FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Tax Breaks for Scions…to Hell with Poor Kids

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

One of the inequities of the 2001 tax act, insofar as the rich are concerned will be cured by a Bill passed by the House of Representatives before leaving on their third vacation this year, if approved by the Senate. Among provisions in the 2001 tax act that did not benefit the rich was the $1,000 per child tax credit which provides in part that a family with children gets a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child.

The credit is tied to income levels. Those with high incomes and those with low incomes do not get the benefit. At first blush that may seem like a good thing since not only were there a number of tax breaks that primarily benefitted the rich, but the provision represented one of the few instances where the tax code treated the rich and the poor alike. Thanks to the House’s recent actions, treatment of the quite rich and the poor will, if the Bill is approved by the Senate, be separated. The quite rich will find this to their liking since they always welcome additional tax breaks and see it as their just desserts for contributions made by them to society, contributions not always obvious to the rest of us.

Under the 2001 act, the child tax credit was not available to families with incomes in excess of $149,000 and less than about $10,300. The House bill provides that the credit will be available in whole or in part, depending on the number of children in a family, to those with income of up to $309,000. Some might think that is a change of little moment since fewer than two percent of Americans earn more than $250,000 a year. That approach overlooks the fact that two hundred fifty thousand dollars today is not the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago and for that reason, if none other, extending the benefit to more of the wealthy makes sense. Under the House Bill, over the next ten years families with two children and incomes between $150,000 and $250,000 will get $22,000 in tax credits. Families with incomes between $250,000 and $309,000 will get lesser but not insignificant amounts depending on the size of their families.

Making the child tax credit more inclusive will, according to the Tax Policy Center, cost only $69 billion through 2014, a small percentage of the overall government spending that will take place during that period. If passed by the Senate, that legislation (which also makes the child tax credit permanent) goes a long way toward curing the problems with the 2001 act. Because the House is mindful of the less fortunate, those at the other end of the income scale will also be helped.

A two-child family with an income of $12,000 has been receiving a child tax credit of $125 per child. That amount was scheduled to increase next year. Under the proposed law, that family will not have to wait a year. Although not easy to fathom in detail, part of the House bill moves the increase up to this year resulting in an apparent one time benefit to that family of $300.

As the foregoing demonstrates, almost everyone benefits from the new provisions. The only exceptions are those earning less than the minimum wage of $10,300 who pay no taxes. They get nothing since they pay no taxes. David Harris, president of the Children’s Research and Education Institute estimates that about eight million children are in families who will get no tax credit. The message of those children to their parents should be “Go out and get a (better paying) job.” The eight million omitted children are offset in part by the children in the 2.1 million families earning at least 15 times more than the minimum wage who will now become eligible to participate in the child tax credit.

It is not yet clear that the Senate will go along with the House. Former exterminator and now majority leader in the House, Tom Delay is annoyed at that. “I can’t believe that one or two members, particularly Republican members of the Senate, would hold up such an incredible budget. For what? To make it more difficult to give tax relief to the American public.” Explaining why she voted for the House bill, Rep. Nancy Johnson, R. Conn., a typical example of a compassionate Republican legislator, said: “This is about children. It’s about families. It’s tough to raise a family today.” The parents of the eight million omitted children would surely agree.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a Boulder, Colorado lawyer. His column appears weekly in the Daily Camera. He can be reached at: brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 20, 2017
Bruce E. Levine
Humiliation Porn: Trump’s Gift to His Faithful…and Now the Blowback
Melvin Goodman
“Wag the Dog,” Revisited
Robert Hunziker
Fukushima: a Lurking Global Catastrophe?
David Smith-Ferri
Resistance and Resolve in Russia: Memorial HRC
Kenneth Surin
Global India?
Norman Pollack
Fascistization Crashing Down: Driving the Cleaver into Social Welfare
Patrick Cockburn
Trump v. the Media: a Fight to the Death
Susan Babbitt
Shooting Arrows at Heaven: Why is There Debate About Battle Imagery in Health?
Matt Peppe
New York Times Openly Promotes Formal Apartheid Regime By Israel
David Swanson
Understanding Robert E. Lee Supporters
Michael Brenner
The Narcissism of Donald Trump
Martin Billheimer
Capital of Pain
Thomas Knapp
Florida’s Shenanigans Make a Great Case for (Re-)Separation of Ballot and State
Jordan Flaherty
Best Films of 2016: Black Excellence Versus White Mediocrity
Weekend Edition
February 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA as Kingslayer
Matthew Stevenson
Is Trump the Worst President Ever?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Flynn?
John Wight
Brexit and Trump: Why Right is Not the New Left
Diana Johnstone
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface
Neve Gordon
Trump’s One-State Option
Roger Harris
Emperor Trump Has No Clothes: Time to Organize!
Joan Roelofs
What Else is Wrong with Globalization
Andrew Levine
Why Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban?
Mike Whitney
Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper
Vijay Prashad
Trump, Turmoil and Resistance
Ron Jacobs
U.S. Imperial War Personified
David Swanson
Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?
Andre Vltchek
Governor of Jakarta: Get Re-elected or Die!
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Destruction of Mosul
Norman Pollack
Self-Devouring Reaction: Governmental Impasse
Steve Horn
What Do a Louisiana Pipeline Explosion and Dakota Access Pipeline Have in Common? Phillips 66
Brian Saady
Why Corporations are Too Big to Jail in the Drug War
Graham Peebles
Ethiopia: Peaceful Protest to Armed Uprising
Luke Meyer
The Case of Tony: Inside a Lifer Hearing
Binoy Kampmark
Adolf, The Donald and History
Robert Koehler
The Great American Awakening
Murray Dobbin
Canadians at Odds With Their Government on Israel
Fariborz Saremi
A Whole New World?
Joyce Nelson
Japan’s Abe, Trump & Illegal Leaks
Christopher Brauchli
Trump 1, Tillerson 0
Yves Engler
Is This Hate Speech?
Dan Bacher
Trump Administration Exempts Three CA Oil Fields From Water Protection Rule at Jerry Brown’s Request
Richard Klin
Solid Gold
Melissa Garriga
Anti-Abortion and Anti-Fascist Movements: More in Common Than Meets the Eye
Thomas Knapp
The Absurd Consequences of a “Right to Privacy”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail