don't make a lot of money? If you were talking about welfare losers who sit home and watch TV all day, I'd understand. But you are talking about people who go to work everyday. This attitude is disgusting, implying anyone who can't make $100,000 a year has no right to a family. Scream about the ones who are lazy, not the ones who try.

[rwfromkansas]

Um......I do not hate the people that try.

I am just saying why should a tax rebate be given to someone who does not pay them?

Quite frankly, I was making the assumption that the people getting this rebate are the welfare losers. To not pay any taxes at all, you are making almost nothing. Therefore, I assume that most of the people this rebate will be going to (the ones who are getting something for no taxes being paid, not the ones who actually deserve a rebate) are not living up to their full potential and are not trying very hard.

If someone is trying their best, but can't get a decent job, maybe they should get the rebate even if they pay no taxes. I do have compassion for those who try, but struggle to even live.

Don't assume.

[Consort]

You are wrong.

---

Your response says that but it doesn't show that.

---

We all pay sales taxes and other non-income taxes and fees. Payroll taxes are paid by purchasers, clients etc..

---

They are all taxes and not income taxes, so they all apply to my suggestion.

---

This was supposed to be an "income" tax refund not a give away from producers to non-producers.

---

You obviously copied the wrong answer from a previous poster. I'm not talking about the leaches who never give and only take. I'm talking about people who don't pay income taxes but who work and produce at jobs and have payroll taxes paid for their work and who pay sales taxes and other taxes and fees. That is the money I'm referring to, not the money that you and I pay as income taxes. Doesn't the GOP want people to keep more of their tax money? If so, then a working person who doesn't earn enough to pay income tax still has to pay other taxes and should also be able to keep more of their tax money. Yes? No? Why?

[staytrue]

Bush believes as I do that any tax cut or credit is a better idea than letting the govt. keep it.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

These guys are Stupid, First thing I would do is bring all the families that would get tax cuts under the plan just passed and show the savings on 1 card $1,000 per year. $2,000 per year then I would have a bunch of $0 Cards representing the Dems tax cut for everyone.

2. I would say we thought this $350 Billion figure meant something but since it was really nothing other than a ploy say we will extend some of the other tax cut provisions thru 2005 now.

[genxer]

Your straight up wrong Sorry. This is a tax "refund" for people who did not pay taxes. They aren't taking about sales tax, or taxes on groceries. Its the IRS/Fed giving these folks who didn't pay a $400 check, free money; your money. If you choose to give a poor person a check for $400 than that is great and your business to do it.

Its nothing more than income redistribution program. Period. Socialism/Communism at its finest. And what sucks is there is no way to stop it.

I'm so p'd over this I can't see straight.

[Consort]

Its the IRS/Fed giving these folks who didn't pay a $400 check, free money; your money.

I don't like it either, if it's totally the case. Can we say that the $400 is coming from only from us to pay them? Or, can we say that the $400 is coming from the sales taxes and other non-income taxes that those people already paid and from any payroll taxes paid on their wages?

If you choose to give a poor person a check for $400 than that is great and your business to do it.

If I am paying then so are you whether we choose to or not.

[goldstategop]

The GOP couldn't even get the Democrats to agree to make the credit permanent. At least the Senate GOP couldn't. I hope it'll be DOA in the House.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

I wasn't assuming. I was responding to the real comments you and others have made on this thread.
Actually the people on welfare may not get this rebate, just as they DON'T get the EIC. The EIC is based on income, it has a low income limit as well as the upper income limit. I can't remember exactly what it is right this minute. I want to say $3000 or so.
And someone who is on the low income level who doesn't pay federal income taxes still pays state, county, sales, excise, wheel, gasoline and God knows what other taxes many states and cities have passed. I don't gripe about a few hundred bucks going to these people. I would much rather the money go to them than the arts groups who support porn, vulgarity and blasphemy.

[Hank Rearden]

I hope GW vetos this piece of crap.

Like he vetoed farm subsidies for Welfare Farmers?

Like he vetoed steel tariffs to subsidize inefficient steel companies?

Like he vetoed unconstitutional Campaign Finance "Reform"?

Yeah. Like that.

[biblewonk]

Biblewonk, I think you're the right man, eminently qualified for this job. Care to weigh in?

