rakesh bhandari wrote: >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. What you have here, Rakesh, is dueling forms of meanness. The EITC is intended to drive a wedge between the "working" and "nonworking" poor, between the worthy and unworthy, the fit and unfit, the deserving and undeserving. That's why Clinton and the DLC love it. Dick Armey and his comrades think that since the EITC is refundable - i.e. you get it even if you don't pay any income tax - it's not fair to give folks a credit if they're already paying no taxes. So to Armey & Co. all the poor are undeserving. Or as fellow Texan Sen. Phil Gramm says, society is divided into those who pull the wagon (his rich consituents) and those who ride in it (the poor, all of whom are undeserving). Doug
