G-Dubya? Why are you hiding the TRUTH about your "tax cut"??

[Gimpy]

Republican "politics" at their best!

Check THIS out.

****************************

White House shelved deficit report

Study commissioned by O?Neill sees $44 trillion in red ink

By Peronet Despeignes
FINANCIAL TIMES

WASHINGTON, May 29 ? The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the U.S. currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totaling at least $44 trillion in current U.S. dollars.
THE STUDY, the most comprehensive assessment of how the U.S. government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the ?baby boom? generation?s future healthcare and retirement costs, was commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O?Neill.
But the Bush administration chose to keep the findings out of the annual budget report for fiscal year 2004, published in February, as the White House campaigned for a tax-cut package that critics claim will expand future deficits.
The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase.
The study was being circulated as an independent working paper among Washington think-tanks as President George W. Bush on Wednesday signed into law a 10-year, $350 billion tax-cut package he welcomed as a victory for hard-working Americans and the economy.
The analysis was spearheaded by Kent Smetters, then-Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy, and Jagdessh Gokhale, then a consultant to the Treasury. Mr. Gokhale, now an economist for the Cleveland Federal Reserve, said: ?When we were conducting the study, my impression was that it was slated to appear [in the Budget]. At some point, the momentum builds and you think everything is a go, and then the decision came down that we weren?t part of the prospective budget.?
Mr. O?Neill, who was fired last December, refused to comment.

The study?s analysis of future deficits dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington. It is roughly equivalent to 10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of U.S. economic output or more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets. Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman, last week bemoaned what he called Washington?s ?deafening? silence about the future crunch.
President Bush signed into law a $350 billion tax-cut package on Wednesday saying:? ?We can say loud and clear to the American people: You got more of your own money to spend so that this economy can get a good wind behind it.?
Laurence Kotlikoff, an expert on long-term budget accounting, alleged in a recent Boston Globe editorial that the Bush administration suppressed the research to ease passage of the tax-cut plan.

*********************************

[ABNCIB]

How is he hiding anything, Gimpy? First of all the Financial Times is the Al-jazeera of the business world and rabidly anti-Bush. If Bush planted roses and passed out bags of money to homeless people, FT would claim the bags were dirty and the roses were full of aphids.

The truth about the tax cut is that working Americans will get substantial tax relief - me included. What needs to be cut is uncontrolled spending in Congress. And if the tax cut was so bad, why didn't Daschle, et al, filibuster the bill? They're quick to filibuster non-white judicial nominees, why not bad legislation? because the truth is that this tax cut is good for Americans and the Dems don't want to be seen taking money from the pockets of working Americans.

[blues clues]

Gimpy this one time I will have to agree with the rupblicans, they say that only the working people will get a tax cut and get anything back from the government,seeing how sence the rupblicans have been in control of the government over 1.5million jobs have been lost so there isn't that many people working three hims for dubby him, him,f--k him.


razz

[Gimpy]

But you've been brainwashed again by G-Dubyas propaganda machine. You must mean ONLY those working americans making MORE than $27,000 per year---cause the proverbial "cat" is out of the bag so to speak! Seems the "deal" that was cut by the Republican congressional leadership and his whitehouse cronies decided that THOSE folks making less than that will NOT get that wonderful tax break! Soooooooooooooo, it appears that its the "same old, same old" with the republicans--the folks who REALLY need a "break" won't be getting one after all---what a surprise!! Yea RIGHT!

[1IDVET]

Gimpy,
Those folks that are below $27,000, aren't paying a lot of taxes. Your agument doesn't wash.

"Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income."

Here's a pretty picture:

[Gimpy]

But YOUR arguement doesn't "wash"!

If you don't think that a "tax" break would help someone who makes less than $27,000 (barely above the poverty level for a family of three or four) a lot more than someone making $100,000 a year then you must be one of the folks that met with G-dubya and the republican congressional leadership when arriving at their "closed door" comprimise! Try and "explain" that "paltry" sum of taxes these folks are paying and see if THEY will accept that kind of "reasoning" or "logic" when it comes to what they are NOT going to receive compared to those who will get a tax break!

Typical republican nonsense!

