PDA

View Full Version : Compasionate Conservatism



Qtec
09-23-2004, 08:43 AM
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) sided with Democratic leaders in pushing for changes in the child tax credit to ensure that millions of poor families would not see their credits shrink or disappear next year.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) opposed the move, as did Sens. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.). That effectively scuttled changes to existing law.

The dust-up centers on an obscure provision in the 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut that Congress passed in 2001. That tax cut expanded the $500-per-child tax credit to $1,000, but it also made another child credit available as a tax refund to some poor families who pay little or no federal income taxes.

Such families were allowed to claim a child credit worth as much as 10 percent of their earnings over $10,000. But the 2001 law stipulated that the $10,000 threshold would rise with inflation, effectively slicing into or eliminating refunds for families whose income does not keep up with inflation. The threshold now stands at $10,750.

Because incomes at the bottom end of the workforce have largely stagnated, the rising threshold has had a significant impact, said Leonard E. Burman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. Of the 11 million families claiming the child tax refund, more than 4 million -- with 9.2 million children -- will see their credit shrink or disappear in 2005, Burman estimated.

Grassley and the Democrats argued that the tax package under consideration is designed to ensure that middle-class families do not see a tax increase next year. So, they asked, why should poor families?

"It's a symbolic point," said Christina Smith FitzPatrick, a senior policy analyst at the Women's Law Center. "You're making everybody better off except these people at the very bottom."

Grassley backed an amendment by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) that would have severed the link to inflation and set the threshold back to $10,000, at a cost to the Treasury of $4.3 billion over five years.

"I am continually astounded that some members of Congress don't understand how challenging it is to raise a family in today's economy," Lincoln protested. "While the cost of everything from milk to laundry detergent continues to rise, tax relief for low-income working families decreases."

But other Republicans balked, arguing that the government already helps working poor families with the earned-income tax credit and other tax rebates.

Nickles told negotiators that the largest tax refund program -- the earned-income tax credit -- is already riddled with abuse and mistaken payments, and that he did not wish to expand another tax refund program until those problems have been sufficiently addressed. House leaders have long argued that tax cuts are meant to be relief for taxpayers, not added welfare payments for those who do not pay income taxes.

Instead, they focused on a package of 20 expiring business taxes worth $13 billion, including a research and experimentation tax credit worth $7.6 billion through 2014, a $700 million tax credit for hiring welfare recipients, and smaller breaks to help Caribbean distillers, clean-fuel vehicle manufacturers, environmental remediation and wind energy, among others.



Obviously poor families dont vote Republican. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif


Q

Wally_in_Cincy
09-23-2004, 08:48 AM
Why should people who pay no taxes get a tax refund?

FYI Qtec, and trust me on this, most poor people in this country are poor because they choose to be poor.

Some people prefer to loaf thru life and have no money than to work hard and be middle-class. It's a lifestyle choice.

Seriously.

eg8r
09-23-2004, 08:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why should people who pay no taxes get a tax refund? <hr /></blockquote> This is a question that every liberal in the world sidesteps. I guess they just think the these people deserve it.

eg8r

landshark77
09-23-2004, 09:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Why should people who pay no taxes get a tax refund?

FYI Qtec, and trust me on this, most poor people in this country are poor because they choose to be poor.

Some people prefer to loaf thru life and have no money than to work hard and be middle-class. It's a lifestyle choice.

Seriously. <hr /></blockquote>

to quote all the famous rappers aout there: "true dat!"

nAz
09-23-2004, 09:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Why should people who pay no taxes get a tax refund?

FYI Qtec, and trust me on this, most poor people in this country are poor because they choose to be poor.

Some people prefer to loaf thru life and have no money than to work hard and be middle-class. It's a lifestyle choice.

Seriously. <hr /></blockquote>

we should draft them into the military and have them go out and fight for us, kind of like the ones that volunteer to join so they can get a way from poverty. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

pooltchr
09-23-2004, 10:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> provision in the 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut that Congress passed in 2001. ...but it also made another child credit available as a tax refund to some poor families who pay little or no federal income taxes.

But the 2001 law stipulated that the $10,000 threshold would rise with inflation, effectively slicing into or eliminating refunds for families whose income does not keep up with inflation.

tax relief for low-income working families decreases."
<font color="blue"> Damn, I just hate it when the government decides not to give out money for nothing to the poor folks who don't even pay taxes!!! </font color>

But other Republicans balked, arguing that the government already helps working poor families with the earned-income tax credit and other tax rebates.

the largest tax refund program -- the earned-income tax credit -- is already riddled with abuse and mistaken payments, and that he did not wish to expand another tax refund program until those problems have been sufficiently addressed. House leaders have long argued that tax cuts are meant to be relief for taxpayers, not added welfare payments for those who do not pay income taxes.
<font color="blue"> And those nasty republicans trying to do something to fix the tax codes rather than just handing out more money....It must be an evil right wing conspiracy! </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

mred477
09-23-2004, 02:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Why should people who pay no taxes get a tax refund? <hr /></blockquote>

It's a major difference in philosophy. Liberals believe that the government should have a right to your earnings, and when the government institutes a tax cut, they're just giving the rich "handouts". The real problem is that half the population has figured out that they can vote for more money. I posted a quote a while back about all great democracies failing because the people eventually learn that they can vote for more money, eventually leading to socialism, which leads to communism. It's happening here...maybe because most of our population is educated in government funded schools?

