http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88103,00.html
Cavuto got the address for ya'all who think the gov't can spend your money better than you....
You'll be seeing an increase in your paycheck pretty soon, send the difference right back to them! Better yet, those of you WHO THINK our taxes are too low, and we need more money for education, pork barrel projects, and SS... send them EXTRA!
Anyone with kids, just send the check right back to the IRS, or better yet just dont cash it.
Fantom, twin and all, here is your chance! just scan your cancelled check and post it! put your money where you mouth is about the HORRIBLE tax cuts!
Full Version: Dont agree with the tax cut? SEND IT BACK AND SHUT UP
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
put your money where you mouth is about the HORRIBLE tax cuts!
Yeah, do that just like PhillyFan put his money where his mouth is about the war. The biggest war cheerleader on the board - didnt go sign up because hes a "lover not a fighter." Way to serve your county!
put your money where you mouth is about the HORRIBLE tax cuts!
Better yet, why not send your tax cut to one of the charities that are going to be dealing with the aftermath of this administration's policies.
I'd prefer to send back the refunds of W, Cheney, Ken Lay, the entire Republican "brain trust," etc. That'd make a dent.
Send Karl Rove's to the HRC.
QUOTE
William1865:
Come on libs... send your tax cuts back! the addy is right there! One of your social programs need some more funding! Gept-Hart needs it for his socialized medicine that is only going to cost a few trillion!
QUOTE
Bill W:
I'd prefer to send back the refunds of W, Cheney, Ken Lay, the entire Republican \"brain trust,\" etc. That'd make a dent.
You guys are so good at spending other people's money. I'd prefer to send back the refunds of W, Cheney, Ken Lay, the entire Republican \"brain trust,\" etc. That'd make a dent.
Nope, mine will go to charities, such as anything that supports lesbian & gay issues, the environment, public housing and education, poor children, or other progressive causes, all of which are having to work overtime because of this dreadful administration!
Worthy causes that are getting the shaft from an administration that is doing the most damage any group of people have ever done to our country.
Just think if you send your favorite charity 100 bux, at least 10 of it will actually hit the people it needs... the rest... administrative fees!
Since sending my tax cut back to this government will only go to finance the next planned target in the 'war on terrorism', I will, instead, send a large portion of it to Head Start, or any of the other educational programs that will soon be starving for cash when the impact of the Bush tax cut starts to take effect.
School districts in many parts of this country are in crisis mode now and will soon be in dire straits, in part, thanks to White House Occupant Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Program. It's a program that sounds nice on paper, but seems that Mr. Bush hasn't yet funded the program - only 2 years after the fact. Seems he's shifted those funds to other projects (Iraq, tax cut 1, tax cut 2). No doubt in the upcoming campaign he (and Karl Rove) will never miss a chance to remind the public about his educational program. Let's hope whatever remains of the so-called "Liberal Media" will have the guts to point out the charade.
The rest of my tax cut (I'm not in the same caste as Mr. Cheney or Rumsfeld with the 6+7 figure tax cut benefits ) will happily go to the DNC. God knows they could use some help in 2004.
School districts in many parts of this country are in crisis mode now and will soon be in dire straits, in part, thanks to White House Occupant Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Program. It's a program that sounds nice on paper, but seems that Mr. Bush hasn't yet funded the program - only 2 years after the fact. Seems he's shifted those funds to other projects (Iraq, tax cut 1, tax cut 2). No doubt in the upcoming campaign he (and Karl Rove) will never miss a chance to remind the public about his educational program. Let's hope whatever remains of the so-called "Liberal Media" will have the guts to point out the charade.
The rest of my tax cut (I'm not in the same caste as Mr. Cheney or Rumsfeld with the 6+7 figure tax cut benefits ) will happily go to the DNC. God knows they could use some help in 2004.
QUOTE
William1865:
And you guys are so good at borrowing other peoples money.
QUOTE
Bill W:
I'd prefer to send back the refunds of W, Cheney, Ken Lay, the entire Republican \"brain trust,\" etc. That'd make a dent.
You guys are so good at spending other people's money. I'd prefer to send back the refunds of W, Cheney, Ken Lay, the entire Republican \"brain trust,\" etc. That'd make a dent.
Since all of you are in agreement that you would rather send this money to your favorite charity... we can all agree that the tax cut was a good for all of us.
I just think it is curious that the taxpayer that makes between $10,000-$26,000 were left out at the last moment in getting the $400 child credit back this year. I guess most of them did not make enough contributions to the Republican party this year.
