The "REAL" truth about the "TAX CUT"!

[Gimpy]

ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO RELY ON MISLEADING
USE OF ?AVERAGES? TO DESCRIBE TAX-CUT BENEFITS
By Andrew Lee and Joel Friedman

After Congress reached agreement on a package of tax cuts last week, the Treasury Department released a blizzard of fact sheets and press releases touting the benefits of these tax cuts. One of the fact sheets presented the ?average? tax cut that various beneficiaries ? ranging from the elderly to small business owners ? would receive from the final package.[1] The President repeated a number of these figures in his speech when he signed the measure into law today.

This use of averages paints a misleading picture of the impact of these tax cuts, however, repeating a strategy employed by the White House when it was trying to sell its original tax-cut plan. Taken at face value, these average figures could imply that the tax cuts provide substantial benefits across a wide spectrum of the population; in reality, the final agreement?s tax cuts are heavily tilted toward the nation?s most affluent individuals and do little for the majority of U.S. households, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.

The Treasury release states that ?91 million taxpayers will receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,126.? However, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center:

The average tax cut in 2003 for households in the middle of the income spectrum (i.e., the middle fifth of households) will be $217, or less than one-fifth the total advertised by the Administration.
83 percent of households will get less than the average amount cited by the Administration.
Some 53 percent of U.S. households ? or 74 million households ? will receive a tax cut of $100 or less. This includes 50 million households that will receive no tax cut whatsoever.
The Administration?s use of averages is highly misleading. The averages are skewed upward by the very large cuts that would go to a small number of high-income taxpayers. For instance, the new law will provide an average tax cut in 2003 of $93,500 to tax filers who make more than $1 million per year. In contrast, most households will get a small tax cut or no tax cut at all. For an example of how such averages can be deceptive, consider a group of five individuals ? four of whom each receive a tax cut of $100 and one who receives a $4,600 tax cut. The average tax cut for the group is $1,000, but four of the five receive far less than this amount.

Category
?Average? benefit for all those receiving tax cut
Percentage of all households that receive

Less than ?average? amount
$100 or less

All households $1,126
82.9%
53.4%

Married couples 1,786
75.5
24.5

Families with children 1,549
77.8
31.1

Single women with children 558
88.6
58.3

Elderly households 1,401
89.4
63.0

Households with small business income 2,209
82.6
36.3

Source: First column of figures from the Treasury Department; other figures are from the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.


The Treasury Department?s use of averages to describe the benefits suffers from similar distortions (see table above). In today?s signing ceremony, the President specifically cited the following three examples:

Families with children ? The President stated that 34 million families with children will receive an average tax cut in 2003 of $1,549. The Tax Policy Center data show, however, that nearly 78 percent of these families will receive less than this average tax cut, including 31 percent who will receive less than $100. For single women with children, 58 percent will receive less than $100 and a majority will receive no benefit whatsoever from the package.
Elderly ? The President said that 12 million elderly tax filers will receive an average tax cut in 2003 of $1,401. The Tax Policy Center analysis finds that 89 percent of the elderly will receive less than this average amount and 63 percent will receive less than $100. A majority of the elderly will receive no tax cut under the legislation.
Small businesses ? The President repeated Treasury Department figures that 23 million small business owners and households with small business income will receive an average tax cut in 2003 of $2,209. The Tax Policy Center analysis finds that nearly 83 percent of those with small businesses income will receive less than this average amount. Some 36 percent will receive less than $100.


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

[MORTARDUDE]

OK..points made Gimpy...all conservative Republicans are "closet facists", the tax cuts are "giveaways to the rich", Saddam never had WMD, only the Democrats in the Congress have the right solutions to all of our problems, Bush & Co. are greedy for oil and big-time liars, ...so I will give you all of this...what else can we talk about now ???? Huh ???

larry

[blues clues]

Gimpy I think he's finely getting it.
razz

[1IDVET]

This is exactly why using hard numbers instead of percentages works out so much for the Dems.
It isn't even close Gimp.
I thought we already hashed this to crapola already.
Anyway, who's truth is this garbage?
Are we still giving my tax dollars to the folks that don't pay taxes?
Just call it welfare, and leave it out of the tax cut issue, and I'll be a little happier about it.....

I think I'd rather...... than rehash this again.

[Gimpy]

Maybe if YOU'LL "let up" a little on the "demos"----some of US will "let up" on the "repugniants", ya know??

If YOU will go back and check----I believe that you've posted a whole lot MORE negative "stuff" about "liberals" and "demos" than all of "us" have about "repubs", put together?? I just figured it was about time some different "viewpoints" are presented around here.

RAZZ---maybe you're right! But, don't count on it!

1IDvet----this "truth" is from a couple of editorial writers in Houston, Texas---I think?? Anyway, the "truth" does "hurt" at times, huh?? And, don't worry---making you "happier" is one of my goals in life---HA. HA, (just kidding)

All y'all have a great weekend now, ya heanh!

