As it has been suggested to me privately that I have misunderstood this child tax credit, I reproduce what I read in the WSJ: "Neither Mr. Clinton nor Congressional Republicans are interested in subsidizing the very poor. Families who make less than $19,000 or so wouldn't benefit from White House, Senate or House plans, although they would under alternatives offered by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate. And all three bills would give the $500-a-child credit to families with children smack in the middle of the middle class whose income, according to the latest Census Bureau data is about $40,000 a year. (About one sixth of the 37 families with children have incomes below $15,000 and one sixth above $75,000.) "The big issue is whether to give any money to working families with incomes bewtween roughly $19,000 and $28,000. Mr Clinton would, the House wouldn't and the Senate is in between. In a recent interview, Mr Gingrich acknowledged the president "may well get something" in the end 'because we want the bill signed.'"WSJ, 23 July, 1997, A20 Now if there is going to be a child tax credit, why should the really poor not get it? Because they already enjoy the EITC? Well, others who will enjoy this kiddie tax credit also enjoy tax breaks as well (eg, mortgage deductions). It cannot be because the really poor already enjoy a tax break (the EITC necessary for their reproduction as wage slaves after all) that the "really poor" are being punished by disqualification for this child tax credit. Clinton is just using tax policy against those whom he doesn't have the guts to call openly "the unfit". As a further example, why is he giving a tax break to families for kids in college for which this tax break poor families will *not* qualify *even* if family members are in college, much less if they are not. Rakesh