Well, since I am too young to really know anything...I didn't get the last refund because I had my previously been claimed on my parents taxes the previous year, even though it had changed when the law went into effect. I don't have kids (dog and cat don't count). Can't claim my partner because...well hello. I make just under the 26,000 dollar mark. I just got a raise, though...15%!!! WOOHOO...Wait 60% of my raise is now going to taxes...So I am basically making what I was making before. And this tax cut is still not going to effect me because of my bracket...And if I wanted to adopt kids (which I do) I can't because of the laws (unless, I lie and say I am straight)...So I won't really ever be able to claim a child, spouse, dependent, anything...Which means I will be paying more than anyone...Even after the tax cuts...My health insurance just went up as did the deductible..while the family rate went down (a lot)...and their deductible did as well...Can someone explain why I should like the tax cut or feel indifferent or like Republicans (or even democrats for that matter...They could have one the last two important elections) So I am still being screwed...Yet we need to make perfect countries around the world with national healthcare...education...etc...Hell I have worked in Financial Aid for two years and you would really feel sorry for the highly intelligent middle class students who get screwed... GOD, I love being a middle class worker with a Master's Degree who makes jack shit because I want to be an educator. I will tell you this I sure as hell don't do what I do for the money. I am just tired of being screwed for being alive. I would go further but I have bitched enough.
QUOTE
Jason Cottrell:
I make just under the 26,000 dollar mark. I just got a raise, though...15%!!! WOOHOO...Wait 60% of my raise is now going to taxes...So I am basically making what I was making before.
That is not possible.... You raise didnt even put you in a higher tax bracket yet. I make just under the 26,000 dollar mark. I just got a raise, though...15%!!! WOOHOO...Wait 60% of my raise is now going to taxes...So I am basically making what I was making before.
I havent looked deeply at the new tax cut program that went into place, but just looking at what has been said and who's getting the refund checks, i'd say this one went more towards families with children, rather than the last one which sent money to most everyone, LOL well except you.
Jason, congratulations on being screwed. As you have said you got screwed big time in this tax cut (the Republicans were afraid that they would lose votes because the $5 billion it would have cost was over the $350 billion limit...hmmm may be put a 16% limit vs 15% limit on capital gains?). Unmarried, single, dudes with no house (therefore, no home mortgage to deduct), under 25 (your car insurance screws you), and because you are such a young and healthy man, the health insurance guys charge actually more because they know you won't be using your health insurance. Your premium actually helps to defray the costs of insurance of those who actually uses it---the elderly and the young. But, believe or not, these are the best years of your life. So, live life to its fullest!
Like the biggest tax cut (which lead to the biggest deficit since Bushwhacked 1) passed 2 years, this tax cut will mostly benefit the rich. And why not? They contribute the most into the coffers. These last two tax cuts are in the premise of "trickle down economy." (As you can tell, the first tax cut has yet to trickle down. So why not force another one so the first trickle moves faster.) Eventually, we all benefit by the rich getting richer, because their $1,000,000 will soon become $1,100,000, and they invest the profit into businesses that would pay $8.50/hr instead of $8 or at least not lay you off.
[ May 31, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: RJ in Huntington ]
Like the biggest tax cut (which lead to the biggest deficit since Bushwhacked 1) passed 2 years, this tax cut will mostly benefit the rich. And why not? They contribute the most into the coffers. These last two tax cuts are in the premise of "trickle down economy." (As you can tell, the first tax cut has yet to trickle down. So why not force another one so the first trickle moves faster.) Eventually, we all benefit by the rich getting richer, because their $1,000,000 will soon become $1,100,000, and they invest the profit into businesses that would pay $8.50/hr instead of $8 or at least not lay you off.
[ May 31, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: RJ in Huntington ]
"Eventually, we all benefit by the rich getting richer, because their $1,000,000 will soon become $1,100,000, and they invest the profit into businesses that would pay $8.50/hr instead of $8 or at least not lay you off."
I can't believe the logic (or lack of) behind this statment. Since no educated, informed economist has ever agreed with this supply-side, David Stockman, Reagan-era convolution of theory, I find it hard to believe that anyone else does in this day and age.
Implicit in supply-side economics theory is the assumption that rich people will spend money more intelligently than poor(er) people. The theory goes (even though it's unsubstantiated) that the rich will invest the money rather than spend it.
Bullshit.
The rich will spend the money just like the poor(er). Except the rich will spend the money on more expensive cars ... the poor(er) will spend it on things like food and, hopefully, education. And when the poor(er) spend their money, it creates more demand for consumer goods & services. And when that happens, businesses are more likely to invest in their long term interests, making more consumer goods, maintaining their workforce, creating better work opportunities.
This tax cut is nothing more than politics.
With this little rebate, the Bush regime is trying desperately to throw the American citizens a bone, hoping against hope that the voters will forget that the Administration has squandered our nation's prosperity with expensive investments in the Afghani & Iraqi occupations.
(Meanwhile, Halliburton and the oil companies are profiting greatly from our investment.)
My questions is: When do you suppose that we'll see our wages increase?
I can't believe the logic (or lack of) behind this statment. Since no educated, informed economist has ever agreed with this supply-side, David Stockman, Reagan-era convolution of theory, I find it hard to believe that anyone else does in this day and age.
Implicit in supply-side economics theory is the assumption that rich people will spend money more intelligently than poor(er) people. The theory goes (even though it's unsubstantiated) that the rich will invest the money rather than spend it.
Bullshit.
The rich will spend the money just like the poor(er). Except the rich will spend the money on more expensive cars ... the poor(er) will spend it on things like food and, hopefully, education. And when the poor(er) spend their money, it creates more demand for consumer goods & services. And when that happens, businesses are more likely to invest in their long term interests, making more consumer goods, maintaining their workforce, creating better work opportunities.
