See my rebuttal below:
Whenever left-wingers start complaining about how President Bush’s tax cuts helped only the rich, they inevitably ignore the biggest cut the president provided for the middle class: the child income tax credit, a decidedly family-friendly policy.
President Bush’s cuts doubled this credit from $500 to $1,000. If you are married and have children ages 17 and under at home, and you pay taxes, you continue to benefit significantly from this cut.
The middle class has benefited greatly over the years from this increase. For example, under President Bush’s cuts, a married couple making only $40,000 a year and with two children got a 96 percent cut in federal income taxes; their federal bill dropped from $1,178 to $45, some $1,000 of that being from the doubling of the child tax credit.
When the median household income in the U.S. in 2006 was $48,201 — about $43,000 in Georgia — this cut means a great deal to the middle class: teachers, many office workers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, real estate agents, middle- and higher-end factory workers and many others.
If you have children and pay taxes, you might want to keep the Republicans’ increased child tax credit in mind when you hear people claiming the middle class did not get a cut. You might also want to keep in mind that an important segment of Democrats opposed this family-friendly middle class cut originally. In other words, they did not want middle-class families to get this particular cut.
Worse, many Democrats want to end it with other Bush cuts. In fact, their recently released budget and tax plan would end it.
Tommy Sandoval
Gainesville
1 comments:
My rebuttal:
I am glad the Gainesville Times provides a section of the paper for Letters to the Editors. Recently, Tommy Sandoval wrote a very interesting essay on how President Bush has cut taxes 96% for "a married couple making only $40,000 a year."
I truly welcome dialogue on the subject of government and taxation. But, I wish Mr. Sandoval had provided some sources so everyone could double-check his essay published on March 31st.
Checking some IRS information (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/99in11si.xls and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in11si.xls ), a taxpayer making an average of $34,000 per year paid an average of $2457 in federal income taxes. Not $45 dollars as Mr. Sandoval seems to think.
Checking the 2005 tax returns, taxpayers making between $30,000 and $40,000 per year, the Child Tax Credit did not double. It did increase about 20 percent over the year 1999. That means a decrease in federal income tax of about 7 percent, not "96%."
Mr. Sandoval and other well-meaning people think the Democrats are ending major tax cuts for the middle class. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 had a sunset clause that automatically terminates the act in 2010. Without the sunset clause, the act would have violated Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which has been known as Pay-As-You-Go or PAYGO. Obeying PAYGO could have prevented irresponsible politics and prevented the huge deficit spending under President Bush.
Mr. Sandoval thinks the Democrats "want to end" the fictional 96% tax cut for "a married couple making only $40,000 a year" along with the other Bush cuts. In reality, Democrats want to stop borrowing money from China. To stop the borrowing from China and from oil rich Middle Eastern countries, we need to obey the letter of the law. Laws like PAYGO and specifically, the law that forces the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to die as promised on January 1, 2011.
Being responsible isn't easy. Its just the right thing to do.
Post a Comment