[blues clues]

Good morning guys, Hi, gimpy did some math last night on this so called tax cut my wife will get 2.40 a month or about 31.20 a year. kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. right now we're trying to decide weather to spend it or put it in a CD,or in the stocksor bonds what do you think I really need your help on this one.
razz

[MORTARDUDE]

are a fact now..the checks will got out in July..and the tax tables will be cut accordingly...spending is the problem...always has been..Jimmy Carter got this one right... zero based budgeting.. but with "pork"..will never happen...the tax revenues will continue to roll in.... find a new topic to to talk about....please !!

Larry

P.S : Those making less than $ 26,000 with children already have the Earned Income Tax Credit....a portion of which is suspected to be fraudulent...

[ABNCIB]

Gimpy -
What "cat"?
People who make under $27k and have children get the Earned Income Credit. My step daughter (a single mother) had $1200 witheld from her pay last year for Federal Income tax and got over $5000 back. Why would she need another $400 check?

The truth is that people who make <$27k pay little or no tax as it is. They're in the NEW (thank you, GWB ) 10% tax bracket and with the expanded standard deduction for married couples (thank you, GWB ), their tax bill is ZILCH .

C'mon, Gimpster, you know me better than that. How long has been since we've had a good knock-down drag out?

[MORTARDUDE]

for those who have an OPEN MIND !!!!!!!!

VERITAS, oh sweet VERITAS !!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rosen: Why Dems hate tax cuts
May 30, 2003

No, opposition to the Bush tax cuts by partisan Democrats and media liberals isn't really because they're too large. In fact, they're relatively small.

>>>> At $350 billion over 10 years, the cut is only about 1 percent of the federal budget and one-quarter of 1 percent of gross domestic product.
>>>>>> And the tax cuts don't inordinately favor the rich, per se. They simply favor income tax payers (who happen to be inordinately rich).

>>>>>>>>>>

Nonetheless, under the new law, a family of four earning $40,000 will be virtually eliminated from the income tax rolls, with its tax bill slashed by 96 percent, from $1,178 all the way down to $45.

>>>>>>>>>>

A family earning $200,000 will save $3,000, a cut of only 9 percent, while still paying $32,000 in income taxes. Yes, a $3,000 cut is greater than a $1,000 cut, which is why we use percentages to objectively compare dissimilar amounts. People who don't pay income taxes - about half the population - will get no income tax relief. How could they?

Other elements of the tax cut of little interest to the rich but with a big impact on lower- and middle-income taxpayers are the increase in the per-child tax credit of $400 a year and the elimination of the marriage penalty for couples taking the standard deduction. All stockholders will benefit from the cut in tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

In order to understand the real nature of liberal grousing over the scaled-down version of the president's tax plan, one must fathom the mentality of the Democratic Party and its political coalition.

Democrats are opposed to tax cuts for the rich when the economy is booming. They're also opposed to tax cuts for the rich when the economy is sagging. They're opposed when there's a federal budget surplus and when there's a deficit. In other words, Democrats are ideologically opposed to tax cuts for the rich, period.

>>>>>>>

To Democrats, the income tax exists as a tool to perpetually redistribute income from people who have more to people who have less. Some call this socialism.


>>>>>>

If you divide the population into two classes: net tax payers and net tax users, the breakpoint is somewhere around $55,000 in annual income for a family of four (the top 25 percent of taxpayers who pay 84 percent of total income taxes). Below that, the value of government services you receive, directly and indirectly, exceeds what you pay in taxes. Above that, you're a net tax payer. The voter base of the Democratic Party is made up largely of tax users.

>>>>>>

In fact, there are relatively few rich people in this country. Only 2 percent of taxpayers earn more than $200,000 a year. While this group accounts for 27 percent of individual income, it already bears 46 percent of the nation's total income tax burden. How much more can you soak them?

So Democrats have to dig deeper. To fund their vision of the welfare state, they're forced to expand their working (but unstated) definition of "rich" to include millions of two-income families with combined incomes between $75,000-$100,000. Some of those families with three kids in college might not think of themselves as rich. And some who make less than that aspire to make more someday, and would like to keep it when they do. Now you understand why Democrats who play the politics of envy are careful to avoid defining "rich" in specific dollar terms.

