Deal Reached on Tax Rebates for Stimulus

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per family and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.


Congressional officials close to the negotiations said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio reached agreement in principle in a telephone call Thursday morning.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the two wanted key members of their parties to sign off on the accord before any announcement.

The accord came as the White House said Thursday an agreement was imminent.

Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.

Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UCAOTO0
_____________________________________________

Wait, I thought the initial proposal was $800/$1600 for individual/family.

Now its $300/$1200?

And now people who dont pay income taxes at all will qualify while those who make $75k/$150k wont qualify?

:wtf:

THANKS for shafting those who carry the larger burden of paying taxes.

I really dont think I like whats being proposed if this unofficial 'leak' is accurate.

[Keller]

It's a stimulus. You target a stimulus at people who will spend it.

[Sean of the Thread]

Exactly.

[Gan]

It's a stimulus. You target a stimulus at people who will spend it.

So your'e saying that someone who makes under 30k a year will not have the same income/debt ratio as someone who makes over 75k a year?

[Some Rogue]

It's not a "rebate" if you don't pay taxes in the first place.

[ClydeR]

And now people who dont pay income taxes at all will qualify while those who make $75k/$150k wont qualify?



There was some talk about basing it on payment of FICA taxes. Sounds like that is what happened.

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- American taxpayers would get checks of several hundred dollars from the government under a plan to stimulate the economy, sources said Thursday.

Congressional leaders of both parties were still talking with their membership to sell the plan, sources said.

Sources on Capitol Hill and at the Treasury Department said congressional and White House negotiators agreed upon checks of $600 per individual and $1,200 per couple.

A Democratic aide and a Republican aide said there will be an additional amount per child, which could be in the neighborhood of $300.
Checks could be in taxpayers' mailboxes by June, according to an Associated Press report.

The numbers must still be analyzed by the Treasury Department to see what the total price tag of the stimulus package would be, sources said.
To get to the agreement, Democrats dropped calls for increases in food stamps and an extension of unemployment compensation. Republicans agreed to allow people who pay Social Security taxes but not income taxes to get the checks, sources said.

An announcement on the plan could come Thursday afternoon, the two sources said.

Aides in both parties said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has been working aggressively in recent days as he tries to make progress before House Republicans head out of Washington for a legislative retreat at the end of the week.

To win over conservatives, the package also is slated to include business tax breaks, according to officials in both parties.

The stimulus package also may face resistance from fiscal conservatives in both parties over worries that it would increase the federal debt. The talks are occurring as auditors report that the federal deficit -- the difference between what the government takes in and what it spends -- is increasing.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated Wednesday the deficit would jump to $250 billion, mainly because of a weakening economy. That estimate does not include any additional spending that would be part of a stimulus package.

The proposal is intended to address economic worries stemming from a worldwide credit crunch created by the mortgage crisis and plunging stock markets. The president proposed the package last week.

Officials in both parties credited Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs executive known for a shrewd grasp of the markets, with pushing the package aggressively.

"He's been on the phone with practically every member of Congress -- some of them a few times," one Senate Republican aide said. "He's not fooling around."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/24/economic.stimulus/index.html
__________________________________________________ __

Allright, this article says $600/$1200 plus $300 per child. Additionally those who pay social security taxes would get, yet doesnt mention those who dont pay FICA.

And of course, no mention of the cap.

I find this version more agreeable. Lets see if it changes as the day wears on.

[Latrinsorm]

Wasn't our deficit over a trillion dollars a couple years ago?

[Gan]

Currently 9 trillion.

Historical perspective of the Debt.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

[ClydeR]

Checks could be in taxpayers' mailboxes by June, according to an Associated Press report.

If you moved since you last filed a tax return and have not notified the IRS of the change of address, then you should take care of that (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc157.html) as soon as possible.

Unless you owe the IRS money and they're looking for you. :)

Also, I think June is too late to provide the stimulus.

[Gan]

Also, I think June is too late to provide the stimulus.

On this we agree.

I think if the stimulus is to have maximum effect it needs to be received before April 15.

Unfortulatey Washington is anticipating paying for this stimulus with receipts from April 15. Which will do little to lessen the burden that tax season will add to what is already being felt by our taxpayers/consumers.

[Keller]

So your'e saying that someone who makes under 30k a year will not have the same income/debt ratio as someone who makes over 75k a year?