Will

JPB
09-23-2004, 07:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mred477:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Why should people who pay no taxes get a tax refund? <hr /></blockquote>

It's a major difference in philosophy. Liberals believe that the government should have a right to your earnings, and when the government institutes a tax cut, they're just giving the rich "handouts". The real problem is that half the population has figured out that they can vote for more money. I posted a quote a while back about all great democracies failing because the people eventually learn that they can vote for more money, eventually leading to socialism, which leads to communism. It's happening here...maybe because most of our population is educated in government funded schools?

Will <hr /></blockquote>


Public education as we do it is a massive problem and might be one reason we have gone commie. I don't think it is realistic to eliminate it however. What I would like to see is the elimination of all welfare programs and massive, massive tax cuts. If we did this we would be so rich and people would get such financial security that private schools would flourish. Public schools would cater to smaller populations of kids and might be better. But we're pretty far down the communist path now and it may be too late for our country. In my household, if it weren't for ridiculous taxes, we'd probably be financially secure by now. At least we'd have our house paid for and a whole lot more money invested. I'd say we would have no mortgage and at least 1500/mo passive income from investments already. Instead, we will have to work more years until we can retire because of the socialist thieves who steal our money by force. I hate paying massive sums of money to thieves. Hate it. And don't get me started on child credits. If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them. Very simple. Other people's kids are not my responsibility. I don't want my money stolen because people think it is neat to have 5 kids while earning 17000. Screw that.

landshark77
09-23-2004, 08:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> Public education as we do it is a massive problem and might be one reason we have gone commie. I don't think it is realistic to eliminate it however. What I would like to see is the elimination of all welfare programs and massive, massive tax cuts. If we did this we would be so rich and people would get such financial security that private schools would flourish. Public schools would cater to smaller populations of kids and might be better. But we're pretty far down the communist path now and it may be too late for our country. In my household, if it weren't for ridiculous taxes, we'd probably be financially secure by now. At least we'd have our house paid for and a whole lot more money invested. I'd say we would have no mortgage and at least 1500/mo passive income from investments already. Instead, we will have to work more years until we can retire because of the socialist thieves who steal our money by force. I hate paying massive sums of money to thieves. Hate it. And don't get me started on child credits. If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them. Very simple. Other people's kids are not my responsibility. I don't want my money stolen because people think it is neat to have 5 kids while earning 17000. Screw that. <hr /></blockquote>

I agree almost 100% with your statement/ beliefs, especially the child credit. However, I am not sure we should rid ourselves of ALL welfare programs. What about those folks who are unable to care for themselves? For example the mentally retarded? I believe that training programs and benefits to this population are warranted. Also children do need to be provided for. They can not help that they were born to scum. Provisions do need to get tighter for the children to receive money for clothes, shelter, and food. The benefits should be handled by an independent payee so that the parents have no opportunity to misappropriate funds. As far as public education goes, I understand that there are problems, but most of these problems could be handled IF parents actually parented instead of leaving it up to the schools. Schools are for learning, not baby sitting.

highsea
09-23-2004, 10:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote landshark77:</font><hr> Schools are for learning, not baby sitting.<hr /></blockquote>Too true. When I was in school, you got one meal, lunch. You either paid for it, or you brought your own. We had 5 kids, so my mom made our lunches before we went to school. At $.50 per lunch, my family couldn't afford hot lunches for all of us every day.

Nowdays, kids get breakfast and lunch free, and there is before and after school day care, all free (paid for by taxes).

We had 40 kids in a classroom, and by god you behaved or you got a swat. Today the teachers are screaming about any more than 20 kids in a classroom, and if the kids get out of hand, there is nothing the teachers can do about it. If they kick the kid out, they get sued by the parents.

My grandpa could do multiplication in his head up to 100x100. In his day, everyone could.

-CM

JPB
09-24-2004, 06:49 AM
"Also children do need to be provided for. They can not help that they were born to scum."


This is a tough one. Ideally if there were no welfare programs charity would take care of the truly, truly needy. If this didn't happen, there would be some problems. And I also think if we reformed our taxes these type of programs would be the last cut. And I might not mind paying so much, even though philosophically I think it is immoral to force anybody to pay anything to what is really a charity, no matter how justified the charity seems to be. Taxation for charity is simply theft by force. But anyway, think of all the money we would have if bogus programs like social security, medicare, farm subsidies, business subsidies and a million other garbage programs were eliminated? If on the local level zoning laws were relaxed so housing prices went down 10-50%. If higher education costs went down 50-80% because of reforming the student loan program? If costs of many items fell 3-5% because of fewer regulations. This country would be awash in wealth and would have enough to give to the truly needy. So I'd get rid of certain programs last, but still I am serious that you owe nothing to fellow people except to refrain from using illegal and immoral force on them. (That doesn't mean you shouldn't do something to help others, just that it is wrong when one group of citizens gets enough votes to use force on people to make tham pay for charity programs)