>>>>>>>>>

Democrats don't have a viable economic growth program. Their time-dishonored snake oil is to create the illusion of short-term consumer demand by redistributing income or debt from one economic sphere to another.

>>>>>>>>>

In our $10 trillion economy, a few hundred billion of government largess is not the answer. The Bush tax cuts aren't a panacea, but they're a step in the right direction. Their contribution, in the short run, will be to provide immediate incentives for work, savings, investment and job creation that will pay huge dividends in the longer run. That's the path to real economic growth and prosperity.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA.

[Gimpy]

well here's another "viewpoint"!

********************************


David Lazarus Wednesday, May 28, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I have a kid at home, so we'll be getting a $400 tax-cut check from the federal government this summer.

Thanks, Mr. President.

I have a kid at home, so he can look forward to being saddled with a budget deficit of as much as $2.7 trillion a decade from now, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

He can look forward to a national government with such onerous debt obligations that it barely has enough money for schools, health care and social programs.

He can look forward to such a huge shortfall in government revenue that the limit on federal debt had to be raised last week by nearly $1 trillion (to $7. 4 trillion) to prevent the United States from defaulting on its loans.

Thanks, Mr. President.

I've written on this subject before and I don't mean to cover old ground. But it's astounding that so little attention is being paid to this potentially catastrophic problem as President Bush and his Republican pals continue hacking away at America's tax base.

The House and Senate approved a $350 billion tax cut last week. That's less than half the amount sought by the White House, but Bush has already signaled he'll be pushing for additional cuts every year for the foreseeable future.

The president, who already has slashed federal taxes by $1.35 trillion, will sign the latest tax cut into law today.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal budget deficit will top $300 billion this year -- a record high -- and this doesn't even include the new tax cut.

Experts say that factoring in today's cut will push this year's deficit close to $400 billion. That translates to about 4 percent of the $10.5 trillion U.S. economy, which isn't as worrisome as the almost 5 percent ratio racked up by the first President Bush's $290 billion deficit.

Then again, we've never run shortfalls of this magnitude for such a prolonged period of time.

"We are obviously going to have deficits as far out as the eye can see," said Michael Lehmann, an economics professor at the University of San Francisco. "That means we'll have to keep borrowing funds to pay our debts, and the deficit thus continues to increase."

Bush, of course, sees things differently. The disadvantages of deficits, he says, are far outweighed by the advantages of tax cuts.

"We believe the more money people have in their pockets, the more likely it is somebody is going to be able to find work in America," Bush said last week.

This would be because people go out and spend all their newfound cash, thus increasing demand for goods and services, thus bolstering corporate bottom lines, thus creating more jobs.

That's the idea anyway. The problem here is that Bush's tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the wealthy, who already have little difficulty buying whatever they please.

"If your goal is to boost spending and create jobs, the tax cut doesn't make much sense economically," Lehmann said. "If you really want to boost spending, you give more money to the lower-income folks."

Today's cuts will save average middle-class households just $217, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Those earning $1 million annually will score an average $93,500.

In other words, two-thirds of the tax break will go to the top 10 percent of wage earners.

For the record, Bush reported income last year of $856,056. Vice President Dick Cheney, who cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the tax-cut bill in the Senate, reported income of $1.2 million.

Alan Auerbach, a UC Berkeley economist, said it's too soon to dismiss the stimulative power of Bush's latest tax cut.

"It could have some benefit over the short run," he said. "Over the long run, though, it's going to be very damaging."

Debt payments for runaway budget deficits, Auerbach observed, siphon money away from other uses, such as hiring more teachers for overcrowded public schools or providing health care for the needy. They also drive up interest rates.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned last week that rising interest rates will harm the economy by making money more expensive for consumers and businesses.

"Deficits do matter," he said. "In any evaluation of a program, what happens to deficits is an integral part of the analysis."

As it stands, Auerbach and other economists believe Bush is deliberately using record deficits as a lever to reduce government spending. By this thinking, congressional leaders will have no choice in the future but to trim expenditures.

"That could be the case," Auerbach said. "But it's going to be very, very painful. We're talking about massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Without cutting defense or implementing tax increases, that's the only place the money can come from."

