Republican in-fighting over tax cuts

[zakur]

Rival ads show divisions in Republican Party (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/04/18/national1424EDT0613.DTL)

The Club for Growth, a conservative, tax-cut advocacy group leads off Saturday with TV ads in Columbus, Ohio, and Portland and Bangor, Maine, aimed at two GOP senators, Ohio's George Voinovich and Maine's Olympia Snowe. Their opposition effectively thwarted party leaders' efforts to win approval of a larger tax cut.

The ads equate the actions of these "so-called Republicans" to the obstacles raised by France to the U.S. war effort in Iraq. Voinovich is pictured next to a waving French flag.

"These Franco-Republicans are as dependable as France was in taking down Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein," Club for Growth president Stephen Moore said in a statement."Franco-Republicans?" Are these people serious? What's next, showing them eating french fries? :rolleyes:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hopefully this will be a fair tax cut. Meaning those that pay the most, get the most back.

[Troll]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Hopefully this will be a fair tax cut. Meaning those that pay the most, get the most back.

You call that fair? Because I haven't gotten my degree yet and work a lower paying income job and therefore pay fewer taxes than those that may or may not have a degree and that make more than me, they should get more money back from a tax cut than I do for my lower taxation?

If I made $20,000 and they made $2,000,000 they should get more back from the taxes they paid on their income as opposed to my own?

Where's the punishment for hard work in all of that? Where's the freebies and the handouts to those of us that pay smaller amounts in taxes? All you offer is incentive for me to better my situation in life. Make more, get taxed more get more back. Sorta makes it worthless to be lazy, uneducated, unmotivated and whining about fairness. How dare you do that to me and my fellow Americans. haha;)

[Richard G]

RINO. Republicans in Name Only. Voinovich, ex governor of my state, is no republican.

[zakur]

Originally posted by Richard G
RINO. Republicans in Name Only. Voinovich, ex governor of my state, is no republican. No, of course not. Apparently he's a Franco-Republican. :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Hmph. So some Republicans are fighting over whether to reduce my tax burden by two cents or three cents. Not impressed....

[muckraker]

To be honest, I think Snowe and Voinivitch are showing alot of political courage (which seems to be especially rare in congress these days).

I'm all in favor of tax cuts, but proposing tax cuts, without proposing spending cuts, is, IMO, irresponsible.

There are plenty of things in the federal budget worthy of cutting (let's start with agricultural subsidies). "All" we need is some political courage.

I won't hold my breath.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek
Hmph. So some Republicans are fighting over whether to reduce my tax burden by two cents or three cents. Not impressed....

Me either. Next year I expect a big debate once again on whether to cut programs 4 or 5 percent....... from their rate of growth. More brave government.

Could be worse, they could stagnate the economy by raising the top rate again. The last time the top rate was increased the effect was offset by the high-tech boom. I'm not sure we can raise taxes and ride another bubble to a temporarily balanced budget again.

[shanek]

Originally posted by muckraker
I'm all in favor of tax cuts, but proposing tax cuts, without proposing spending cuts, is, IMO, irresponsible.

Not to mention completely ineffective, because all it does is shift the money around. We either pay for it in other forms of taxes, or they run a deficit to spend it which means we pay for it through inflation.

There are plenty of things in the federal budget worthy of cutting (let's start with agricultural subsidies).

Yeah, right...good luck getting the Republicans to go along with that one!

[Gem]

The main deal int he tax cut is removing the corporate stock divended tax. (something called like that).
Now, who gets a lot of money from stocks? Anyone has any guesses?

My opinion is that the first one was actually fair. I remember when my parents open a letter with 600 dollars from the government. Not that it mattered much to us, but the government actually GAVE us money. The IRS sent money BACK. After that, I "became a beleiver."

Gem

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Gem
The main deal int he tax cut is removing the corporate stock divended tax. (something called like that).


Income should not be taxed twice. You would agree that is unfair.

Originally posted by Gem

Now, who gets a lot of money from stocks? Anyone has any guesses?


I would guess it is people who study hard and work hard to get enough money and then invest that money in creating business and jobs, etc...