Back on Monday with MORE "GOOD STUFF"!

[1IDVET]

NBC Uses Military Families to Distort
Tax Cut for Non-Taxpayers

More income tax ?cuts? for people who don't pay any income tax. Playing off sympathy for low-paid military members, on Thursday's NBC Nightly News Norah O'Donnell delivered a particularly distorted look at the tax situation for those in the military, with kids under age 18, who earn less than about $27,000 a year.

O'Donnell highlighted a military wife who ?learned her family was not included in the child tax credit because they don't make enough money.? The woman complained: ?I can't explain it, doesn't make sense to me, but it's pretty sad.?

She's probably confused because she relies on the news media for her information and sees stories like O'Donnell's which obscure basic facts.

And, in fact, the woman will continue to receive a $600 per child credit even if it exceeds her income tax payments, she just won't get and even bigger payment.

O'Donnell cited a report from the liberal Children's Defense Fund as her authority in claiming that ?about one million children in military families will not benefit from the new child tax credit because they make less than $27,000 a year.? Repeating the mis-reporting from last week, O'Donnell proceeded to assert that ?nearly 12 million American children [were] denied the child tax credit when Congress and the White House eliminated low-income families to keep the total cost of the bill at $350 billion.?

She concluded with by worrying that ?there's still plenty of wrangling to be done before a final bill passes Congress? so that, she ludicrously insisted, ?potentially leaves many military families facing a summer without tax relief.?

How can you expect ?tax relief? from an income tax cut bill when you not only don't pay any net income taxes, in most cases you already get more back from the government via the already-existing child credit and EITC, than you put in?

At least CBS's Sharyl Attkisson realized the reality. In a CBS Evening News story she reported on efforts to extend the child credit both to those who don't pay income taxes as well as to raise the top income level that would qualify. Attkisson explained how the $10 billion more would be divided: ?$5 billion to low-income families who pay no federal income taxes. They could get a cash payment of up to $1,000 per child. There's also something for Republicans: $5 billion more in tax relief for higher income married couples with children.? That would move the top level from $105,000 to $150,000.

ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas was just as distorted as NBC's O'Donnell, but kept her incomplete item short on Thursday's World News Tonight: ?The Senate passed new tax cuts today to benefit families left out of the President's relief package. They include child credits for families earning between $10,000 and $26,000 a year who got nothing under the recent plan. The cuts must still be approved by the House.?

They may have gotten ?nothing,? but they put nothing in.

Tom Brokaw assumed there was something wrong with the initial bill as he plugged the upcoming June 5 NBC Nightly News story: ?Up next, a solution in the works for millions of the families cut out of the recent tax cut.?

Brokaw set up the subsequent piece without any hint that he was talking about non-income tax payers: ?And on Capitol Hill tonight, the Senate passed a compromise bill that will fix what had been viewed by many as a mistake in the new tax cut law. It dropped families making minimum wages from eligibility for an expanded child tax credit. One of the big reason's for the fix: The big number of American military families included in that category.?

Norah O'Donnell profiled Jennifer Darling, the wife of a lance corporal, who is overwhelmed by a new baby, ?struggling to make ends meet.? Her husband makes about $20,000 a year.

O'Donnell asserted: ?When President Bush signed the tax cut into law last week Darling learned her family was not included in the child tax credit because they don't make enough money.?
Jennifer Darling: ?I can't explain it, doesn't make sense to me, but it's pretty sad.?
O'Donnell: ?The Darlings are not alone. According to a study done by the Children's Defense Fund, a liberal advocacy group, about one million children in military families will not benefit from the new child tax credit because they make less than $27,000 a year. Republican Senator John McCain calls it an outrage.?
McCain: ?They are low income Americans. They've been fighting and dying in the battlefields of Iraq and now the message to them is your children are being left behind.?
O'Donnell: ?Those military children part of larger group, nearly 12 million American children denied the child tax credit when Congress and the White House eliminated low-income families to keep the total cost of the bill at $350 billion.?
Senator Susan Collins: ?It really sent the wrong signal at the very worst time to our enlisted men and women.?
Darling, who has two kids: ?It makes such a huge difference, we just, you know, every little bit helps. And $800 is not even a little bit, that would be a huge amount of money for us.?
O'Donnell concluded: ?But there's still plenty of wrangling to be done before a final bill passes Congress and that potentially leaves many military families facing a summer without tax relief.?

There may be a good argument for raising military pay, but NBC distorted the issue by not pointing out how many of those in the military with kids already live income tax free, so not giving them a cut in taxes they don't pay is not some kind of terrible injustice.

It's a matter of welfare in my opinion. How can you cut taxes for someone that doesn't pay?
Yes, taxes do come out of their check every month. But, they get it all back, ,and in some cases even more than they put in. Who's paying for the "more" part? Those of us that make more than $27,000 per annum.
Thank you very much, er, I mean your welcome!

[Gimpy]

"distorted" is the "republican logic" when pushing for this tax "cut" anyway---