I have a kid at home. This is the future he can look forward to: A staggering debt level and a social safety net so tattered that all but the most financially independent slip through the holes.

"That sounds about right," Auerbach said. "It's a depressing prospect."

Thanks, Mr. President.


******************************

Now THAT'S the REAL "truth"!

[ABNCIB]

Horse hockey. Were the Democrats so concerned when there were deficits in the early 90s and they tried to pass the National Healthcare Plan?

If Democrats weren't able to get behind the tax cuts of 2001 - before the War on Terrorism and when there were surpluses everywhere, when exactly WILL they get behind a tax cut?

The easy answer is; NEVER.

[MM38084]

Gimpy,
Glad to see your still stirring the pot.

Bob :)

[bbeil]

Well I was a "Bureaucratic Department Head" for many years until I retired. I was under the gun on the "Zero Based Budget" and other brainstorm budgets that are created for political headlines to appease the taxpayer.
What I learned under different administrations - Republican & Democratic - was, spend all that has been appropriated or we can't ask for an increase the next fiscal year and that my friends is the whole truth of the way the system works.

[judyvillecco]

Dem's/Reps- I'm self employed and I pay 15% self employment tax (call it what you want!) plus medicare tax (call it what you want). No one gets off with no tax...let's get that straight! This amount has steadily gone up up and up and I have never made $200,000! If the Dems want to help me out so be it. The Republicans never have! They help their corporate buddies and anybody who is a working stiff who thinks different is fooling themselves! We vote our wallet and they spend it as fast as they can!

[1IDVET]

Originally posted by Gimpy But YOUR arguement doesn't "wash"!

If you don't think that a "tax" break would help someone who makes less than $27,000 (barely above the poverty level for a family of three or four) a lot more than someone making $100,000 a year then you must be one of the folks that met with G-dubya and the republican congressional leadership when arriving at their "closed door" comprimise! Try and "explain" that "paltry" sum of taxes these folks are paying and see if THEY will accept that kind of "reasoning" or "logic" when it comes to what they are NOT going to receive compared to those who will get a tax break!

Typical republican nonsense!

I was going to respond to this, but it seems as if ABNCIB and MORTARDUDE, have already given the answer.
So much for the typical liberal nonsense! :D

[blues clues]

I for one just don't understand some of the people around here, they say only the rich pay the taxes if this is so why don't the rupblicans who are in control of both houses of government repeal the payroll with wholding tax that would put more money into every body's hands! I'll tell you why if they did away with this tax people would find out just who is paying what.
But to those who think it alright to spent their kids/ grandkid future with an over powering debt,then I for one don't understand your logic.

razz

[the humper]

to subside a discussion of this nature, is to vote the local "village idiot" (congress or senate) OUT!!!!!!
SF
NC

[Gimpy]

what you're talking about!!!

***************************
For the needy, a poor excuse


Cynthia Tucker---Atlanta Journal & Constitution


It is unfashionable to be poor in America. Even workers just a paycheck away from being poverty-stricken themselves -- an illness, a layoff, a car accident away from having the electricity turned off -- are contemptuous of those just beneath them on the socioeconomic ladder.

The Horatio Alger myth is so powerful that one's fortune is either in the bank or in the near future. Hard times are just a temporary condition -- or so people believe. A Time-CNN poll during the 2000 presidential elections asked voters whether they were in the top 1 percent of income earners. Nineteen percent responded that they were, a statistical impossibility. Who said it's lonely at the top?

Perhaps that explains why it has been remarkably easy for the GOP to launch an all-out assault on the poor. With little opposition, the Bush administration and hard-right Republicans in Congress are squeezing or eliminating essential programs that assist the poor -- from the HOPE VI program, which has razed slums and rebuilt them as mixed-income communities, to Medicaid, which provides health care.

Now, according to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group, Congress has excluded millions of families earning just above minimum wage from the increased child tax credit in the new $350 billion tax cut bill.

President Bush's second tax cut, like his first, mostly benefits the rich; the president didn't bother to extend the increased child tax credit, from $600 to $1,000, to families earning minimum wage, though more affluent families will receive it. The Senate, however, included minimum wage families in their version of the bill. That tax break was among the few provisions in the gargantuan tax cut bill that even resembled economic stimulus, since working families are more likely than the rich to spend the money right away on necessities.