What do I win?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Gem
My opinion is that the first one was actually fair. I remember when my parents open a letter with 600 dollars from the government. Not that it mattered much to us, but the government actually GAVE us money. The IRS sent money BACK. After that, I "became a beleiver."My understanding is that what your parents received was a sum which they'll have to pay back.

Uncle Sam: Who here would like $600 simoleons?

Taxpayer: Wow, I would!

Uncle Sam: Here you go.

Taxpayer: Thanks. This is great!

Uncle Sam: I hope you'll spend it now so we can jump start the economy.

Taxpayer: No prob, Bob. I mean, Sam.

Uncle Sam: Now, pay attention, because this isn't a gift.

Taxpayer: I'm sorry?

Uncle Sam: It's an advance. I'll need it back in a while.

Taxpayer: I thought the president said that people should get some of their money back. That it's ours, not the government's.

Uncle Sam: Yes.

Taxpayer: But this isn't what you're saying.

Uncle Sam: No.

Taxpayer: Thanks for nothing.

Uncle Sam: Now you're catching on.

[Regnad Kcin]

Here, for example, is Evan Snapper (Ernst & Young) in [February, 2002's] Money magazine:

SNAPPER: Early filers have been making mistakes filling in line 47…One thing to be aware of, though, is that if you received a rebate check, it was an advance refund. So if you’re due a refund for 2001, you’ll get $600 or $300 less. If you owe money, you’re going to owe $600 or $300 more. That’s the catch.


Here was Knight-Ridder’s Mark Schwanhausser on 2/19/02:

SCHWANHAUSSER: Let’s start by clearing up one bit of confusion about the "rebate" right away. It wasn’t a rebate. The IRS originally called those 86 million checks an "advance payment" of the savings from the creation of a new 10 percent tax bracket in 2002. But now the IRS has muddied things further by calling it the "rate reduction credit" on your 1040.


Maybe you prefer Ryan Donmoyer, Bloomberg News, 2/14/02:

DONMOYER: The tax checks issued by the government last year were popularly and erroneously called "rebates" by some lawmakers and the media. They actually were an advance payment of a tax credit triggered by the new 10 percent tax rate.


Pamela Yip, Dallas Morning News, 2/4/02:

YIP, DMN, 2/4/02: Even though the government and many people called them rebate checks, they were really advance payments on 2001 earnings. The checks were the governmen’s way of giving taxpayers a 10 percent tax cut that was one of the main benefits of the new tax law passed last June. Instead of having taxpayers wait to get larger refunds after filing their 2001 tax returns, the law provided for the advance payments.


David Hendricks, San Antonio Express-News, 2/16/02:

HENDRICKS: Finally, here’s something else taxpayers should try to understand.

The rebate technically was not a rebate, Oliver said. "It was an advanced payment on a rate-reduction credit," the accountant said. That means Congress and President Bush lowered taxes midyear, made it retroactive to Jan. 1 and advanced everyone the cut…I suspect, though, that few people understood that they were really getting a credit in advance instead of a rebate or refund.


Try Kevin McCormally in [February '02's] Kiplinger’s:

MCCORMALLY: Remember last year’s tax-rebate bonanza, when $300 and $600 checks rained down on us?…The problem is that the rebate (although based on 2000 returns) was really an advance payment of savings resulting from the creation for 2001 returns of a 10% tax bracket for some of the money that used to be taxed at 15%.

Emphasis present in link.From the Febrary 25, 2002 Daily Howler (http://www.dailyhowler.com/h022502_1.shtml).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
The main deal int he tax cut is removing the corporate stock divended tax. (something called like that).
Now, who gets a lot of money from stocks? Anyone has any guesses?

Ummm....Everybody?

My opinion is that the first one was actually fair. I remember when my parents open a letter with 600 dollars from the government. Not that it mattered much to us, but the government actually GAVE us money. The IRS sent money BACK. After that, I "became a beleiver."

You were duped. Getting that $600 meant that your refund would be $600 less, or your owed amount would be $600 more. It meant nothing.