Jim Marshall on Tax Reform Democratic Representative (GA-3)

Voted YES on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income.

1. increase and extend through 2008 the alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amounts;
2. extend through 2008 the offset of personal tax credits against AMT tax liabilities; Reference: Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act; Bill H.R.6275 ; vote number 2008-455 on Jun 25, 2008

   Voted YES on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes.

   H.R.4351: To provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), via an offset of nonrefundable personal tax credits. [The AMT was originally intended to apply only to people with very high incomes, to ensure that they paid a fair amount of income tax. As inflation occurred, more people became subject to the AMT, and now it applies to people at upper-middle-class income levels as well. Both sides agree that the AMT should be changed to apply only to the wealthy; at issue in this bill is whether the cost of that change should be offset with a tax increase elsewhere or with no offset at all. -- ed.]

   Proponents support voting YES because:

   Rep. RANGEL: We have the opportunity to provide relief to upward of some 25 million people from being hit by a $50 billion tax increase, which it was never thought could happen to these people. Almost apart from this, we have an opportunity to close a very unfair tax provision, that certainly no one has come to me to defend, which prevents a handful of people from having unlimited funds being shipped overseas under deferred compensation and escaping liability. Nobody, liberal or conservative, believes that these AMT taxpayers should be hit by a tax that we didn't intend. But also, no one has the guts to defend the offshore deferred compensation. So what is the problem?

   Opponents recommend voting NO because:

   Rep. McCRERY: This is a bill that would patch the AMT, and then increase other taxes for the patch costs. Republicans are for patching the AMT. Where we differ is over the question of whether we need to pay for the patch by raising other taxes. The President's budget includes a 1-year patch on the AMT without a pay-for. That is what the Senate passed by a rather large vote very recently, 88-5. The President has said he won't sign the bill that is before us today. Republicans have argued against applying PAYGO to the AMT patch. In many ways PAYGO has shown itself to be a farce.

   Reference: AMT Relief Act; Bill HR4351 ; vote number 2007-1153 on Dec 12, 2007

   Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends.

   Vote to reduce federal spending by $56.1 billion over five years by retaining a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends, as well as.
   • Decreasing the number of people that will be required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
   • Allowing for deductions of state and local general sales taxes through 2007 instead of 2006
   • Lengthening tax credits for research expenses
   • Increasing the age limit for eligibility for food stamp recipients from 25 to 35 years
   • Continuing reduced tax rates of 15% and 5% on capital gains and dividends through 2010
   • Extending through 2007 the expense allowances for environmental remediation costs (the cost of cleanup of sites where petroleum products have been released or disposed)
   Reference: Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act; Bill HR 4297 ; vote number 2005-621 on Dec 8, 2005

   Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification.

   Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004
   • Extension of Family Tax Provisions
   • Repeals the scheduled reduction (15 to 10 percent) for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2005, of the refundability of the child tax credit.
   • Extends through 2005 the increased exemption from the alternative minimum tax for individual taxpayers.
   • Extends through 2005 the following expiring tax provisions:
     1. the tax credit for increasing research activities;
     2. the work opportunity tax credit;
     3. the welfare-to-work tax credit;
     4. the authority for issuance of qualified zone academy bonds;
     5. the charitable deduction for donations by corporations of computer technology and equipment used for educational purposes;
     6. the tax deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers;
     7. the expensing of environmental remediation costs;
     8. the designation of a District of Columbia enterprise zone
   Reference: Bill sponsored by Bill Rep Thomas [R, CA-22]; Bill H.R.1308 ; vote number 2004-472 on Sep 23, 2004

   Voted YES on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit.

   Vote to pass a bill that would permanently extend the $1,000 per child tax credit that is scheduled to revert to $700 per child in 2005. It would raise the amount of income a taxpayer may earn before the credit begins to phase out from $75,000 to $125,000 for single individuals and from $110,000 to $250,000 for married couples. It also would permit military personnel to include combat pay in their gross earnings in order to calculate eligibility for the child tax credit. Reference: Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act; Bill HR 4359 ; vote number 2004-209 on May 20, 2004

   Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty.

   Vote to pass a bill that would permanently extend tax provisions eliminating the so-called marriage penalty. The bill would make the standard deduction for married couples double that of single taxpayers. It would also increase the upper limit of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples to twice that of singles. It also would make permanent higher income limits for married couples eligible to receive the refundable earned-income tax credit. Reference: Marriage Penalty Relief; Bill HR 4181 ; vote number 2004-138 on Apr 28, 2004

   50-25-25 budget formula for debt-tax cuts-spending.

   Marshall adopted the Blue Dog Coalition press release:

   The 33 member Blue Dog Coalition applauds Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for his commitment to fiscal responsibility. In a floor speech today, Senator Lieberman called for a budget framework that would devote half of the budget surplus to debt reduction, a quarter of the remaining funds to tax cuts, the final quarter to targeted spending increases in America’s priority programs. Senator Lieberman touted a mantra long held by the Blue Dogs that “our top priority must remain debt reduction.”

   Senator Lieberman’s position closely reflects the “50-25-25” equation for responsible budgeting long advocated by the Blue Dog Coalition. The Blue Dogs’ formula would extract the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds from the projected budget surplus and use half of the remaining funds to pay down the national debt. After committing 50 percent to debt reduction, 25 percent would be allocated to tax cuts and the remaining 25 percent would fund increases in priority programs, such as education, agriculture, defense, and health care. “The 50-25-25 budget framework is a common sense, fiscally conservative approach that will provide for a healthy economy, lower taxes, and reduction of our national debt. I am pleased that Senator Lieberman stressed the need for fiscal discipline,” said Blue Dog Budget Task Force Co-Chairman, Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS).

