Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 01:27:38PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> > It's a tax cut, not a benefits increase.
> >
> > If you have no tax liability, you're not eligible for a tax *cut*.
> > What can you cut off of $0?
>
> True enough. But I think the point, that apparently he made quite
> poorly, is that this tax cut is reputed to be an economic stimulus
> package. But the tax cut will put the most money into rich people's
> pockets, a moderate payout to middle-income people with children, but
> little or no money will be added into low-income people's pockets.
So, instead of making the tax cut package *quite* as big, increase EIC
payments, if that's not being done already. (Anyone have stats regarding
that?) Or increase some other benefits that these folks with little enough
income to have no tax liability can use.
I agree that helping out the folks making $15-25K somehow so that *they* can
inject a little more into the economy will do something to help, but giving a
"tax cut" to people not paying any taxes to *be* cut is not *necessarily* the
way to do it. Sending out a check to *everyone* with a kid, regardless of
income, and not saying anything about "tax cuts" in the process would be more
constructive and less divisive (except to the people who don't have kids and
might resent it -- but a kid costs more per year to raise than the government
is going to hand anyone just on account of their having a kid.)
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