But in the last-minute negotiations between ultra-conservative Republicans and their moderate counterparts, millions of families earning between $10,500 and $26,625 annually were once again cut out of the increased child tax credit. In other words, the refund checks, which will average $400 per child, will not go to those who need it most. (Families earning less than $10,500 a year were not eligible for the tax credits because they pay no federal income taxes.) It was a deeply cynical maneuver.

Let's be clear: The families denied the child tax credit work for a living. Still, they barely earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. It's difficult to pay the bills when you earn little more than $5.15 an hour.

Yet, those workers do essential jobs: They feed, bathe and change the elderly in nursing homes; they dig ditches for construction sites; they clean bathrooms in airports and school buildings; they scrub floors in hotels; they cut poultry and pork on grueling assembly lines. They are hardly layabouts.

Their labor was once considered honorable. Hardworking men and women who earned a living with their hands and their backs were celebrated as the heart and soul of the American economy. But that was before Ronald Reagan changed the terms of political debate, castigating the poor as lazy, un-American louts responsible for their own sorry lot. It was the most dramatic refashioning of political thought since FDR's New Deal delivered working Americans to the Democratic Party.

Senate negotiators claimed they couldn't extend the increase in child tax credits to minimum-wage families, which would have cost an additional $3.5 billion, because they had to hold the tax cut package to $350 billion. These are the same people who, this year, will spend $300 billion they don't have -- the largest budget deficit in history. It's ironic that the Monopoly money won't stretch all the way to the hands that really need it.

But that was never seriously considered. Not in America -- where, if the myth is to be believed, those poor families just need to dig a few more ditches to earn their own stock dividends.

*************************

Maybe NOW you'll "understand" what the REAL truth is about those so-called "compassionate conservatives"!!!

[1IDVET]

Yes, it benefits the "rich", the top 5% who pay 56.47% of all income taxes; the top 10% who pay 67.33% of all income taxes; the top 25% who pay 84.01% of all income taxes. And last but certainly not least the top 50% who pay 96.09% of all income taxes.
Those folks that are not in the top 50%, pay how much tax?
3.81%.
So, 50% of the population pays 3.81% of the nations taxes, and I am supposed to feel sorry for them, because they aren't getting the largest cut?
The reason they use percentages vs. hard numbers is evident.
Give me a break! :re:

[MORTARDUDE]

U are beating a way-old-dead horse my friend !! Give it up !!

Larry

[ABNCIB]

So now I'm rich? This tax cut saves me 1700 bucks/year. But I guess because my wife and I get to keep our own money, that makes us rich. I think maybe I'll send my tax cut to the RNC and get some more tax cuts, then. Beats me why everyone's so damn set against tax cuts - guess it's $$-envy.

[Lady Creffield]

The figures have been stated several times already, and ignored as often as they were posted, so I see no point in that anymore.

As for demonizing the "rich.."

"Yet, those workers do essential jobs: They feed, bathe and change the elderly in nursing homes; they dig ditches for construction sites; they clean bathrooms in airports and school buildings; they scrub floors in hotels; they cut poultry and pork on grueling assembly lines. They are hardly layabouts."

Of course they're essential jobs. But no more important than any other--

The "rich"found thenursing homes, theypay forthe building of airports and school buildings; they build the hotels...

The "rich" were once considered honorable. Youwere not expected to become a multibillionaire, a uber-successful entrepreneur, but if you did you were respected. Achievements were not stigmatized. People accepted the need for these movers and shakers, the men and women behind the scenes of the economy; they knew that someone had to direct, to lead. Butthat was before so-called liberalsdemonized the rich, turned them into monstrous pigs that exploited you and took the flesh from your bones for the sake of lining their pockets with gold.

Workers are the heart and soul of America. The "rich" (anyone who makes over approximately 30,000 dollars, according to some) do not begrudge them their position---because they are secure in the knowledge that they are the mind of America.Tear away either and we die.

How is it unjust that the "rich" get more in tax cuts? Ineffective, maybe; I can see how you would think that. But unfair? How will you contest 1IDVET's statistics? You can't get anything back if you don't pay anything in the first place.