This tax cut is nothing more than politics.
With this little rebate, the Bush regime is trying desperately to throw the American citizens a bone, hoping against hope that the voters will forget that the Administration has squandered our nation's prosperity with expensive investments in the Afghani & Iraqi occupations.
(Meanwhile, Halliburton and the oil companies are profiting greatly from our investment.)
My questions is: When do you suppose that we'll see our wages increase?
The bottom line is that only money spent to produce goods and services can improve or sustain economic wellbeing. Money spent on anything that does not, will not. Gambling, whether by rich or poor, whether on Wall Street or on the one-dollar bookie on the corner of Wall Street, is less productive and hurts economic wellbeing of everyone by sucking money from the economy and producing little or nothing of value. Overall the rich can waste more simply because they have more to waste and can better afford to waste it. Just common sense IMO, or did I miss something?
Easily solved by all of you just sending your refunds or tax difference right back to the govt, then you have no complaints. Those who choose to keep their money can.
Mr Philly Fan: You seem very much in support of the Republican Party and its work. That is fine and that is your opinion. You automatically label all of us as liberals for being in support of the Democratic Party. There is a very clear reason for that- we are gay. The truth of the matter is that neither the Republican or Democratic parties have the best answers to solve economic, world power, health care crises, etc. But one of the two parties definitively more strongly supports a progression towards stronger and equal treatment for the gay (and other minority) communities. If neither side of the goverment is better at solving the average issues, then why shouldn't we be in support of those that help us progress instead of freeze right in place... I know you will throw the whole "don't ask, don't tell" as a failure for the Clinton administration, but it was a hint at some progress... Instead, now we have G.W. supporting multi-billion dollar funding for AIDS programs in Africa- where he could be spending that money here in America- but his policy doesn't support that because it is mostly heterosexual sex in Africa- so his morals say that it is ok to support that....and I am betting that he will do his damndest to make sure that the Texas sodomy case gets the backing he would like... his policies and his administration are not gay friendly at all, Philly Fan... I am the first to not want to be labelled as being gay over any of my other qualities, but I am still a man who happens to be gay... I believe overall that our country is great, but when I see leadership that doesn't support who I am- I can't agree with it.
I just want to know how junior and congress are going to pay for the cut?
To suggest to anyone in the Gay community to send the tax cut back to the Federal Government truly shows the stupidity that pro-Gop'ers will stoop in order to support the stupid policies of stupid dubya and his stupid GOP. Did I mention what a stupid idea this is?
Our community gets screwed on taxes more than any other, except we have NO rights to go along with the price we pay. Why on earth would we send our money back to the government? What an insult!
Our community gets screwed on taxes more than any other, except we have NO rights to go along with the price we pay. Why on earth would we send our money back to the government? What an insult!
well said men! 
I couldn't agree more with what you guys said!
I couldn't agree more with what you guys said!
Im all for more money in my pocket but when tax cuts come Ive never seen less money taken out of my check. I think thats a myth. You might get a bigger refund in April but not on your check. But I'll let everyone know when my next few pay days come since Im on salary and theyre always the same. If it goes up in pay I will kiss PhillyFan's feet.
Id also like to know why people with kids need to get a bigger tax break. Thats basically backing up overpopulation. More kids you get, more money you get back. Why? You already get EIC if youre poor, get tax breaks for filing jointly if youre married, then on top of that get tax breaks for claiming kids as dependents. What more do you need? Oh yeah, if you divorce you get the alimony and child support for the "kid's use". Straight people have it all, I tell ya!
And any of you wanting to return your refund checks, you can mail them to the DallasUNC monetary fund. I have debts I need to pay off, so if you dont want that money Ill take it. By doing so, you provide me with a way to degrade corporate America by not paying them so much interest on my credit cards. See it all works out in the end.
Id also like to know why people with kids need to get a bigger tax break. Thats basically backing up overpopulation. More kids you get, more money you get back. Why? You already get EIC if youre poor, get tax breaks for filing jointly if youre married, then on top of that get tax breaks for claiming kids as dependents. What more do you need? Oh yeah, if you divorce you get the alimony and child support for the "kid's use". Straight people have it all, I tell ya!
And any of you wanting to return your refund checks, you can mail them to the DallasUNC monetary fund. I have debts I need to pay off, so if you dont want that money Ill take it. By doing so, you provide me with a way to degrade corporate America by not paying them so much interest on my credit cards. See it all works out in the end.
QUOTE
DallasUNC:
I will kiss PhillyFan's feet.
Foot fedish is really not my thing....I will kiss PhillyFan's feet.
Horn, you can now use the money any way you choose... send it to your faovrite charity... send it back to the IRS, or some new bunny ears for the tv... You see, it's called choosing where your money goes... Rather than someone like say... dash-shell deciding it needs to go to him mom (since he tells you how poor she is, yet he is a multi-millionaire who doesnt support her) or some pork barrel project in south dakota. If Byrd doesnt have your nickle, he cant purchase new white robes for everyone in WV.
