25 Jan 08
I like it that the idea the government gets to boost the economy is to
give a tax rebate, and a tax give away. Since they are giving some
money to people who do not pay taxes, for them they are not getting
money back, they are just getting money some one else paid into
to government coffers. Money that could have gone to the people
that are paying taxes are denied a larger rebate so others can get free
money.
If giving money to the people of the country is such a good idea to
make the economy stronger why not just cut taxes and let us keep
what we earn to begin with? I can see that some would not like that
because the tax money give away couldn’t be done, they would have
to come up with another idea on how to soak those those who do
pay taxes.
Kelly
25 Jan 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are spot on -- the current economic stimulus package is nothing more than "lollipop economics." Remember, by giving one constituency a $600 rebate to spend, someone else had $600 taken away from them that they won't be able to spend.
I like it that the idea the government gets to boost the economy is to
give a tax rebate, and a tax give away. Since they are giving some
money to people who do not pay taxes, for them they are not getting
money back, they are just getting money some one else paid into
to government coffers. Money that could have gone to the people
that are paying taxe ...[text shortened]... ey would have
to come up with another idea on how to soak those those who do
pay taxes.
Kelly
25 Jan 08
Originally posted by KellyJayDidn't you just kind of answer your own question? The whole point is that everyone - not just those who pay taxes - has to get a sudden blast of cash to increase consumption and stimulate the economy. If the government just cut taxes, then the net effect on those people who don't pay taxes would be zero, and the potential economic stimulation would be decreased.
If giving money to the people of the country is such a good idea to
make the economy stronger why not just cut taxes and let us keep
what we earn to begin with?
I guess the other point is that this is intended to be an emergency measure rather than a permanent tax cut.
25 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly: I am far enough from the trees to see the forrest. This is simply, buying of votes by using the voters money. Nothing new.
I like it that the idea the government gets to boost the economy is to
give a tax rebate, and a tax give away. Since they are giving some
money to people who do not pay taxes, for them they are not getting
money back, they are just getting money some one else paid into
to government coffers. Money that could have gone to the people
that are paying taxe ...[text shortened]... ey would have
to come up with another idea on how to soak those those who do
pay taxes.
Kelly
A correct name for this action is "Vote Stimulus Package."
25 Jan 08
Originally posted by darthmixNo, you are not correct it is that some are getting free money, but
Didn't you just kind of answer your own question? The whole point is that everyone - not just those who pay taxes - has to get a sudden blast of cash to increase consumption and stimulate the economy. If the government just cut taxes, then the net effect on those people who don't pay taxes would be zero, and the potential economic stimulation would b ...[text shortened]... her point is that this is intended to be an emergency measure rather than a permanent tax cut.
that money came from someone else who earned it, and it was taken
away from them, taken out of the economy. Had I taken a gun used
it against you so I could take away some of your money to give to
others I'd be stealing, when the govenment does it, it is called taxes.
Kelly
25 Jan 08
Originally posted by MacSwainI agree with you, but it pisses me off more than makes me grateful
Kelly: I am far enough from the trees to see the forrest. This is simply, buying of votes by using the voters money. Nothing new.
A correct name for this action is "Vote Stimulus Package."
to tell you the truth. If they worked on ways to reduce the need for
taking our money instead of trying to get more of it, we all would be
much better off.
Kelly
25 Jan 08
Originally posted by darthmixThis type of stimulus will merely add to the deficit. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent and cutting the corporate tax rates to something more competitive, say from the current 35 percent to 25 percent (ideally, 19 percent or less would be even better) would do more to encourage growth. When I get my $600 tax rebate, I will probably put it in the bank and save it for my property taxes in January 2009.
Didn't you just kind of answer your own question? The whole point is that everyone - not just those who pay taxes - has to get a sudden blast of cash to increase consumption and stimulate the economy. If the government just cut taxes, then the net effect on those people who don't pay taxes would be zero, and the potential economic stimulation would b ...[text shortened]... her point is that this is intended to be an emergency measure rather than a permanent tax cut.
25 Jan 08
I'm gonna use my check to hire some illegal Mexican workers to water my lawn.
Just kidding.
Anyway, everyone seems to agree that this stimulus package is liking putting a band-aide on a severed limb, and so do I, but let's be clear: nobody is claiming this is some kind of tax justice package, giving money back to the people who earned it. If you want that, fine, but it has nothing to do with this. This is intended to be an immediate short-term economic stimulus; it only needs to serve that purpose, so that's how it's being sold. And it hopes to do that by giving all consumers - regardless of whether or not they "deserve" it - a sudden flush of cash, all at the same time, in the hope that they'll all spend it around the same time to create momentum toward an economic recovery. You can argue that it's not fair, but the folks who're implementing it aren't arguing that it is; they're arguing that it's practical. It's also cheaper than a long-term tax cut; given that our government shows no signs of decreasing spending a major tax cut right now would be irresponsible.
25 Jan 08
Originally posted by darthmixThe trouble is that this is the normal mind set of those that that put
I'm gonna use my check to hire some illegal Mexican workers to water my lawn.
Just kidding.
