Poll, Will the tax cut help?
 

i for one believe the experts on it, (greenspan) who dont think it will do any real help what do you think

48% of americans will see less than $100

chaney gets over $100K

i (my family) will receive about $120 we pull $78k a year, is this fair?
if we had a kid, it would jump to $520 (lets breed like rats for more money)

it is a $350B tax cut, but it will be $1T when it is extended next year

speak your mind

Anytime money is in circulation, and anything that puts money into circulation is good for the economy. I haven't looked into exactly what it will or will not for us but if the government doesn't need it then they shouldn't collect it. Like the adds say - it's my money and I want it.

hmm...no i dont think this will solve anything.


yes, people are going to get a couple of hundred bucks, but it's more than likely that they will save their money in a time like this. they prolly cutting their expenses due to fear of job loss or other variables.

bush administration want this money in circulation, but i doubt most of will get there.

I will consider it my duty as an American to spend my rebate on Doom3 and Half-Life2. :D

The "tax cut" will only help the rich, but I'm still looking forward to my $800 check for the child credit that is retro to 1/1/2002. You get up to $400 per kid. The checks come out in July. WOO-HOO!!

I think what GW is doing is similar to the Reaganomics from the 80's. Not sure where the money is going to come from if we're already in a deficit situation.

Lol, you think you guys have it bad. Our Prime Minister just gave us "tax cuts" that were worth about $4.00.

AND he appointed an anglican archbishop as Governor-General (like an irrelevant symbolic presidency). The G-G is currently embroiled in Church sex scandals - whoever saw that one coming?

I'll say one thing, our bloody Johnny Howard has chutzpah.

i honestly dont see how giving 48% of america less than 100 dollars will help this economy.

Here si an essay i wrote a little while ago:





In the coming months, President bush wants to release step up his tax cut to stimulate the economy, although he pushes it as a fair and balanced plan it is not, he shows all the points that are closest to being fair but in reality all the benefits are skewed to the rich. Why does president Bush want to get rid of the taxation of the dividend when most of the businesses not even pay taxes on it anyways? Moreover, who will this tax cut really help.

First off, the plan does seem fair, and for all the reasons that bush raves about it is, but what is fair is not always. For the most part, the rich do pay most of the taxes, so if there were to be a tax cut across the board, they should receive a disproportional most of the money. However, this is not the case. Where as bush publicizes his stereotypical “family of 4, making 40,000 a year” as cutting 96% off there taxes a reduction from $1178 to $45 a year. Unfortunately, most of America does not have two kids, which make up for $800, most of the tax decrease. Where as he bends the truth the typical family with kids has 1.86 kids, but there is only an average of .89 kids per family in the US (Family in the second instance being one tax return). Further more on fairness, where as stated above, the rich should get more back because they paid more in the first place is fair, but they should get the same percentage back as what all classes get back. In bushes plan, those making less than $10,000 would get back about $6, where as taxpayers making more than a million would get back $45,098. Now I’m not going majoring in math but $6/$10,000 < $45,098/$1,000,000 in fact it is 75 times less. Now although these statistics may change depending on how you slide the facts around, for example you could give the $10,000 wage earner a kids and it would equal it out percentage. Nevertheless, the idea is still there, the rich are still getting more from it.

Another parts of the tax cut if the elimination of the double taxation on dividends. He wants to do this because he says it is unfair to the consumer and because he says it will boost the prices of the stock. First off, for the most part, most business is able to avoid the taxation of their dividends. Not like savings accounts and money market funds, which are taxed yearly, corporate profits compound tax-free until they are played as dividends or sold as stock. Moreover, if they are passed to heirs, all the taxes, and the taxes of a lifetime is wiped clean. In addition, they are exempt from social security and Medicare taxes. Unfortunately all this would do is it would make it that much easier for companies to literally steal from there employees by pushing the cost onto there paycheck

Companies find more and more ways to avoid the corporate income tax. Unlike, say, interest on a savings account or money market fund, which is taxed every year, corporate profits are allowed to compound tax-free until they are paid out as dividends or the stock is sold. A notorious quirk in the tax law wipes out a lifetime of taxes on stock that is passed on to heirs. Dividends and capital gains are also exempt from the Social Security and Medicare taxes. One way or another, rare is the dollar of corporate profits that bears a tax burden heavier than the burden on an employee's wages.

Unfortunately, these cuts will only truly help the wealthy, where most people own stock; it is in their 401k and other retirement accounts, which are already shelter from these taxes. 90% of all stock is owned by the richest 10%, where as it continues to 42% of all stock is owned by the richest 1%. The help is going to the wrong people; the rich do not need the money.

The whole idea behind bushes plan is to jump-start the economy by putting money into the consumer’s pocket. Who would spend the money? Would the person who is making $10,000 a year spend their $6, probably? It is not enough to do any thing with though it would probably go towards food or some other necessity. This is not what needs to be stimulated. What about bushes favorite “$40,000 a year 2 kids” they would get back over $1000, what would they do with the money? If there like some of America which does not know if they will have there job 6 months from now, they would probably save it. If they have a secure job, then what well they may spend it but most likely, they would put it to save for collage with two kids and all. Again not getting much back into the economy.