If this is about minimum wage earners with kids I'd have to say this is all show and now go. It makes the dems look good to the women and teens out there that actually think there are a lot of minimum wage earning families.

I suppose that if a person making 50k/year and having 8 kids gets a negative tax liability it doesn't make sense that someone with 2 kids making 20K year shouldn't also.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Yes, it would be better to do it that way. It's easier, though, to take your money and give it to people the government is sure will spend it, than to spend resources enforcing a law that states you have to consume a certain amount of your wealth.

[HELLRAISER II]

I don't know man, as a taxpaying Republican I don't feel like I even got any Vaseline. We were just reamed.

[newgeezer]

I suppose that if a person making 50k/year and having 8 kids gets a negative tax liability it doesn't make sense that someone with 2 kids making 20K year shouldn't also.

Well, okay. Except there's that little matter of the Earned Income Credit which your "someone" is already getting, and which I presume your "person" is not. But, thanks to our feelings-driven electorate and the demagoguing and grandstanding which occur for the very purpose of appealing to them, any mention of such a technicality is sure to fall on deaf ears.

Regardless, I thought said "person" would have answered that zany "does anyone really think we need to give low income individuals another reason to procreate?" question.

[genxer]

Bottom line, these people didn't qualify, because they didn't pay into the system.

They've got back 100 percent of what was taken out of their paychecks and then some. If you are saying that they are entitled to this money because their employer paid a payroll tax for them that's even more wrong.

I'm not sure what sales tax you are talking about because last time I checked we didn't have a national sales tax, just local.

On giving $400 I meant that is if you wanted to make a charitible contribution, like to a church to sponser a family.

I'm getting the feeling that you feel these people have a right to get back more than what they paid in. Keep in mind may already qualify for earn income tax credits which yeilds them $4000 in a redistributed income check.

Its insanity. You don't give people back more than they pay in period. Its a welfare program plain an simple.

[Consort]

Bottom line, these people didn't qualify, because they didn't pay into the system.

---

Qualify for what? I'm not talking about income tax refunds. I'm talking about tax money that was actually paid in any kind of tax: state, federal, city.....

---

They've got back 100 percent of what was taken out of their paychecks and then some.

---

My point is that any taxes they pay should be considered as relevant to any money they get, just like the income tax you pay is relevant to the refund you get.

---

If you are saying that they are entitled to this money because their employer paid a payroll tax for them that's even more wrong.

---

I don't know if they are entitled to anything. I'm saying that if it's good to let people keep more of their tax money, which it is, then why stop at income taxes only? If low income workers can keep some of the tax money (any tax money) they pay, they will spend it, which is the purpose refunds, at least in part.

---

I'm not sure what sales tax you are talking about because last time I checked we didn't have a national sales tax, just local.

---

Go back and read the thread to find out which taxes I'm talking about.

---

I'm getting the feeling...

---

Try your best not to get those feelings.

---

Keep in mind may already qualify for earn income tax credits which yeilds them $4000 in a redistributed income check. Its insanity. You don't give people back more than they pay in period. Its a welfare program plain an simple.

---

I gave my opinion of all that (welfare) stuff above.

[SouthParkRepublican]

“I take offense to your crazy comment about poor people having the right to procreate.

You should read a little more carefully. I never said anything about their RIGHT to procreate but was wondering if we should give them another REASON to procreate. I have no problem with low wage earners having children so long as they are responsible and plan on providing for them. I don’t even have a problem if irresponsible people want to have kids, just don’t ask me to open my wallet.

We have quite a bit of subsidized housing in my town and for the most part it is single women 20’s-30’s who you can usually see with two or three kids in tow. Some are on welfare, some work low paying jobs but all are already getting a “break” in one form or another (subsidized housing, food stamps, daycare). Are some of these people just down on their luck for the time being? Sure, but that’s the exception not the rule. Most of them don’t care about the onus they are placing on the rest of us when it comes to footing the bills and incentives like an additional 400 bucks for people working at McDonalds wont discourage them from having more kids they cant afford.

You and I are on the same page however when it comes to any tax cut being a good tax cut. I just don’t think that a person who winds up paying no Federal Tax should be entitled to get money (back) that was contributed by others.

[freekitty]

I agree with you. Why should people who don't pay taxes get a refund? I smell something fishy here. And yes, the Republicans folded yet again.