Some may want to save that "tax refund" for a rainy day if their personal finances look shaky in the future. And therein lies the problem. If they don't spend it, it doesn't work to help the economy, and if they don't help the economy then it will only get worst, then....well you get the point..or some of you will.
We are not savers like Japan and those who support a tax reduction are depending on our spending habits to follow patterns of the past. That's a gamble. Perhaps a bad one.
We are not savers like Japan and those who support a tax reduction are depending on our spending habits to follow patterns of the past. That's a gamble. Perhaps a bad one.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Since all of you are in agreement that you would rather send this money to your favorite charity... we can all agree that the tax cut was a good for all of us.
You assume that "we" are getting a tax cut in the first place. You only get a tax cut if (1) you have spawned kids AND make over $25K, or (2) have made buckets of investment income.Since all of you are in agreement that you would rather send this money to your favorite charity... we can all agree that the tax cut was a good for all of us.
I did neither of those things, nor did the majority of the posters on this board. Therefore we get nada. Zip. Zilch.
Oh, wait, except for the repercussions of this ill-advised budgetary move. :mad:
GatorJ
Yes, this point seems to be lost on some of the more hazy minds on the board. This is not an across the board tax cut that benefits everyone in the land. It was very targeted to specific groups of people, and not those who will spend the money readily on economically good things like goods and services.
However, the repurcussions of this bumbling public policy move will be felt by everyone in this country. The budget deficits will eventually drive up interest rates (once the economy improves a bit from its current septic tank location), more and more federal revenue will go to non-productive debt interest payments, and the already drought-stricken public services budgets will continue to thirst for some relief.
It all comes back to missing that middle ground between controlling spending, and requiring us to waste money on stupid non-productive things like the national debt. Why would we want to spend trillions on servicing debt when we could spend billions on services instead and still have a balanced budget? Nobody who supports this administration can riddle us an answer to that one.
However, the repurcussions of this bumbling public policy move will be felt by everyone in this country. The budget deficits will eventually drive up interest rates (once the economy improves a bit from its current septic tank location), more and more federal revenue will go to non-productive debt interest payments, and the already drought-stricken public services budgets will continue to thirst for some relief.
It all comes back to missing that middle ground between controlling spending, and requiring us to waste money on stupid non-productive things like the national debt. Why would we want to spend trillions on servicing debt when we could spend billions on services instead and still have a balanced budget? Nobody who supports this administration can riddle us an answer to that one.
I think the better idea is to take all the money we spent killing a few thousand people in Iraq (to avenge Daddy's failure in the early 90's) and just divide it evenly and return it to the American people. And the budget to invade Iran and Syria (and eventually Eygpt and the Saudi's) -- let's do the same thing. That will really jump start the economy.
Bill Clinton lowered the deficit (considerably), created 10 Million new jobs and had a viable economic policy. In just 2 1/2 years, W has presided over the loss of 3 Million jobs, unemployment is at least 10 Million and the deficit is increasing at a frightening rate. But man -- we sure showed that Saddam, didn't we?
Bill Clinton lowered the deficit (considerably), created 10 Million new jobs and had a viable economic policy. In just 2 1/2 years, W has presided over the loss of 3 Million jobs, unemployment is at least 10 Million and the deficit is increasing at a frightening rate. But man -- we sure showed that Saddam, didn't we?
QUOTE
William1865:
Fortunately, GatorJamie, you're mistaken. Everybody who pays income taxes will get a tax cut because tax rate reductions scheduled for 2004 and 2006 are being accelerated to this year. You should see more money in your check in a few paychecks - in July, I think.
A single person with no kids making $30,000 a year will receive $50 in this tax cut. That boils down to about $4.10 per month. Fortunately, GatorJamie, you're mistaken. Everybody who pays income taxes will get a tax cut because tax rate reductions scheduled for 2004 and 2006 are being accelerated to this year. You should see more money in your check in a few paychecks - in July, I think.
Woo Hoo!!! Dont spend it all in one place!!
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek: Poor and single left out of tax cut
QUOTE
William1865:
Fortunately, GatorJamie, you're mistaken.
Thanks for the correction, William. If I'm gonna be wrong on something, I'd rather it be on something like this (and not things that matter, like college football wink ). Fortunately, GatorJamie, you're mistaken.
I still don't see the merit in limiting the child care portion of the cut to over $25K in income. If anything, these are the folks who are going to plug that money right back into the economy, assuming that the true purpose of the cut was economic stimulus. frown
QUOTE
GatorJamie:
I still don't see the merit in limiting the child care portion of the cut to over $25K in income. If anything, these are the folks who are going to plug that money right back into the economy, assuming that the true purpose of the cut was economic stimulus.
Because if you have 2 children and make 25k a year, you actually receive anywhere from 2-3k FREE from the federal govt. Instead of paying ANY federal income tax, they pay ZIP.
I still don't see the merit in limiting the child care portion of the cut to over $25K in income. If anything, these are the folks who are going to plug that money right back into the economy, assuming that the true purpose of the cut was economic stimulus.