[blues clues]

AS repeal the pay roll tax then we'll see who pays for what, and John I'm happy for you and your wife more power to you.but if you think that the RICH or the only ones who pay you're nut's.
razz

[ABNCIB]

Originally posted by blues clues AS repeal the pay roll tax then we'll see who pays for what, and John I'm happy for you and your wife more power to you.but if you think that the RICH or the only ones who pay you're nut's.
razz

I know who pays, but I'm just doubting that YOU know who pays. My wife and I pay over $20k/year in either direct taxes or in contributions to 401ks to lower our tax bill. We're not rich, we're just two working Americans trying to keep our heads above water like everyone else. Why would it make you happy to see ANYONE pay more taxes - unless of course you're a Communist who doesn't think anyone should have more money than anyone else?

[Gimpy]

Here's the REAL "truth" about this tax cut----and ABN, I'm NOT against you or most american working class families and individuals getting a tax cut--just the WAY this cut was distributed (or lack of for that matter)!

*************************
2nd Study Finds Gaps in Tax Cuts
By DAVID FIRESTONE
New York Times

Sunday 01 June 2003

WASHINGTON, May 31 ? A new study by groups critical of the tax law that President Bush signed on Wednesday has found that 8 million mostly low-income taxpayers will not receive any benefit from the law.

Republicans have said for weeks that the new tax law was designed to benefit all those who pay income taxes.

This is the second time since Congress passed the bill that critics have pointed out how some of its provisions would not help millions of people in the lowest tax brackets. In response to earlier disclosures about the complex bill's fine print, the Senate's chief Republican writer of tax legislation said on Friday that Congress should revise at least some of the law's provisions, involving child tax credits, to broaden their effect.

The new analysis says that the taxpayers who get nothing from the tax law are primarily low-income single people who do not have children and lack income from dividends or capital gains. A large number of low- and moderate-income single parents with children over 16 will also get no benefit from the law, because it did not change the tax rate for such parents who are unmarried.

The study was conducted by two groups who have been critical of the law, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which is affiliated with the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group.

Last week, the two groups, along with Citizens for Tax Justice, found that 6.5 million minimum-wage families ? with nearly 12 million children ? would not receive the $400-per-child increase in the child tax credit contained in the new law. The families were left out of the tax law in last-minute Congressional negotiations over how much to cut the tax on stock dividends and capital gains, while keeping the entire bill under the Senate limit of $350 billion.

In combination with the children who were cut from the bill's benefits by the Congressional negotiators, the study says, there are 50 million households ? 36 percent of all households in the nation ? who will receive no benefit from the tax law. The figure includes people who do not earn enough to owe income tax.

On Friday, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said he would propose legislation next week to provide the increased child credit to those minimum-wage families, and to make the increase permanent for all taxpayers instead of its expiring in 2005. Such a measure, which would cost at least $61.5 billion over the next 10 years, would require 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Democrats have said they would support the cuts for the minimum-wage families, but the prospects for the full child credit extension are unclear. A spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, said the House leadership would take a serious look at the measure.

The Republican National Committee Web site describes the law in detail and summarizes the point that many members of Congress have also made this week.

"Who benefits under the president's plan?" the Web site asks. "Everyone who pays taxes ? especially middle-income Americans ? as tax rate reductions passed by Congress in 2001 are made effective immediately."

Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, made a similar point in his news briefing on Thursday, saying that people in the lowest tax bracket would "benefit the most" from the bill. "This certainly does deliver tax relief to the people who pay income taxes," he said, referring particularly to families with children. And Mr. Grassley said last week that "all taxpayers will see more money in their paychecks."

But the new study found five million taxpayers in the lowest tax bracket who get no benefit from the law, and 2.5 million single parents with children who also pay taxes but get nothing.

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.

The second group consists of 2.5 million taxpayers in the head-of-household filing status ? mostly single parents ? who have a child over 16 and who are in the two lowest tax brackets. The study found that they will not receive a tax cut, even though they pay as much as $5,200 in income taxes, because the lowest bracket is not expanded for head-of-household filers under the new law. The child credit is not available, either, because of the age of the children.

