Tax rebates become income redistribution

A tentative deal has been reached between Congressional Democrats and Republicans – and socialism is winning out (Associated Press link);

Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per household and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.

Congressional officials close to the negotiations said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio reached agreement in principle in a telephone call Thursday morning.

[…]

Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.

So it’s not a tax rebate at all – a tax rebate would be sending money back to the people who earned it, but instead, Pelosi wants to send money they confiscated from the person who earned it and send it to someone who didn’t earn it. That’s income redistribution, that’s socialism.

And why do you think they’re going to give it to someone who didn’t earn the money? To buy their vote. And what is that person going to do with that money? Squander it, just like everyone else with found money.

Say what you will about the President but his plan actually returned money to taxpayers;

President Bush has supported larger rebates of $800-$1,600, but his plan would have left out 30 million working households who earn paychecks but don’t make enough to pay income tax, according to calculations by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. An additional 19 million households would receive only partial rebates under Bush’s initial proposal.

So people who actually earned the money end up getting less so the people who didn’t earn the money get included. And it was House Republicans who caved;

Democratic aides said greater GOP flexibility over giving relief to poor families with children — who would not have been eligible under Bush’s original tax rebate proposal — was the catalyst that moved the talks forward.

“Greater flexibility” means Republicans folded like cheap lawn chairs.

I don’t care who gets what money – I care about honesty. If it’s a big program to hand out money to the poor, then say that. You can’t rebate something to someone who never owned it in the first place.

And because there’s more people to whom the IRS must mail checks, it’ll slow the whole process down (WSJ link);

Even if Congress meets its goal of finishing a stimulus bill before March, it is likely to take until June for the government to start sending out the millions of rebate checks that would be the plan’s centerpiece. It would take a couple more months before all the checks could be mailed.

[…]

A big question for the IRS is how to get benefits to people who don’t have income-tax liability. The last stimulus rebate, in 2001, went only to income-tax payers. This time, the IRS and the Social Security Administration have been discussing how they might identify and locate a broader group.

Two points – One; If the IRS was taking our money, they’d damn sure be fast about it, tax season or not. Two; of course the IRS doesn’t know where the people who don’t pay taxes are – why would they? f’Pete’s sake.

S.A.Miller at the Washington Times writes the good news;

Mrs. Pelosi also abandoned the Democratic push for spending on infrastructure projects, including construction and repair of roads and bridges, which critics said would take months to start and even longer to affect the economy.

So at least we’ve got that going for us. But Michele Malkin writes that Lil’ Chuckie Schumer has another plan for yet another “stimulus package”. We all know what kind of “stimulus” The Putz has in mind.

More from the AP;

Republicans, for their part, were pleased that the bulk of the rebates — more than 70 percent, according to an analysis by Congress’ Joint Tax Committee — would go to individuals who pay taxes.

If the Republicans were happy that 70% of the recipients were taxpayers, maybe they’d be just as happy working for 70% of their pay, too. Or with 70% of their staff. Or to get their free mailings cut to 70%. They’re already getting 0% of my campaign donations compared to election year 2000.

• Facebook
• X
• Email

Category: Economy, Politics