1
   

$318 Billion Deal Is Set in Congress for Cutting Taxes

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 12:15 pm
Blind is as blind does - <sigh>
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 08:41 am
Scrat wrote:
This tax cut goes to everyone.

This tax cut will help the economy.

This tax cut will spur growth and increase tax revenues into the federal government.

Now, anyone got an argument on a point I've made?


Yes...the last two statements first:

The last tax cut did neither of these things. What's the basis for your assertion that this one will?

Now, about 'everyone':

This next is from the NYT, so they could be lying about it, but I actually trust what they say more than Ari, for what that's worth:

Quote:


New York Times

So, either they're lying (imagine that) or they're uninformed about the legislation they just forced through (imagine that).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 09:44 am
PDid, Read almost the same article in the San Jose Mercury News this morning. I guess these newspapers can't be relied upon to tell the truth about this "new" tax cut. c.i.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 10:14 am
PDiddie
Quote:
In the first category are taxpayers in the 10 percent bracket who have no children and no dividend or capital gains income. This group, which constitutes 89 percent of all single taxpayers in the lowest bracket, do not benefit from the expansion of the 10 percent bracket because they are already in it. They have no children, so they do not get the child credit, and they do not benefit from the law's relief for married couples. Members of this group, who make $9,300 to $13,800 a year, now pay up to $600 in income taxes.


That statement can be misleading. I would like to have seen a breakdown not an all encompassing statement.
I do know one of the points of contention is the tax credit for low income wage earners. That was the giving $400 per child up to two to people who paid no tax. That is welfare not tax relief. I am all for helping the poor and disadvantaged but it is misleading to call that a tax cut or tax relief.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 10:20 am
Quote:
Working poor shafted in a tax cut footnote
By Thomas Oliphant, 6/1/2003
WASHINGTON: THE EVIDENCE of the greedy deed was hidden in plain sight
In a footnote - number 4 on Page 4 of the congressional report spelling out the details of the latest tax cut - it was ''explained'' in typical legislative gibberish:
''The increase in refundability of the taxpayer's earned income, scheduled for calendar year 2005 and thereafter, is not accelerated under the provision.''
In plain English, in the key section of legislation that speeds up tax benefits not scheduled to take effect for a few years, the working poor with children under 17 were being singled out for rejection.
With that one footnote, congressional Republicans and the Bush White House that supervised every detail of their final work, families with roughly 12 million children who work for the minimum wage and a little more got intentionally shafted.
This has happened before. In the first Bush tax cut two years ago, families with another 8 million kids were kept from benefiting from any increase in the children's tax credit. Putting the two actions together, President Bush and his Republican rubber stamps in Congress have managed to sock it to 20 million poor kids - constituting half of all the African-American children in this country and at least 40 percent of the Latinos.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/152/oped/Working_poor_shafted_in_a_tax_cut_footnote+.shtml
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 10:48 am
BillW, Some people just refuse to see the light of day. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 11:19 am
PD - If you can't see that the economy is already on the rebound, then you don't want to see it.

Clearly, the increase in tax revenues will lag--not precede--that turn-around, so of course you have not seen it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 01:45 pm
Scrat, I'll believe the economy is on the rebound when 1) the market uptick is based on profits, 2) the unemployment rate is below five percent for more than one year, and 3) the travel industry isn't on the brink of bankruptcy. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 08:58 pm
I've seen a lot of people comment that the tax cut recently passed will not benefit everyone.

Does every law passed in the U.S. have to benefit every citizen?

Similarly, should the welfare programs be criticised because they do not benefit the taxpayers?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 10:58 pm
Jim, You have evidently missed the rhetoric expoused by this administration that "everybody will benefit." When they removed the poor from the "child tax credit increase from $600 to $1,000, they changed that to "everybody who pays taxes will benefit." And even that isn't totally true. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 11:50 pm
CI - point well taken. But what's wrong about a program that benefits taxpayers?

I don't benefit from Food Stamps. But I've never suggested that program be eliminated because I don't benefit from it.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 12:23 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Scrat, I'll believe the economy is on the rebound when 1) the market uptick is based on profits, 2) the unemployment rate is below five percent for more than one year, and 3) the travel industry isn't on the brink of bankruptcy. c.i.

I too could define success in such a way that we would be far from it today.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 12:25 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Jim, You have evidently missed the rhetoric expoused by this administration that "everybody will benefit." When they removed the poor from the "child tax credit increase from $600 to $1,000, they changed that to "everybody who pays taxes will benefit." And even that isn't totally true. c.i.

1) Why should someone who doesn't pay taxes benefit from a tax cut? (If you think they should, why not give the child tax credit to people who don't have children? You got something against single people?)

2) How is "that" not "totally true"?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 08:04 am
Jim
Quote:
Similarly, should the welfare programs be criticized because they do not benefit the taxpayers?

Is there something wrong with helping the needy? No indeed! However, the legislation was billed as tax relief and not welfare.

Talking about an unfair tax, I know nobody asked but let me throw this out. Not too long ago a law was enacted to tax social security at 50% when income reached a certain plateau. Subsequently it was raised to 85% when it reached another plateau. In all this tax cutting repeal, has never been considered. That would be addressing a tax issue.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 08:13 am
I should add the funds collected as a result of taxing of Social Security go into general tax revenues. They should have at the very least be returned to SS. But I guess that is to be expected since SS is collected from your pay that has already been taxed, why not again?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:35 am
FYI, single mothers or fathers paying income taxes are exempt from this tax relief. c.i.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:53 am
c.i.


Quote:
FYI, single mothers or fathers paying income taxes are exempt from this tax relief. c.i.


That I agree is inexplicable
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 10:23 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
FYI, single mothers or fathers paying income taxes are exempt from this tax relief. c.i.

I don't believe you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 10:50 am
Scrat, Do your homework. c.i.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 11:08 am
c.i. just provide a link.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 07:39:04