Now to the very rich they will rake in almost $50,000 from the tax cut, what will they do with the money., they might spend it, but what would they need, they already make several million a year and don’t need anything else. So they would probably invest it, but in what. I think they would probably invest in stock, not just any stock but a stock that gives dividend. Why they’re set to go up real soon and the checks are set to go out before the dividend cut is I hope that I’m not the only one that thinks this is fishy. This looks like just another president trying to outsmart the American public for his rich friends and his big business friends.

Yea, it will help just like it did when Reagan was president. Sorry for the sarcasm. Anybody out there old enough to remember trickle down economics?

I'm for any tax cut, but I wish more money would go to the people who really need it. I realize the wealthy pay more taxes, thereby entitling them to a larger percentage in a tax cut. But from what I have read it appears a disproportionate amount of this cut will be reserved for the wealthy.
So to answer the question, I do think it will help the people who need help the least and do little for the economy in general.

Its trickle down man...Look, money only is worth anything when it is spent right? Well who spends the most money? The upper class...When they buy shit who sees more money from sales? The middle class. When sales go up, the middle class hires more people, to make and sell the shit...That equals more money/jobs for the poor.

The logic is perfect, the thing is it takes time, and most people in this country are only interested in immediate results...Which help the now, but leave nothing for the future...

Frowning Budha, If given more time trickle down would have worked....I can almost garauntee it, but as I said, people want immediate results. In turn, most immediate results completely fuck the future...

It's good to see the government returning funds, however, the net effect will be less than nominal.

but the problem is the uper class wont spend the check, they have all they need right now, why would a few thousand do any thing for them. further if they were to spend it it would most likely be in proporty, (its quite low in some areas) and that just passes money aroud the rich. not geting a good or a service.

How can anyone be upset with keeping more of their hard earned money? I just don't get this.

Who would you rather trust to spend your money, the government or you?

There hasn't been a tax cut that hasn't helped. Sure, it may not be right away, or have a large impact, but they always help.

As for the so called experts (Greenspan), he only said that the tax cut was not needed due to the improving economy. At the next fed meeting, he backed off the position that the economy is improving. I'm no expert, but if the reason to not have a tax cut is because of an improving economy, which may not be improving as well as expected, maybe we need another stimulus package.

i dont agree with it because the government needs money to function, taxes pay for things to get done. if the money was say put to good use like schools or health care it would stimulate the economy much more

or even using teh money to directly creat jobs, not wellfare but workfare, people who cant find work could have jobs created taht need to be done, there are schools which could use a new paint job, (creat labor and stimulate paint production) roads need repaving, litter needs to be picked up, we can pay people to buitify parks (more labor and helping the farmers, (flower farmers))

...
...
...

there are better uses for the money.

krwlz, David Stockman, the guy who masterminded trickle down economics admitted during the Reagan administration that trickle-down economics was nothing more than a hoax. It doesn't work. You can give whatever reasons for its failure your want to, but the end result is it's a failure.
It seems to me that those people most able to affect our economy have no idea about how to do it. Greenspan cuts the rate, Bush cuts taxes, things just get worse. The fundamental problem with economics is that it is a social science rather than a physical science. You can offer simplified models of human behavior, but in the end you can't know for sure and you sure as hell can't affect their behavior. This tax cut won't do a damn thing to turn the economy around. People with money are going to keep hoarding it, and people without aren't going to get any more. Capitalism is the devil's wet dream, but we haven't anything better yet.

It will be good for the economy. Chances are anyone that saves a little bit of money on taxes will not save it or invest it. They will spend it. So most of the money that is saved will be reinvested into the economy and retaxxed.

I think it will work. It worked in the 80's. People can't save, they spend spend spend. The economy lites up, it's all good.

"I think it will work. It worked in the 80's. People can't save, they spend spend spend. The economy lites up, it's all good."-Peetster. it worked in the 80's? umm....beep, wrong answer, try again. the idea that it helped, was nothing, it was just the nomal pace of the ecomony, times were low, then they went high, trickle down economics always looksd good to those of us who are uninformed, he truth of it, though, is that it never worked, and really only hindered progress. you're right Peetster, you obviously don't know Jack

A TAX CUT IS NOT ANYTHING BUT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM EDUCATION AND OTHER NECCESSARY PROGRAMS!!

it's not gonna help anyone!

THEY SHOULD TAKE THE ZILLION DOLLAR MILITARY BUDGET AND GIVE IT TO EDUCATION AND WE WONT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS.

ok i'm done

It definately won't help people making less than $26,000 now that the child credit was removed for that bracket.

I'm looking forward to the extra check, reduced capital gains rates, adjusted tax brackets, elimination of the marriage penalty, and the increase of section 179 write-offs, but I don't think the tax cut will motivate the economy. Tax cuts seem to be nothing more attempts to garner political capital. The extra $400-600 will be spent by most people, not saved or invested. However, based on the current economy, most people will have to use it to buy food, make the house payment or reduce consumer debt. I will most likely put our child credit check in my IRA to max out the contribution for a reduced AGI next year. This article gives some various scenarios for the cut.