QUOTE
William1865:
The people making less than $25,000 generally don't pay income taxes. What you're basically saying is - and this is a perfectly debatable point - why don't we just give poor families with children $500, $1,000, $2,000 or whatever per child...
I disagree re the first point, but the greater issue is raised by the breeding incentive. I've always been opposed to tax incentives to support lifestyle choices such as how many children to bear, when (1) there's no real reason to promote population, and (2) what about those who can't have kids or choose not to. The people making less than $25,000 generally don't pay income taxes. What you're basically saying is - and this is a perfectly debatable point - why don't we just give poor families with children $500, $1,000, $2,000 or whatever per child...
As far as a stimulus, though, it would make sense to put more cash in the hands of those who would spend it. If that was to be on the basis of being a parent, that would be ok (again, only because it's a short-term stimulus proposal, not a long-term deduction), but I'm sure there are other categories that could be used just as well.
gj
I still find it humorous that the few remaining supporters of this asinine policy decision keep trying to repeat the same mantras over and over thinking the rest of us will fall for the same lines they have bitten hook, line, and sinker. I do not know how you come up with the twisted analysis you put forward, but it is not supported by any of the professional analysts who do this thing every day for a living.
Perhaps you should do your homework a little more. If you read the MSNBC article posted above, you will see the same information being discussed by many of the analysts in the marketplace. It is all very clear that your rose-colored version of things is not how the whole thing actually works. Specifically:
Perhaps you should do your homework a little more. If you read the MSNBC article posted above, you will see the same information being discussed by many of the analysts in the marketplace. It is all very clear that your rose-colored version of things is not how the whole thing actually works. Specifically:
QUOTE
1) It took a billionaire, Warren Buffett, to point out that the Bush tax plan was “class warfare.” Too many of the rest of us have acted as if the Bush administration’s severe tilt toward the rich was an opinion instead of a fact.
2) On its Web site last week, the Republican National Committee crowed: “Every taxpayer wins under the new tax bill.” This is simply untrue. An estimated 5 million American taxpayers will get zero, nada, zip. Those are mostly single filers in the 10 percent tax bracket who don’t have children and—because they aren’t exactly rolling in it—don’t have any dividend income.
3) the $350 billion number is a fiction. The real cost of the tax cut is closer to $1 trillion; the lower number is just part of an elaborate accounting gimmick, as even GOP Rep. Bill Thomas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, acknowledges.
4) the decision not to help lower-income married couples actually came weeks ago on an 11-to-10 party-line vote in the Senate Finance Committee.
5) we were told last week that House-Senate conferees faced a choice between the child tax credit for working families and helping out states with desperate needs. But the total cost for helping working families was less than $8 billion, less than 3 percent of the whole package. A less than 1 percent slower acceleration of the reduction of the top tax bracket or a 5 percent smaller dividend tax cut would have easily paid for it.
6) Meanwhile, the bill signing at the White House was another example of the Bush administration’s “average scam.” The president said that 34 million American families with children will receive an “average” tax cut of $1,549. But the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center figures that 78 percent of families will receive less than that average and 31 percent will receive less than $100. The more relevant numbers—the median tax cuts—aren’t part of the government’s tables.
7) To make matters even more troublesome for the working poor, GOP forces on the Hill are trying to crack down on what they see as fraud in the EITC program...They’re pressuring the IRS to require that EITC applicants provide elaborate documentation not requested for wealthier taxpayers who also receive tax credits. The amount the crackdown would save is small, but it’s the thought of nailing “those people” that counts.
8) it should be remembered that the greatest boom in American history took place in a period—the mid-1990s—when taxes on the wealthy were raised. But in the short run, it’s working people who spend their tax cuts and credits immediately, injecting money into the economy and creating jobs. So from a purely practical perspective, the new law is not going to help the economy much.
Aren't you guys tired of spreading misinformation and fighting against doing what is right in this country? I really don't care if you support the administration and ignore its atrocious track record on the economy, the environment, gay issues, etc. Just stop getting on here and trying to sell all of us that this clap-trap crap is good for the country and any of us. Call it for what it is -- the administration's attempts to reward those people they feel helped them get into office. If you were to ever just get on here and tell the truth, we all might feel less compelled to point out the fallacies of your arguments.
2) On its Web site last week, the Republican National Committee crowed: “Every taxpayer wins under the new tax bill.” This is simply untrue. An estimated 5 million American taxpayers will get zero, nada, zip. Those are mostly single filers in the 10 percent tax bracket who don’t have children and—because they aren’t exactly rolling in it—don’t have any dividend income.
3) the $350 billion number is a fiction. The real cost of the tax cut is closer to $1 trillion; the lower number is just part of an elaborate accounting gimmick, as even GOP Rep. Bill Thomas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, acknowledges.
4) the decision not to help lower-income married couples actually came weeks ago on an 11-to-10 party-line vote in the Senate Finance Committee.
5) we were told last week that House-Senate conferees faced a choice between the child tax credit for working families and helping out states with desperate needs. But the total cost for helping working families was less than $8 billion, less than 3 percent of the whole package. A less than 1 percent slower acceleration of the reduction of the top tax bracket or a 5 percent smaller dividend tax cut would have easily paid for it.
