Poll, Will the tax cut help? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Dilbert1234567 · 05-23-2003, 03:09 PM

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

Liquor Dealer · 05-23-2003, 04:18 PM

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.

The_Dude · 05-23-2003, 04:21 PM

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.

seretogis · 05-23-2003, 06:04 PM

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

SaltPork · 05-23-2003, 07:55 PM

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.

Macheath · 05-23-2003, 09:20 PM

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-23-2003, 09:40 PM

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.

Frowning Budah · 05-24-2003, 03:50 PM

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?

crewsor · 05-24-2003, 04:38 PM

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.

krwlz · 05-24-2003, 05:10 PM

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...

LewisCouch · 05-24-2003, 05:39 PM

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

Dilbert1234567 · 05-24-2003, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by krwlz
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.

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.

XXXs · 05-26-2003, 04:21 PM

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.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-27-2003, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by XXXs
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.

Kadath · 05-27-2003, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by krwlz
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...

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.

Daval · 05-27-2003, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
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.

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.

Peetster · 05-27-2003, 11:33 AM

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.

mystmarimatt · 05-27-2003, 11:48 PM

"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

MacGnG · 05-29-2003, 07:56 PM

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

smooth · 05-30-2003, 02:16 AM

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

zf0enix · 05-30-2003, 08:23 AM

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.

zf0enix · 05-30-2003, 08:29 AM

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!

smooth · 05-30-2003, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zf0enix
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.

Hard8s · 05-30-2003, 02:30 PM

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!

seretogis · 05-30-2003, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MacGnG
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

Wow. You should be in charge!

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

Dilbert1234567 · 05-30-2003, 04:20 PM

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.

Frowning Budah · 05-30-2003, 05:02 PM

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

MacGnG · 05-30-2003, 10:23 PM

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

seretogis · 05-31-2003, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MacGnG
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.

smooth · 05-31-2003, 05:09 PM

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

Simple_Min · 06-01-2003, 05:17 AM

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

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?

Quote:

WAITRESSES AND JANITORS and security guards were around, of course, but they somehow didn’t get consulted about the president’s new tax bill either. No lobbyist in a nice suit with a Blackberry roamed the corridors, representing their interests. So it wasn’t until after President Bush signed the bill in front of a 98 percent white audience at the White House (if you don’t believe me, look at the wide angle picture of the signing ceremony in The New York Times), that someone read the fine print and found out that working people mostly got the shaft.

Ah, “working people.” It has almost a quaint ring to it nowadays. I’m talking about Americans who haven’t gone to college (though they’re perhaps hoping to) and are just struggling to make it into the middle class. Reporters used to come more often from these families, and so they knew them better and covered them more. Now we in the media are a little slower on the uptake. 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.

The assumption in the whole tax debate has been that, sure, the wealthy will benefit the most (If you earn, say, a million a year, you can expect back about $35,000) but that there’s something in it for everyone. 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.

That’s not counting families earning $10,000 to $25,000 who don’t make enough to pay federal income taxes but are eligible for refundable tax credits. They and their 12 million children get nothing from this bill. While more comfortable middle-class Americans will find their child tax credits and marriage-penalty relief accelerated, these folks will not. The same conservative senators who talk, often persuasively, about the importance of marriage decided to leave the “marriage penalty” in place for those receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). In other words, the people who make under $27,000 a year, many of them just struggling to get off welfare, are now the only ones with no tax incentive to marry. “They had a chance to do something to bolster marriage and they chose not to,” says Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The news last week was that all of this happened because lawmakers at the eleventh hour needed to bring the cost of the bill down to $350 billion to suit Sen. George Voinovich, the key swing vote. This is wrong on several counts. First, 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. Second, 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. The press just didn’t report it. And finally, 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. And Voinovich had no preference on where the money came from.

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.

Why not? Because they’d show that the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans just don’t care a whole lot about helping waitresses and janitors. One of the reasons they feel that way is an assumption that low-income workers receive the EITC anyway, so why give them more? But only about three quarters of those eligible receive the EITC; you have to apply for it, and many lower-income workers fail to do so. 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, which is a Reagan-era idea (greatly expanded under Clinton) that has done more to fight poverty and encourage work than any government program in a generation. 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.