I also agree with several other posters regarding the fact that reducing gov't revenues in times where many state and federal programs are already strapped or are being discontinued altogether, is like cutting off our nose to spite our face. We need to be smart and streamline the government. Not cut medical aid for the elderly and cut the school year. I'm from Oregon, so we're the example of how NOT to run a government.

Anyway, I need to look at this some more, but this is an interesting conversation.

I also think the expected addition to the deficit will be larger than reported. All the current estimates are based on the expiration of the cuts, but I think Congress will have a tough time allowing the sunset clauses to go into effect. It will appear to be a tax increase in future years and, God forbid, nobody will want to be accused of raising taxes!

Excellent point and one that has been made by various economists and political scientists.

Keep us informed if you actually see those benefits you are expecting next year--I'm interested to know.

I'd like to know how the President is going to run the country on $45 a family!!! It just doesn't appear possible. Not with the $trillion deficit we are already running. How big a deficit do we need to run? How come I can't run my checkbook at a deficit? Imagine all the stuff I could buy then!

Wow. You should be in charge!

Time to go to a new thread guys, MacGnG figured this problem out.

NEW NEWS:

just befor the tax cut was passed by the houses, parts were removed, the child tax credit that was to give $400 per child was removed for any one making less than $26000 per year

that $400 was the only thing that made it seem fair. it was what balanced the enoumus cut for the wealthy with the measly cut for the poor and lower class.

Kadath, you said it much better than I could have. Thank you.

seretogis seems to have a problem with my opinions, but thats y they are MY opinions adn not yours

Well, between the interesting use of CapsLock and the extremely simplistic way that you went about "solving" the problems with the economy, there was no way that I couldn't comment on it. My response was originally a joke, as I thought that your post was a joke itself. If not, then I'm sorry and aghast.

Now there are 8 million more low-income people that aren't getting relief from the tax cut. The administration has also been using tax relief as part of next year's campaign. I wonder how many people are going to realize none of this even effects them until the next election period.

"Republicans have said for weeks that the new tax law was designed to benefit all those who pay income taxes...

The new analysis says that the taxpayers who get nothing from the tax law are primarily low-income single people who do not have children and lack income from dividends or capital gains. A large number of low- and moderate-income single parents with children over 16 will also get no benefit from the law, because it did not change the tax rate for such parents who are unmarried...

The Republican National Committee Web site describes the law in detail and summarizes the point that many members of Congress have also made this week.

"Who benefits under the president's plan?" the Web site asks. "Everyone who pays taxes — especially middle-income Americans — as tax rate reductions passed by Congress in 2001 are made effective immediately."

Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, made a similar point in his news briefing on Thursday, saying that people in the lowest tax bracket would "benefit the most" from the bill. "This certainly does deliver tax relief to the people who pay income taxes," he said, referring particularly to families with children. And Mr. Grassley said last week that "all taxpayers will see more money in their paychecks..."

"It's another illustration that the real purpose of this tax bill was not to give a boost to the economy now," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities...

But the study's authors noted that there are 40 times as many taxpayers who get no benefit from the cuts as there are millionaires who will get 44 percent of the law's tax benefits in 2005...

"It was a conscious decision to deny relief to taxpayers at the bottom in favor of the very top," said Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader. "And what's so regrettable is that it wasn't a mistake — it's part of a deliberate plan."

--2nd Study Finds Gaps in Tax Cuts

This preety much sums up my opinion about this "tax cut."
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Whacking the Waitresses
Johnathan Alter
Newsweek
And the other effects of George W. Bush’s war on the poor

May 30 — Did anyone see night-shift nurses in the Capitol hallways outside the House-Senate conference committee last week? How about Army privates just back from Iraq?

From what I've been reading about the tax "cut" so far is that the $400 child credit has been eliminated because help to States and the "dividend tax cut" that Bush said is supposed to solve all our problems. Can anyone confirm this? (The source was Newsweek.)

Bush is using Reaganomics, but the thing about Reaganomics is the fact that it did indeed pump more money into the economy, unemployment was it it's lowest and the stock market was at one of it's highest points in history. However, the only problem I have with this tax plan is deficit spending, there has to be a way to eliminate the deficit spending while giving the ppl a decent tax cut. My solution (of course, I'm not the President, yet.) would be to reform government to cut down on government spending, because there are tons of useless programs within the government right now that are obsolete. Call it streamlining, this way, the government wouldn't have to spend as much to maintain itself. Also, what Bush can do is take a good bit of that money that is being invested into Defense, and tell the DoD to start researching new technology so as to streamline that department even farther, I don't know, maybe I'm a genius, or maybe I'm just the guy who has spoken a forgotten idea, but I think it should work. As far as the tax cut goes, it will help the economy, I mean back in the 80s Reagan did the same thing, and people got even less money than what they would now, and the economy boomed. Now I agree, this is an attempted quick fix and it needs to be coupled with something that can reduce the deficit spending.

i dont think it well help out at all... but if i get say 400$ per kid from it i want to adopt about 5 of them buggers