There are about a half-million additional taxpayers at all income levels who will not benefit from the new law because they fall between the cracks. They include a childless married couple in the lowest tax bracket who itemize their deductions and cannot take advantage of the increased standard deduction for couples. About 12,000 taxpayers making more than $200,000 will also receive no benefit because they have no dividend or capital gains income, and make too much money to take advantage of the increased exemptions from the alternative minimum tax in the law.

"It's another illustration that the real purpose of this tax bill was not to give a boost to the economy now," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "The bill really consists of new provisions, like dividend tax cuts, that administration officials and their supporters in Congress have long wanted for other reasons. If they were really serious about boosting the economy, they would not have excluded these people, because they're the ones who spend rather than save."

Mr. Fleischer, contacted Friday on the president's trip to Europe, said the study failed to take into account that many people who did not benefit from this tax bill received benefits in the president's first tax cut, in 2001.

"If any taxpayers did not get tax relief in this bill, it is because it was such a priority to get them a head start on tax cuts in 2001," he said. "They had a two-year head start, because they were prioritized over upper-income taxpayers. The upper income taxpayers had to wait for tax relief for this bill."

"This legislation helps the working families and small businesses, women, married couples, families with children and elderly taxpayers," Mr. Nichols said. "It's broad-based, and 91 million taxpayers will get relief under this bill, including 69 million taxpayers who benefit from accelerating the expansion of the 10 percent bracket. We view that as very positive."

But the study's authors noted that there are 40 times as many taxpayers who get no benefit from the cuts as there are millionaires who will get 44 percent of the law's tax benefits in 2005.

"This group, more than 8 million taxpayers, ranked lower in the administration's priorities than the 200,000 taxpayers with incomes of a million dollars or more," said Peter Orszag, a senior fellow at Brookings who is co-director of the Tax Policy Center. "That just demonstrates how regressive this tax law is." Mr. Orszag was an economic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Democrats said the failure of the bill to cover all taxpayers was no accident.

"It was a conscious decision to deny relief to taxpayers at the bottom in favor of the very top," said Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader. "And what's so regrettable is that it wasn't a mistake ? it's part of a deliberate plan."

***************************************

[ABNCIB]

What do you mean "the way it was distributed"? I'm glad when anyone gets a tax cut - even in the 90s when everyone EXCEPT me were getting tax credits. I'm not selfish. I'm not jealous. I'm just glad that it's MY turn. I don't know why everyone is so upset that working Americans (and it IS working Americans who are getting the tax cut - because it's an INCOME tax cut. The really rich don't have income because they don't work-they live off of trust funds - like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy) are getting tax cuts.

[blues clues]

You know what really gets me when anyone dosen't see things the way some people do they are Communist,just because I don't think this tax cut will do anything to make one job or help anyone thats just the way I see it.You and your wife aren't the only ones trying to keep their heads above water join the club and the line froms at the end. This oh so great tax cut also leaves out all of the enlisted military that makes under 26,000 a year most of which have kids they will not see anything from this tax cut for the rich as I've said in the past REPEAL REPEAL the pay withholding tax that would put a few thousand into all working peoples hand but you'll never hear anybody in congress/white house say anything and I don't care what party you like.
razz

[ABNCIB]

I meant COMMUNIST in the political sense, not as an insult. And all of the ENLISTED people that won't get the tax cut (not true anyway - the married ones get relief from the marriage penalty, they all got their marginal tax cut) get Earned Income Credit checks, don't they?

Please be specific and admit that the only tax cut they won't get is the Child Credit tax cut - they won't get $400 back next month. All ya'all are only focusing on ONE tiny portion of the tax cut and you've wrapped your brains around that tiniest portion and call it the whole tax cut.

Ya'all've been wrong before, so I guess it won't matter that you're wrong ONE MORE TIME, will it?

[Gimpy]

is READ the two articles above to see what I meant by the "way" the tax breaks were "distributed"---or NOT---as the case may be.

I also suppose that I'm somewhat skeptical of the "timing" of these "cuts" with the economy in the shape it's in and the "forecasts" of folks like Alan Greenspan and other supposed "experts" on the subject. If---IF---the "cuts" DON'T produce the "recovery" they're intended for---we'll ALL be in trouble "down the line" when programs such as Veterans benefits, Medicare, etc. start being "cut back" because of the deficit spending.