6) Meanwhile, the bill signing at the White House was another example of the Bush administration’s “average scam.” The president said that 34 million American families with children will receive an “average” tax cut of $1,549. But the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center figures that 78 percent of families will receive less than that average and 31 percent will receive less than $100. The more relevant numbers—the median tax cuts—aren’t part of the government’s tables.
7) To make matters even more troublesome for the working poor, GOP forces on the Hill are trying to crack down on what they see as fraud in the EITC program...They’re pressuring the IRS to require that EITC applicants provide elaborate documentation not requested for wealthier taxpayers who also receive tax credits. The amount the crackdown would save is small, but it’s the thought of nailing “those people” that counts.
8) it should be remembered that the greatest boom in American history took place in a period—the mid-1990s—when taxes on the wealthy were raised. But in the short run, it’s working people who spend their tax cuts and credits immediately, injecting money into the economy and creating jobs. So from a purely practical perspective, the new law is not going to help the economy much.
QUOTE
As far as a stimulus, though, it would make sense to put more cash in the hands of those who would spend it. If that was to be on the basis of being a parent, that would be ok (again, only because it's a short-term stimulus proposal, not a long-term deduction), but I'm sure there are other categories that could be used just as well.
GatorJamie has the key point here - if one wants to stimulate the economy, one does not give money to those who do not need it. Not only will investments by rich people (and I count myself among the rich in this country - I should be seeing a pretty good chuck of change from this tax cut, not to mention the tax benefits of just having bought a house) not have the desired "trickle-down" effect, they will not stimulate the economy, because the rich generally have the basic necessities of life, not to mention the luxuries, covered. Tax cuts simply take too long to work for a true stimulus plan, and they are hard to reverse when the economy gets better (that is why I supported the indexing idea for the last tax cut - which would have automatically stopped the cuts if a recession were to come). Fiscal stimuli (like the public works campaigns of FDR's New Deal) work much better because they pump more money into the economy more quickly than do tax cuts.
If those stimuli are also aimed at improving the national infrastructure (as opposed to the over-priced military equipment Reagan spent his deficits on), they represent investments in the future that will reap benefits for future generations. And, they are short term and can be stopped quickly once the economy improves. Best of both worlds!
As for returning the tax cut, Phillyfan, it is a noble but basically worthless idea. If taxation were done on a voluntary basis, there would be no taxes collected. Humans are greedy, it is the foundation of our entire economic system, and so few would be motivated to turn their tax cuts back in that there would be no net benefit. I am happy to have more money in my pocket, but I am also fine with paying a little more. I'm not going to volunteer the money, but I will also not complain when the tax rates go back up in a few years (which they will have to do).
[ June 02, 2003, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]
Charlie In St. Louis. Bravo Charlie!! You said what needs to be said, just perfectly my friend. Ain't it all the truth. Here is the success formula for Republicans. And really its quite simple, award the wealthy with big fat tax breaks, and Corporations too, since there are so many wealthy Republicans. Make them happy by giving them a big fat tax break, which in turn keeps them satisfied,and allows them to make big fat donations to the Republicans and especially so in Presidential years, and since everybody knows he who has the most cash, basically wins in America, the Republicans garner a huge war chest.
QUOTE
William1865:
The same can be said for bleeding heart liberal causes.....QUOTE
charliecstl:
Aren't you guys tired of spreading misinformation and fighting against doing what is right in this country? I really don't care if you support the administration and ignore its atrocious track record on the economy, the environment, gay issues, etc. Just stop getting on here and trying to sell all of us that this clap-trap crap is good for the country and any of us.
I apologize, I won't be coming back. Aren't you guys tired of spreading misinformation and fighting against doing what is right in this country? I really don't care if you support the administration and ignore its atrocious track record on the economy, the environment, gay issues, etc. Just stop getting on here and trying to sell all of us that this clap-trap crap is good for the country and any of us.
And please show me some legislation that the bush administration pushed through that is anti-gay... DOMA is already taken by the previous administration. Nature? UHHHHH, there was smog in phx when clinton was pres, there still is now. Talk about rose colored glasses... go look in the mirror.
And sorry, but when you cut taxes... given the fact that the top 10% pay 90% of the income taxes in this country... they always come out ahead. However, you would rather punish people for making money, and give it to people who pay no taxes in the first place. You libs wanna make the country a welfare state... of course you think any tax cut is unfair unless it goes to people who cant afford to raise the children they chose to have... You cant afford to have that kid? oh, let uncle sam help you....
Instead of bitching at this agenda, why dont you do something to organize your party, who has obviously lost touch with america. Take back the house or senate. At that point some of your agenda gets in. Make W compromise. God knows right now whoever runs has very little chance of winning.
Phillyfan said organize your party which has lost touch with America We don't need to my friend, if you will check the popular vote in the last election, you will see that the Demos came out on top. Its pretty easy to understand really.
QUOTE
QUOTE
It's just too bad that the popular vote got you zero, zip, zilch.... nada, nothing.