   “Senator Lieberman got it exactly right,” said Blue Dog Co-Chairman Rep. Jim Turner (D-TX). “We need a budget that meets our commitments and lives up to our responsibilities. Most importantly, we need a budget that adds up. The 50-25-25 framework is a smart, conservative, approach that prioritizes paying down the debt and still leaves room for real tax relief.”

   Source: Blue Dog Coalition press release 01-BDC3 on Feb 8, 2001

   Rated 22% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes.

   Marshall scores 22% by NTU on tax-lowering policies

   Every year National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rates U.S. Representatives and Senators on their actual votes—every vote that significantly affects taxes, spending, debt, and regulatory burdens on consumers and taxpayers. NTU assigned weights to the votes, reflecting the importance of each vote’s effect. NTU has no partisan axe to grind. All Members of Congress are treated the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based on the Taxpayer Score. The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because it means a Member of Congress voted to lessen or limit the burden on taxpayers. The Taxpayer Score can range between zero and 100. We do not expect anyone to score a 100, nor has any legislator ever scored a perfect 100 in the multi-year history of the comprehensive NTU scoring system. A high score does not mean that the Member of Congress was opposed to all spending or all programs. High-scoring Members have indicated that they would vote for many programs if the amount of spending were lower. A Member who wants to increase spending on some programs can achieve a high score if he or she votes for offsetting cuts in other programs. A zero score would indicate that the Member of Congress approved every spending proposal and opposed every pro-taxpayer reform.

   Source: NTU website 03n-NTU on Dec 31, 2003

   Rated 50% by CTJ, indicating a mixed record on progressive taxation.

   Marshall scores 50% by the CTJ on taxationissues

   OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CTJ scores as follows:

   • 0% - 20%: opposes progressive taxation (approx. 235 members)
   • 21% - 79%: mixed record on progressive taxation (approx. 39 members)
   • 80%-100%: favors progressive taxation (approx. 190 members)
   About CTJ (from their website, www.ctj.org):

   Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is not-for-profit public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ's mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws. Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for:

   • Fair taxes for middle and low-income families
   • Requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share
   • Closing corporate tax loopholes
   • Adequately funding important government services
   • Reducing the federal debt
   • Taxation that minimizes distortion of economic markets
   Source: CTJ website 06n-CTJ on Dec 31, 2006

   Click here for definitions & background information on Tax Reform. Click here for a profile of Jim Marshall. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Jim Marshall. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Tax Reform in The Forum. Click here for a summary of Jim Marshall's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other GA politicians.
   2010 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Tax Reform:		Jim Marshall on other issues:
   GA Gubernatorial: Sonny Perdue GA Senatorial: Johnny Isakson Mike Thurmond Saxby Chambliss Special elections in 111th Congress: GA-9:Deal(R) Jun.2010:Graves(R) PA-12:Murtha(D) May 2010:Critz(D) HI-1:Abercrombie(D) May 2010:Djou(R) FL-19:Wexler(D) Apr.2010:Deutch(D) CA-10:Tauscher(D) Nov.2009:Garamendi(D) NY-20:McHugh(R) Nov.2009:Owens(D) CA-32:Solis(D) Jul.2009:Chu(D) IL-5:Emanuel(D) Apr.2009:Quigley(D) NY-20:Gillibrand(D) Mar.2009:Murphy(D)	Senate races in 2010: AK:Miller(R) vs.McAdams(D) AL:Shelby(R) vs.Barnes(D) AR:Lincoln(D) vs.Boozman(R) AZ:McCain(R) vs.Glassman(D) CA:Boxer(D) vs.Fiorina(R) vs.Lightfoot(L) CO:Bennet(D) vs.Buck(R) CT:Blumenthal(D) vs.McMahon(R) DE:Coons(D) vs.Castle(R) vs.O`Donnell(R) FL:Rubio(R) vs.Crist(I) vs.Meek(D) vs.DeCastro(C) vs.Snitker(L) vs.Bradley(V) GA:Isakson(R) vs.Thurmond(D) HI:Inouye(D) vs.Cavasso(R) IA:Grassley(R) vs.Conlin(D) ID:Crapo(R) vs.Sullivan(D) IL:Giannoulias(D) vs.Kirk(R) IN:Ellsworth(D) vs.Coats(R) KS:Johnston(D) vs.Moran(R) KY:Conway(D) vs.Paul(R) LA:Vitter(R) vs.Melancon(D) MO:Carnahan(R) vs.Blunt(D) MD:Mikulski(D) vs.Wargotz(R) NC:Burr(R) vs.Marshall(D) ND:Potter(D) vs.Hoeven(R) NH:Alciere(R) vs.Ayotte(R) vs.Hodes(D) NV:Reid(D) vs.Angle(R) NY6:Schumer(D) vs.Townsend(R) NY2:Gillibrand(D) vs.DioGuardi(R) OH:Fisher(R) vs.Portman(D) vs.Deaton(C) OK:Coburn(R) vs.Myles(D) OR:Wyden(D) vs.Huffman(R) PA:Toomey(R) vs.Sestak(D) SC:DeMint(R) vs.Greene(D) SD:Thune(R) vs.Berry(D) UT:Lee(R) vs.Granato(D) VT:Leahy(D) vs.Freilich(D) WA:Murray(D) vs.Rossi(R) WI:Feingold(D) vs.Johnson(D) WV:Manchin(D) vs.Raese(R)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty Main Page Profile GA politicians

   
   
   
   
   
   Page last updated: Sep 15, 2010