After all, helping working families directly is not the point of the bill, which operates from the premise that it’s the rich who create economic growth through investment. In the long run, this makes some sense, though 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. Job growth was expected to improve this year, anyway, without legislation. If it does, of course, Republicans will quickly attribute it to their handiwork.

And the Democrats? They are out in force attacking the bill. But there’s nothing about their invective that is the slightest bit memorable. Maybe they figure that rhetoric about the tax cut “nailing the waitresses” would remind everyone too much of Bill Clinton. So say something else. But say it in a way that takes the country just a little closer to the truth about this war on the poor—and on all the people who make the beds, clear the tables and keep us safe.

Simple_Min · 06-01-2003, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wrkime
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.

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.)

archer2371 · 06-01-2003, 08:39 AM

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.

liquid_dreams · 06-01-2003, 04:33 PM

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

View Poll Results: Will the tax cut help and who will it help
it will help	9	22.50%
it wont help	11	27.50%
it will help only the rich	18	45.00%
it will help us the middle class and the rich	2	5.00%
it will help even the poor	2	5.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll

05-23-2003, 03:09 PM	#1 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	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 __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen Last edited by Dilbert1234567; 05-23-2003 at 03:15 PM..

05-23-2003, 04:18 PM	#2 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	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. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

05-23-2003, 04:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	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. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-23-2003, 06:04 PM	#4 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I will consider it my duty as an American to spend my rebate on Doom3 and Half-Life2. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

05-23-2003, 07:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
SaltPork Everything's better with bacon Location: In your local grocer's freezer.	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. __________________ It was like that when I got here....I swear.

05-23-2003, 09:20 PM	#6 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	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.

05-23-2003, 09:40 PM	#7 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	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. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

05-24-2003, 03:50 PM	#8 (permalink)
Frowning Budah Slave of Fear	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?

05-24-2003, 04:38 PM	#9 (permalink)
crewsor Women want me. Men fear me. Location: Maryland,USA	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. __________________ We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

05-24-2003, 05:10 PM	#10 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	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...

05-24-2003, 05:39 PM	#11 (permalink)
LewisCouch Insane Location: Pacific NW	It's good to see the government returning funds, however, the net effect will be less than nominal. __________________ "The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on the contrary, it increases the desire to walk." -- Massimo d'Azeglio

05-26-2003, 04:21 PM	#13 (permalink)
XXXs Upright	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.

05-27-2003, 11:33 AM	#17 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	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.

05-27-2003, 11:48 PM	#18 (permalink)
mystmarimatt Omnipotent Ruler Of The Tiny Universe In My Mind Location: Oreegawn	"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 __________________ Words of Wisdom: If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

05-29-2003, 07:56 PM	#19 (permalink)
MacGnG Know Where!	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

05-30-2003, 02:16 AM	#20 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	It definately won't help people making less than $26,000 now that the child credit was removed for that bracket. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

05-30-2003, 08:23 AM	#21 (permalink)
zf0enix Psycho Location: PacNW	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. __________________ One step closer to the edge...

05-30-2003, 08:29 AM	#22 (permalink)
zf0enix Psycho Location: PacNW	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! __________________ One step closer to the edge...

05-30-2003, 02:30 PM	#24 (permalink)
Hard8s Addict Location: Wherever I am!	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! __________________ If ignorance is bliss, then wipe this smile off my face!

05-30-2003, 04:20 PM	#26 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	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. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

05-30-2003, 05:02 PM	#27 (permalink)
Frowning Budah Slave of Fear	Kadath, you said it much better than I could have. Thank you.

05-30-2003, 10:23 PM	#28 (permalink)
MacGnG Know Where!	seretogis seems to have a problem with my opinions, but thats y they are MY opinions adn not yours

05-31-2003, 05:09 PM	#30 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	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

06-01-2003, 08:39 AM	#33 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	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. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

06-01-2003, 04:33 PM	#34 (permalink)
liquid_dreams Banned Location: ketchikan	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