If that was the case, please explain how you lost control of the senate, and not even sniffing control in the house?????
If that was the case, please explain how you lost control of the senate, and not even sniffing control in the house?????
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
The same can be said for bleeding heart liberal causes.....
You libs wanna make the country a welfare state...
PhillyFan - I always get a good laugh when you use the term "liberals", "libs." From what Ive read of your many postings I have learned that you support gay marriage, support gay rights and are pro choice. The same can be said for bleeding heart liberal causes.....
You libs wanna make the country a welfare state...
I got news for you buddy, the overwhelming majority of people in your party would not only consider you a "liberal" but more than likely a member of the dreaded "looney left."
Dont believe me? Head over to the GOP headquarters in AZ, tell them you support gay marriage/gay rights and are pro choice, see what kind of welcome you get.
[ June 02, 2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
PhillyFan - I always get a good laugh when you use the term \"liberals\", \"libs.\" From what Ive read of your many postings I have learned that you support gay marriage, support gay rights and are pro choice.
I got news for you buddy, the overwhelming majority of people in your party would not only consider you a \"liberal\" but more than likely a member of the dreaded \"looney left.\"
Dont believe me? Head over to the GOP headquarters in AZ, tell them you support gay marriage/gay rights and are pro choice, see what kind of welcome you get.
Sorry i'm not a pinko-commie.... PhillyFan - I always get a good laugh when you use the term \"liberals\", \"libs.\" From what Ive read of your many postings I have learned that you support gay marriage, support gay rights and are pro choice.
I got news for you buddy, the overwhelming majority of people in your party would not only consider you a \"liberal\" but more than likely a member of the dreaded \"looney left.\"
Dont believe me? Head over to the GOP headquarters in AZ, tell them you support gay marriage/gay rights and are pro choice, see what kind of welcome you get.
It's a 100 and effing thousand degrees today... i'm not going anywhere till the sun goes down, except driving home from work.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Sorry i'm not a pinko-commie.... It's a 100 and effing thousand degrees today... i'm not going anywhere till the sun goes down, except driving home from work.
Uhhhhhh I didnt say you were a pinko-commie...
but you are my favorite Arizona liberal wink
Sounds like you need to use your tax cut money and get a nice office fan.
No, i was calling you the pinko-commie...
Office fan? no, just go from air conditioned work, to air conditioned truck, to air conditioned home. However, sometimes the vent above me is pointed wrong and blows directly on me so i freeze my ass off.
I cant be a commie-liberal like you... i like driving my crewcab truck that gets 17 miles a gallon... would dream of car pooling, and i litter every chance i can get.
I dont think they have molson canadian at RNC headqtrs. The state repubs... hmmmmmm, i think they want me at the national office anyway...
Office fan? no, just go from air conditioned work, to air conditioned truck, to air conditioned home. However, sometimes the vent above me is pointed wrong and blows directly on me so i freeze my ass off.
I cant be a commie-liberal like you... i like driving my crewcab truck that gets 17 miles a gallon... would dream of car pooling, and i litter every chance i can get.
I dont think they have molson canadian at RNC headqtrs. The state repubs... hmmmmmm, i think they want me at the national office anyway...
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
The state repubs... hmmmmmm, i think they want me at the national office anyway...
Closet Liberal PhillyFan - Yeah, they are always on the lookout for repugs who support gay marriage and are pro choice, you should feel right at home there!!!
The state repubs... hmmmmmm, i think they want me at the national office anyway...
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
Closet Liberal PhillyFan
I find that rude and i'm offended... have some respect for handles and dont change them... :cool:
Closet Liberal PhillyFan
I appreciate CPT's posting a lot. It is not that any of us want to pay more in taxes. We all want to have more money in our pocket. But not at the expense of the long-term economic health of the country. There is a very sound saying -- pay me now or pay me later. When you decide to pay later, it is almost always more expensive than putting up with the unhappiness of paying now.
I just shake my head and wonder how the few people who actually believe the tax cuts are good can so thoroughly avoid dealing with their own selfishness/greediness that CPT mentions. The only people I have heard support this (any place I have read or talked to people) are those who want to have a few extra bucks today at whatever cost to the country tomorrow. That is not healthy for our society.
I would be supportive of this tax cut (to some degree) if the economy was clicking along, we were spending money on infrastructure programs that would reap benefits later on, and we were looking out for our children and elderly.
I am tired of hearing about people who are spending up to 25% of their GROSS pay on COBRA coverage because their spouse is out of work and had the health coverage. I am tired of seeing people have to decide if they will buy milk, bread, and eggs this week, because they can't afford the basics. And then to see the government spending so indiscriminately on programs and tax cuts that benefit a small group of people who have the money and power to influence the next election. It is absolutely a case of missing or non-existent integrity, and it is just infuriating.
I just shake my head and wonder how the few people who actually believe the tax cuts are good can so thoroughly avoid dealing with their own selfishness/greediness that CPT mentions. The only people I have heard support this (any place I have read or talked to people) are those who want to have a few extra bucks today at whatever cost to the country tomorrow. That is not healthy for our society.
