Supposedly it won't increase the deficit because there's tax raises to balance it out... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/ Bush quietly signs corporate tax-cut bill $136 billion measure assailed for catering to special interests The Associated Press Updated: 4:44 p.m. ET Oct. 22, 2004 WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, President Bush Friday signed the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups. Intended to end a bitter trade war with Europe, the election-year measure was described by supporters as critically necessary to aid beleaguered manufacturers who have suffered 2.7 million lost jobs over the past four years. But opponents charged that the tax package had grown into a massive giveaway that will add to the complexity of the tax system and end up rewarding multinational companies that move jobs overseas. There was no ceremony for the bill-signing. White House press secretary Scott McClellan announced it on Air Force One as Bush flew to a campaign appearance in Pennsylvania. Bush mentioned the new tax law at the beginning of a health care event in Canton, Ohio. “I signed a bill that’s going to help our manufacturers — that will save $77 billion over the next 10 years for the manufacturing sector of America,” Bush said. “That will help keep jobs here.” The handling of the corporate tax bill was in contrast to Bush’s action on Oct. 4 when he sat before television cameras on a stage in Des Moines, Iowa, to sign three tax-cut breaks popular with middle-class voters and reviving other tax incentives for businesses. Bush’s campaign rival, Sen. John Kerry, missed the vote on the corporate tax breaks. Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said there were many important things in the bill but that “George Bush filled the bill up with corporate giveaways and tax breaks for multinational companies that send jobs overseas. In his first budget, John Kerry will call for the repeal of all the unwarranted international tax breaks that George Bush included in this bill.” The Joint Tax Committee said the overall bill would not increase the deficit because the $136 billion in tax cuts over the next decade were balanced by $136 billion in tax increases. Democrats contended the true costs of the tax cuts would be nearly $80 billion higher because Republicans used accounting gimmicks such as having popular provisions expire after a few years. Keith Ashdown, a spokesman for the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed. "Our concern is they’ve used smoke and mirrors and accounting gimmicks to make the legislation look much smaller than it is," he said. He also called it a giant step backward for efforts to simplify the tax code. The original purpose of the legislation was to repeal a $5 billion annual tax break provided to American exporters that was ruled illegal by the Geneva-based World Trade Organization. Repeal of the tax break was needed to lift retaliatory tariffs that are now being imposed on more than 1,600 American manufactured products and farm goods exported to Europe. The bill replaces the $49.2 billion export tax break with $136 billion in new tax breaks over the next decade for a wide array of groups from farmers, fishermen and bow and arrow hunters to some of America’s largest corporations. The legislation also includes a $10.1 billion buyout of quotas held by tobacco farmers. A Senate provision that would have coupled this buyout with regulation of tobacco by the Food and Drug Administration was dropped by the conference committee that resolved differences between the two chambers. The measure is the most sweeping overhaul of corporate tax law since 1986. It provides a wide range of tax benefits for native Alaskan whalers, importers of Chinese ceiling fans and NASCAR race track owners. The centerpiece is $76.5 billion in new tax relief for the battered manufacturing sector, but manufacturing is broadly defined to include not just factories but also oil and gas producers, engineering, construction and architectural firms and large farming operations. The bill also includes a $5 billion tax break primarily for residents of seven states that have no income tax. The measure allows taxpayers to take a deduction for sales tax instead.
I have not seen TV photo ops on this tax cut yet. This tells me that we are in trouble (I mean middle class and below). Go figure....... I will keep an eye open to see if the major news networks carry or if GWB's administration touts it during his campaign stops.
The White House is REALLY proud of this one. More information: Story on original House Bill - June 18, 2004 Story on Senate Bill - October 12, 2004 Redefinition of "Manufacturer" Commentary - Ten Gaffes of Bill Tobacco Provision Looks like a feeding frenzy... my industry included. Apparently Architects are now considered "manufacturers" in the eyes of the IRS. Another significant point is that it will significantly increase the complexity of the tax code for companies like Starbucks who are now considered BOTH service and manufacturing companies. It will be even easier for these types of companies to evade taxes with creative accounting now. Here are some numbers from the Joint Committee on Taxation: This is what I want to know more about: I can't find any numbers from other sources other than the typical Liberal/Conservative banter. The ONLY THING that really matters, and I can't find anyone except the Democratic Party that seems to be reviewing the numbers. Please help!
Companies - Bad! Taxes - Good! Huh? Bush is doing his best to supercharge the already growing economy, and the lefties still find a way to complain.
Taxes aren't always good, and they aren't always bad. I know this because if taxes were eliminated and the country were to fall into anarchy, I would be upset. I would also be upset if we elected a communist reformer and the tax rate rose to 100%. I'm narrowing down the appropriate rate to somewhere between 1% and 99% based on that. Since our current rate is in between there and I'm not a degreed economist , I'll have to defer to other experts to get more specific. I don't care about politics in this situation because we both know that the last place to look for information about fiscal policy are people trying to be re-elected. The numbers that were published by the Joint Committee on Taxation are for a ten year period, extending forecasts to the year 2014. The Associated Press article above sites claims that the numbers are not accurate, which is completely possible based on the above mentioned presidential election going on right now. I was asking if someone could help find out more specific information from a reliable source about whether or not this bill would do that. Do you think you could contribute Tex? Or are you supremely confident in your brief analysis that was based on a Congressional committee in an election year? Here is the report if you are curious, but I guess you have already read the entire thing: Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement For H.R. 4520, The "American Jobs Creation Act Of 2004"
I think all of the taxes should be gotten rid of. The order of magnitude increase in our incomes should compensate for a lack of government, right?