Anyway, everyone seems to agree that this stimulus package is liking putting a band-aide on a severed limb, and so do I, but let's be clear: nobody is claiming this is some kind of tax justice package, giving money back to the people who earned it. If you want ...[text shortened]... s no signs of decreasing spending a major tax cut right now would be irresponsible.
us into this position. They know the more money we have the better
off the country is, but that does not buy votes. If it is an agreed
notion that the more money the people are spending, they should
stop taking so much of our income out of the economy in the first
place. We need leaders not Robinhoods in our govenment, let them
pull everyone up instead of taking from some and giving to others.
Kelly
25 Jan 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWhich of course is a much larger argument, and it's the argument that you and a few others make on this board on a daily basis. In it you have to at least acknowledge the counter-argument that the government can't afford the kind of tax-cuts you're asking for and still sustain the social services the people demand and the various wars we're engaged in right now. I know you want to talk about that issue, and you will, but I don't think the stimulus package is a good way to segue into it, because it's not trying to be that, and nobody's claiming it's supposed to be that. It's a hail-mary play to avoid a recession using as much cash as the government can spare at this moment. That's all.
The trouble is that this is the normal mind set of those that that put
us into this position. They know the more money we have the better
off the country is, but that does not buy votes. If it is an agreed
notion that the more money the people are spending, they should
stop taking so much of our income out of the economy in the first
place. We need lea ...[text shortened]... r govenment, let them
pull everyone up instead of taking from some and giving to others.
Kelly
25 Jan 08
Originally posted by darthmixHey, any step in the direction of giving the money back to the people
Which of course is a much larger argument, and it's the argument that you and a few others make on this board on a daily basis. In it you have to at least acknowledge the counter-argument that the government can't afford the kind of tax-cuts you're asking for and still sustain the social services the people demand and the various wars we're engaged in right ...[text shortened]... a recession using as much cash as the government can spare at this moment. That's all.
who earned it in the first place I’m all for, but it should shed some
light on the notion that we cannot have it both ways! There needs to
be a level of services the government can afford to give us and where
it draws the line in that it cannot. What we have now are people in
power who feel it is always acceptable to take away from the
population/corporations what ever they can in fees and taxes so that
the government can be everything for everyone.
Kelly
25 Jan 08
Originally posted by KellyJaykelly you posted the following:
I like it that the idea the government gets to boost the economy is to
give a tax rebate, and a tax give away. Since they are giving some
money to people who do not pay taxes, for them they are not getting
money back, they are just getting money some one else paid into
to government coffers. Money that could have gone to the people
that are paying taxe ...[text shortened]... ey would have
to come up with another idea on how to soak those those who do
pay taxes.
Kelly
Sure we all do, we pay taxes every time we buy milk for our kids
or anything else. Businesses pay taxes that raise the cost of
everything so the cost of living goes up, because it cost more to
make things you require. The amount of money gas is taxed raises
the cost of every thing that is affected by that, it is all connected.
Which is why I hate hearing some politician claim that they want to
tax our way out of the trouble we are in, when in fact if they stopped
spending or giving away much of our money to make themselves look
good the government would not need so much less than they do now
to make ends meet. Look at the areas that are in real trouble most of
them are liberal bastions of giving away tax payers money and those
that receive a small crumb of that money keeps it so.
Kelly
Is bush a liberal for "giving money away"?, or have the poor paid taxes also, and are in need of relief?
I'm just asking, because I'm not sure where you stand. I, for one, am against this stimulis package, it is only a short term fix. It also has the effect of decreasing the funds neccessary to run our govt., hence increasing our national debt. Now if Bush had said he was going to spend less on Iraq, and more on highway and infastructure developement, I would have applauded that as a wise use of taxpayer money, while simultaneously stimulating the economy.
25 Jan 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAgreed. The consumption channel is not nearly as important as the investment channel over the long-run. By placing your money in savings, banks are freed to loan more money (especially useful since the assets side of their balance sheets has been taking a big hit).
This type of stimulus will merely add to the deficit. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent and cutting the corporate tax rates to something more competitive, say from the current 35 percent to 25 percent (ideally, 19 percent or less would be even better) would do more to encourage growth. When I get my $600 tax rebate, I will probably put it in the bank and save it for my property taxes in January 2009.
Still, I'm happy to get $1200 back.
26 Jan 08
Originally posted by duecerI do not think of it was giving money away, but giving it back.
kelly you posted the following:
Sure we all do, we pay taxes every time we buy milk for our kids
or anything else. Businesses pay taxes that raise the cost of
everything so the cost of living goes up, because it cost more to
make things you require. The amount of money gas is taxed raises
the cost of every thing that is affected by that, it is all ...[text shortened]... pplauded that as a wise use of taxpayer money, while simultaneously stimulating the economy.
I was also against the those not paying Fed tax getting any of it too,
but you changed my mind. I now am glad they are, because as our
conversation has pointed out we all pay taxes, so I'm not going to
complain again about that one again, they may not have paid the
income tax but they sure as heck paid a number of others.
Kelly
I'm not sure about George Bush, I like and dislike him depending
on the subject matter.