I would be supportive of this tax cut (to some degree) if the economy was clicking along, we were spending money on infrastructure programs that would reap benefits later on, and we were looking out for our children and elderly.
I am tired of hearing about people who are spending up to 25% of their GROSS pay on COBRA coverage because their spouse is out of work and had the health coverage. I am tired of seeing people have to decide if they will buy milk, bread, and eggs this week, because they can't afford the basics. And then to see the government spending so indiscriminately on programs and tax cuts that benefit a small group of people who have the money and power to influence the next election. It is absolutely a case of missing or non-existent integrity, and it is just infuriating.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
And sorry, but when you cut taxes... given the fact that the top 10% pay 90% of the income taxes in this country... they always come out ahead. However, you would rather punish people for making money, and give it to people who pay no taxes in the first place.
Do you consider your statement an argument for following up the largest tax cut in history (which hasn't spurred the econonmy, but has created record deficits) with another large tax cut targeted at the rich? All that the latest tax cut will do is make the deficits so huge that the GOP will have an excuse to slash tons of programs they didn't care for anyway as we coast toward a future of unfunded Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and all the states heading toward bankruptcy while the Federal government lifts the debt ceiling so high that they soak up all the available credit faster than the Bush twins would soak up beer at a kegger.And sorry, but when you cut taxes... given the fact that the top 10% pay 90% of the income taxes in this country... they always come out ahead. However, you would rather punish people for making money, and give it to people who pay no taxes in the first place.
I saw a political comic that said something like "We're passing this tax cut to make sure that the rich have more money because, after all, that's the definition of being rich." That makes about as much sense as your argument.
I know you started this thread with a tongue-in-cheek tone about where people can send their tax refunds, if they're rich enough to receive any, but if you want to carry on the argument much longer you can't ignore what it's doing to the national debt and consider it much of a discussion.
[ June 02, 2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: OlympicFan ]
QUOTE
OlympicFan:
but has created record deficits
why dont you do some present value calculations... or compare the deficit vs the GDP and get back to me on your records.
but has created record deficits
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
... compare the deficit vs the GDP and get back to me on your records.
Let's. I Googled for \"deficit as percent of gdp\" and got 157,000 hits. At this first link, there's a chart that is not a .jpg or .gif. It can't be quoted without a disruption of its formatting. I'll provide just one line, and you can check the rest. Bear in mind, this is a projection.... compare the deficit vs the GDP and get back to me on your records.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/2004budgetper...erspective.html
QUOTE
February 4, 2003
FISCAL POLICY MEMO
By John S. Barry, Chief Economist
The President’s FY2004 Budget in Perspective
Deficit (-)/Surplus as percent of GDP:
Reagan
Budgets
(FY’82 - FY’89) -4.3%
G.H.W. Bush
Budgets
(FY’90 - FY’93) -4.3%
Clinton
Budgets
(FY’94 – FY’01) -0.1%
Post-WWII
Average
(FY’46 - FY’02) -1.6%
FY’04
Proposal -2.7%
I don't know who the Tax Foundation is, and, as always, you can parse figures to reach any conclusion you want.FISCAL POLICY MEMO
By John S. Barry, Chief Economist
The President’s FY2004 Budget in Perspective
Deficit (-)/Surplus as percent of GDP:
Reagan
Budgets
(FY’82 - FY’89) -4.3%
G.H.W. Bush
Budgets
(FY’90 - FY’93) -4.3%
Clinton
Budgets
(FY’94 – FY’01) -0.1%
Post-WWII
Average
(FY’46 - FY’02) -1.6%
FY’04
Proposal -2.7%
Here's another link.
http://207.27.3.29/dailyfed/0902/091102bb.htm
QUOTE
September 11, 2002
Dealing with the deficit
If discretionary spending grows at the 8.5 percent average of the past five years, tax law is not changed, no new entitlements are approved, and the economy grows at the rate currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office, then the federal deficit will average about 1.4 percent of GDP over the next five years. This would obviously be worse than the 0.9 percent surplus recorded from fiscal 1998 to 2002. But it would also be an improvement over the 2.1 percent of GDP average deficit that occurred in the five years before the surpluses began in 1998.
The deficit will also be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP over the next five years, and so will not create the type of situation that (technically, at least) has caused concern to build in the past.
All of which suggests that Congress and the president may have to increase spending significantly or enact substantial additional tax cuts to make the deficit an issue again.
Uh-oh.
Dealing with the deficit
If discretionary spending grows at the 8.5 percent average of the past five years, tax law is not changed, no new entitlements are approved, and the economy grows at the rate currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office, then the federal deficit will average about 1.4 percent of GDP over the next five years. This would obviously be worse than the 0.9 percent surplus recorded from fiscal 1998 to 2002. But it would also be an improvement over the 2.1 percent of GDP average deficit that occurred in the five years before the surpluses began in 1998.
The deficit will also be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP over the next five years, and so will not create the type of situation that (technically, at least) has caused concern to build in the past.
All of which suggests that Congress and the president may have to increase spending significantly or enact substantial additional tax cuts to make the deficit an issue again.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.