Leave it to Bob Herbert to not understand that people who don’t pay taxes, by definition, can’t get a tax cut.
*** Update ***
According to people I trust in the comments section, I am wrong. There are people who are paying more than payroll tax (8 Million of them) who are not receiving a cut. I want to know if this is from the original bill or due to ‘negotiations’ on the hill.
*** Update #2 ***
I guess I am not the only one ot misunderstand the tax cut. Paul Krugman doesn’t undertsand it either.
You might want to double check your assertion, old buddy:
“Asked about the exclusion of the child-care credit for low- and middle-income families, White House press spokesman Ari Fleischer reaffirmed that all taxpayers would receive tax cuts, because the people affected by the exclusion weren’t taxpayers. They were folks who received public assistance via the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program to help the working poor, who would merely have to settle for a little less cash than they would have received had there been no exclusion. But any low-income folks who earned enough to pay taxes would henceforth pay less.
That turned out not to be true. Researchers at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found 8.1 million tax filers would receive no tax cuts.”
John, you made this argument at Matthew Yglesias’ blog. Here’s what I wrote in response:
It’s important to get this point right. The tax cut was never going to be on payroll taxes, we all agree. Ari Fleicher said that the change only applied to people who recieved assistance through the Earned Income Tax Credit.
But it’s not true; there are 5.6 million people who pay more than $250 in income tax (not payroll tax) who will recieve no tax cut because of the last minute change. In fact, nearly half of taxpayers who pay between $250 and $750 recieve no tax cut. There are also 1.8 million tax payers who pay more than $1000 in income tax who will recieve no tax cut. Here’s the link.
If it was simply a matter of smaller refunds for low income workers, I guess that would be one thing, but that’s not what happened. This is a matter of priorities, and the Republicans did not make cutting taxes for lower income taxpayers a priority.
And to cut off what might or might not have been your next comment: yes, this is completely the fault of Republicans.
“A spokeswoman for the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, Christin Tinsworth, noted that the provision was included in an agreement reached last week by Representative Bill Thomas, Republican of California, the committee chairman, and Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.”
They could have gone a little bit over $350 billion, seeing how they only reached it with a series of wacky tricks. They could have lowered the top bracket to 35.3% instead of 35%. They could have done a lot of things, but what they chose to do is to fuck poor families and then lie about it. I have a hard time forgiving that.
Uh… what Ted and Barney said, John. The tax credits are being denied to low-income families that DO PAY TAXES.
Guess it’s the fault of those morally bankrupt poor people for daring to have children.
Next time you’re at work, or an airport, or a hotel, John, take a look at the guy or gal scrubbing out the toilets for $^ an hour. That’s the person the Bush League can’t afford to cut taxes for.
Please, John. You’re too smart and decent to buy into this WSJ “Lucky Ducky” crap.
Then I stand corrected. I would have been in favor of expanding the bill to 400 billion to make room for all of them- and the question remains, was this there in the original version, or was it removed because of the negotiations.
It’s because of the last minute negotiations. The original bill would have given them a tax cut.
John, the WSJ reports today that the 0-tax paying numbers increase 3mil., and the 10%, 15% and 25% brackets also ratchet up the income ladder. So low income tax payers benefit, just not with the increase in the partially refundable child credit ($600 grows to $1000). Now, if you exclude the 5.1 mil single taxpayers who would not benefit from the child credit in any case, the increase in non-tax paying workers is equivalent to the numbers of with kids tax payers claimed to be missing the benefit. Was the cut perfect, no; is the claimed imperfection as large as claimed, no, and quite probably within the statistical noise created by arbitrary rate cut-off points (a max of 3% of taxpayers?, assuming 100mil workers?). The policy consideration, limit the extent the tax code is a welfare mechanism. A valid consideration IMHO. (BTW, I worked nights to pay for the University of California degree I earned, flipping burgers at Jack-in-the-Box, then as a security guard. After I got my Degree, I moved out of the hourly wage, into the low salaried middle class — why do I mention this, experience shows me no one is stuck as a minimum wage earner who tries.)
Steve- Active Duty Army, then Nationl Guard a large variety of low wage jobs got me through school. We are in the same boat.
The outrage over this from the left started in regards to the rebate for those who claimed a child as a dependent. According to the link, 5 million of that number did not do so.
None of this debate points to the fact that NO ONE would have received a tax cut if the Democrats had their way.
Old lady #1: The food here tastes terrible!
Old lady #2: I know, and the portions are so small, too!
I would LOVE to pay $250-$750-$1000 in taxes. (And believe me, I’m not rich.)
Are you saying that NO ONE should have to pay any taxes if people who pay more taxes are getting a cut?
What is wrong with paying $250-$1000 in taxes? Don’t these people benefit from: national defense, highway/transportation, medicare/medicaid, etc., etc.?
I read an article by Mary Dalrymple, associated press that basically said they are going to try to pass a bill that make low-income families claim a refund worth 15 percent of the income. Is that true? I have two children working minimum wage, will I qualify for a tax rebate this summer?