You Can Almost Start Spending It Now

There had long since ceased to be any doubt that the Senate would pass the tax cut. What continued to fret the Johnson Administration was the possibility that the bill would be so amended as to make it ineffectual as a spur to the U.S. economy.

Such is the vast, inequitable, loopholed tangle of the U.S. tax structure that almost every Senator (and, for that matter, almost every citizen) has his own ideas about how it should be changed. Thus dozens of Senators were waiting with amendments to the tax bill as already passed by the House and approved, with few major changes, by the Senate Finance Committee. Fearing that Senate adoption of a few amendments would set off a flood tide, the Administration actively opposed all--and President Johnson threw his full weight into the battle. He was eminently successful: at week's end, by a vote of 77 to 21, the Senate passed a virtually unscathed version of the bill.

A Few Embarrassments. During the week-long debate, Tennessee Democrat Albert Gore laid down the only blanket denunciation of the bill, claimed that it was "the embodiment of fiscal folly" and "unconscionable" in its tax reduction "for the already rich." Yet despite his vow to try to scuttle the bill, Gore's only victory was to tax Americans living abroad more heavily. Passed 47-41, his proposal would require U.S. citizens living overseas more than three years to pay full tax on all income over $6,000; they now enjoy an annual $35,000 exemption. Those abroad 17 out of each 18 months would have their exempted income cut from $20,000 to $4,000.

Under pressure to support a Democratic President, Democratic liberals several times found themselves in embarrassing situations. One of the most embarrassing arose from Connecticut Democrat Abe Ribicoff's proposal that parents be permitted tax credits up to $325 a year for each child's college expenses. Torn between a longtime liberal advocacy of all-out aid to education and his loyalty to the Administration, Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey finally voted against this amendment--even though he had previously been one of its cosponsors. The college credit lost, 48-45.

Minnesota Democrat Eu gene McCarthy tossed in a "working girls" amendment that would have permitted unmarried taxpayers over 35 to automatically qualify as a "head of household," thus putting them in a tax bracket about midway between that of a single person and a married couple filing jointly. Louisiana Democrat Russell Long, floor manager for the tax bill, poked fun at the plan, claimed somewhat irrelevantly that it would help couples who live in sin. "In my state," he drawled, "that kind of relationship is recognized as a situation in which two people have 'took up.' The amendment would give better tax treatment for those who have just 'took up' than married people would receive under the law." An in nocuous substitute to the amendment was approved by a voice vote.

Some liberal Democrats even found themselves voting with the majorities against bipartisan moves to decrease the oil-depletion allowance, long a liberal bugaboo, and to eliminate some of the tax benefits that corporation executives now derive from stock options.

Republicans tried to repeal the 10% excise taxes on jewelry, furs, cosmetics and luggage. Rhode Island Democrat John Pastore, who claims to represent "the jewelry capital of the world" (Providence is a leading manufacturer of costume jewelry), came to the G.O.P.'s aid, cried: "Let's make our women beautiful. Let us not tax beauty." But enough Democrats did vote against beauty to beat the amendment, 48-45. Iowa Republican Bourke Hickenlooper wanted to repeal the tax on ball-point pens, lost decisively.

The Way It Starts. As passed by the Senate, the bill would lower the income tax rates for individuals from the present range of 20%-91% to a new range of 16%-77% this year and 14%-70% in 1965. The lowest income bracket, now up to $2,000 for single persons, would be broken into four new brackets at 14% for the first $500, 15% up to $1,000, 16% up to $1,500 and 17% up to $2,000 (the income brackets for married persons are double those for single persons). The payroll withholding rate would drop from the present 18% to 14% one week after the bill is signed.

For corporations, the present 52% rate would drop to 50%, retroactive to Jan. 1 of this year, and to 48% by Jan. 1, 1965. For firms with incomes under $25,000 a year, the rate would be cut from the present 30% to 22% this year, remain at that level next year. The timing of corporate tax collections also would be speeded to bring them to a pay-as-you-go basis by 1970.

In other changes from present law, individuals would be able to take either a standard, short-form deduction of $300 plus $100 for each $600 exemption they now claim (excluding their own exemption), or the old 10% deduction. But $1,000 still would be the maximum short-form deduction under either choice, and itemized, long-form deductions would still be permitted. Such casualty losses as auto damage, now fully deductible, could be deducted only to the extent that each exceeds $100. Persons over 65 would be able to deduct all of their medical expenses; at present, their medicines and drugs can be deducted only to the extent that they exceed 1% of income. The maximum deduction for care of children by taxpayers who must work would be raised from the present $600, to $1,000 if they have three or more children. The 4% credit on dividend income would be repealed in two steps by 1965, and the $50 of such income that can now be excluded would be increased to $100 for single persons, to $200 for married couples filing jointly.

There are few major differences between the House and Senate bills. Conferees were scheduled to meet this week to work out those few compromises. The Administration expects the bill to become law by March 1.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.