[ABNCIB]

I knew exactly what you meant. But everytime I hear someone complain about a tax cut's distribution, I remember the old class warfare diatribes of the Klintoon era. I'd have figured you were above that Gimpy. But I guess you're just an old partisan Democrat, aincha?

[Arrow]

John...I'm more than glad to see you all get a tax cut...I don't know what all the hoopla is about either...when I was a single mom with two children they gave me the earned income credit and I always felt guilty when I took it although the system was set up for it...later when I had one at home but not supporting him they sent me $800.00 back telling me I could claim head of household.I had to argue with them to get it back to them.They just don't make mistakes you know. Or so I was told.

I'm living on DIC from the VA and a part time job so I am paying no taxes right now. Even if it were full time I would not make enough to pay taxes. But my children and family members really get hit and I feel really bad for them. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that the middle class is carrying the burden in this country. Regard just about everything including the wars we are fighting. Sure I'm greatful for the provision I have andI don't feel guilty about it.He went down with herbicidepoisoningand trust me not one of you would want to pay the price he paid for me to be taken care of.But I'm not so stupid as to think that my children, family and friends that are in your tax bracket are not bustingtheir ass and payingthrough the nose tofulfill the obligations of this government.So I said all that to say this. Thank you all. And God Bless you all.

Arrow&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

[Gimpy]

above that "class warfare" you mentioned when it means that the one "class" of folks that REALLY needed that tax break are getting DUMPED on again by ol GEE-W1

Check this out.
**************************

How Bush tax cut denies working poor their share


News-Journal editorial

Last update: 30 May 2003


The $1.3 trillion tax cut of 2001 was mostly a gift to the rich. But it contained an important break for middle- and lower-income families: a doubling of the $500 tax credit per child by 2010. The credit was to be $600 per child through 2004, rising further in latter years. The tax cut was not likely to pass without that benefit in the mix.

The tax cut President Bush signed Wednesday is again a shameless give-away to the rich, drastically lowering the tax on stock dividends and on capital gains and accelerating income tax reductions that overwhelmingly favor top tax brackets. Democrats who, otherwise, would not have voted for the package did so because it also included a provision to raise the child tax credit to $1,000 by 2004, instead of by 2010. For the current year, it meant putting a check worth $400 per child in the hands of families. Middle- and low-income families would immediately benefit.

But as senators haggled over the size of the tax cut, a snag developed. Blanche Lincoln, the Arkansas Democrat, had made sure to extend the $400 credit to all families, except for those in the richest tax brackets. That pushed the total cost of the package just past the $350 billion threshold. But George Voinovich, the Ohio Republican, threatened to withdraw his support for the bill if the excess cost wasn't shaved off.

Hagglers had a choice. They could scale back the break on dividends or on capital gains by a few percentage points. The top rate on dividends was being lowered from 38.6 percent to 15 percent, the rate on capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent. Or they could still accelerate income tax cuts, but not as fast. Either way, there was room for compromise. Instead, senators decided to eliminate something else: the tax credit that would have gone to working poor families. So most families with incomes between $10,500 and $26,600 -- families that need extra cash most -- will not get that $400 check this summer.

Mendacity isn't a strong enough word for this latest trickery. It is socially cruel and economically senseless, especially if stimulating the economy was President Bush's aim. As billionaire Warren Buffett wrote last week, deriding the tax package as a whole and what windfall he would get from it: "Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets."

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Senate's gimmickry will actually deny 8 million children in low-income families benefits from the tax credit. So much for leaving no child behind. But stimulating the economy is not Bush's principal aim. His aim is to reduce taxes on the rich and reduce the amount of money available for government services. It is not to help the poor, either through tax breaks or through social services.

Still, a president who could relate to a subsistence paycheck as well as he could relate to a dividend statement might have used some of his enormous political capital to send a message to haggling senators to preserve what little fairness was built into the tax cut. He chose not to. He stood by, waited for the bill and bothered not at all with its details. In the lavish East Room of the White House on Wednesday, he was happy to sign the bill to the glint of chandeliers -- something else this president and his latest tax cut relate to exceptionally, heartlessly well.

********************

Now THAT'S what I call "class warfare".