Gains and losses.
Why was that tax cut characterized -- correctly -- as "for the rich"? Certainly, the most talked about item, the $500-per-child tax credit, hardly deserved that epithet. Stupid? Pandering? A reckless squandering of scarce public resources? Maybe. But 80 percent of its tax reductions were for families making less than $75,000. Indeed Democrats, led by President Clinton, had a similar child-credit proposal -- albeit one with a lower age cutoff and with phase-outs that denied benefits to better-off families.
No, the real G.O.P tax cut for the rich was the proposed halving of the capital gains tax. Almost three-quarters of this hugely expensive giveaway was targeted to families making more than $100,000 a year (with the lions share of that going to those making $200,000 or more).
Senate Republicans have reintroduced their capital gains tax cut plan as the $237 billion centerpiece of a $615 billion tax cut proposal over ten years) that also includes expanded I.R.A.s for upper-income people, sharp cuts in estate taxes on very large inheritances and, last and least, a $500-per-child tax credit.
Presumably, the President is still squeamish about what he called "a big tax cut for people who don't need it." So why has he been dropping hints the past few weeks that he is "more flexible on capital gains,"adding, "I've never been philosophically opposed, as some of my fellow Democrats are"?
Does Clinton fail to understand that the Republicans, capital gains tax cut is an abatement for the rich? (If so, there are plenty of people in his Treasury Department who can set him straight.) More likely, the President wavers on capital gains because he hates to be "philosophically opposed" to much of anything that anyone really wants. He feels the pain of wealthy stock traders, just as he empathizes with the poor and downtrodden. But he's also smart enough to understand that programs he cares about a lot more than capital gains tax cuts are in danger if the government doesn't have the revenues to pay for them.
Nevertheless, the President has recently held out the possibility that he might give the Republicans their cherished capital gains tax cut if they'll support his Dick Morris-inspired college tuition tax subsidies. That's a pretty odd bargain. The tuition deduction plan, which offers to pay 15 percent of the tuition bills of families making up to about $50,000 and 28 percent for better-off families (making up to a little more than $100,000 a year), looks exactly like the kind of upside-down subsidy that Republicans generally tend to love -- and that if, say, George Bush had proposed, Democrats would deplore. Talk about a lose-lose deal. Win-win would be if the parties agreed to drop both plans. Of course, Clinton may think he can scheme with Congressional Republicans to jigger the revenue estimates on the capital gains tax cut to make it look much smaller than it really is. Already, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has optimistically pegged the cost of the Senate proposal at only about half its likely loss -- albeit a still hefty $129 billion over ten years. If assumptions about increased asset sales are made even rosier, phase-ins are adjusted and everything past the first five years is ignored, then the cost of a capital gains tax cut can be made to appear quite small in the short run. But cooking the books can only affect short-term perception. It won't affect the huge negative impact on long-term revenues and on tax fairness.
Bill Clinton may not care about squandering one of the few issues that's worked for Democrats over the past two years, but he does profess to believe in the value of government programs and has been talking a lot lately about his place in history.
So he should keep in mind that even under current law, the federal government is scheduled to go to hell in a handbasket. Spending on so-called "discretionary programs" -- everything from the military to the environment to roads -- is already slated to fall by a quarter, as a share of the economy, by fiscal 2002. Current Congressional sentiment to avoid further military cuts is likely to mean that the rest of core government will have to be squeezed even more. Add big tax cuts on top of this and Bill Clinton won't leave much government behind to his successors. That's hardly Mount Rushmore material.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||proposed capital gains tax cuts|
|Author:||McIntyre, Robert S.|
|Date:||Feb 17, 1997|
|Previous Article:||The odor of money.|
|Next Article:||Russia's oligarchy.|