What I'm saying is that families making under 150k and individuals making under 75k are more likely to spend the stimulus than people over 75/150k.

I think people over 75k may have the same ratio because they have a mortgage and little CC debt while people under 30k have no mortgage and lots of CC debt. So your question is sort of silly.

[Sean of the Thread]

I need a tax attorney.

[Gan]

What I'm saying is that families making under 150k and individuals making under 75k are less likely to spend the stimulus than people under.

I think people over 75k may have the same ratio because they have a mortgage and little CC debt while people under 30k have no mortgage and lots of CC debt. So your question is sort of silly.

Actually the ratio is in direct relation to the likeliness to spend, ergo it represents the point that your opinion, as mentioned above, that lower income are more likely to spend than upper income recipients is not factual.

Please point me to any reference that will demonstrate a higher income individual who has the same spending habits as a lesser income individual will be less likely to spend. If the ratio as mentioned above is the same, then the willingness to spend will be the same.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm going with the common sense approach. Hoodrat teenager is going to spend his stimulus check faster than shit on straight up goods or the service industry whereas people like me would more than likely pay a bill or add it into savings or an investment.

[Blud]

I'm going with the common sense approach. Hoodrat teenager is going to spend his stimulus check faster than shit on straight up goods or the service industry whereas people like me would more than likely pay a bill or add it into savings or an investment.

Exactly.

I think the idea is to give those with "looser" discretionary spending habits money to put into the goods and services sector. In my opinion, the majority of those making more money are more frugal with their money, or as Sean2 said, puts that money towards the important things.

[Keller]

Actually the ratio is in direct relation to the likeliness to spend, ergo it represents the point that your opinion, as mentioned above, that lower income are more likely to spend than upper income recipients is not factual.

Please point me to any reference that will demonstrate a higher income individual who has the same spending habits as a lesser income individual will be less likely to spend. If the ratio as mentioned above is the same, then the willingness to spend will be the same.

I looked for the info you requested -- but didn't find anyone who supported your contention. While I was looking I found http://www.cbpp.org/1-8-08bud.htm


Targeted measures are those aimed at individuals and entities that will spend quickly the bulk of any new resources they receive. Tax cuts that mainly benefit high-income individuals are poorly targeted to provide stimulus, because those individuals are more likely to save a large share of any increase in disposable income they receive than are people of more modest means. Government-funded construction projects that take many months or even several years to get underway are poorly targeted as well. In contrast, tax cuts and increases in government spending aimed at low- and moderate-income consumers and unemployed workers — such as tax cuts that provide a flat refund to all tax filers, additional weeks of unemployment benefits to workers who have been unable to find a new job, and increases in food stamp benefits — are far more effective as stimulus.

[Lysander]

Actually the ratio is in direct relation to the likeliness to spend, ergo it represents the point that your opinion, as mentioned above, that lower income are more likely to spend than upper income recipients is not factual.

Please point me to any reference that will demonstrate a higher income individual who has the same spending habits as a lesser income individual will be less likely to spend. If the ratio as mentioned above is the same, then the willingness to spend will be the same.

It's been shown that poorer people and minorities spend any immediate cash on consummables rather then invest or save their money. (Not being racist - just a study I remember reading back in Econ 101)

[ClydeR]

What I'm saying is that families making under 150k and individuals making under 75k are less likely to spend the stimulus than people under.

What? :puzzled:

[Keller]

What? :puzzled:

That was a half-baked sentence. Fixed.

[Sean of the Thread]

What? :puzzled:

Huh

[ClydeR]

A clearer explanation from a reliable source (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325192,00.html) of whether the rebate is $300 or $600.


Individuals who pay income taxes would get up to $600, working couples $1,200 and those couples with children an additional $300 per child under the deal. Workers who make at least $3,000 but don't pay taxes would get $300 rebates.

The rebates would be limited to individuals whose income is $75,000 or less and working couples with incomes $150,000 or less.

The rebate part of the plan would cost about $100 billion, aides said. The package also includes close to $50 billion in business tax cuts.

No explanation of how the "up to" part works. I guess that if you make $75,000, you will get less than if you make $35,000.

For people who do not pay any taxes, it isn't really a rebate. It's a dole.

[Parkbandit]

This is nothing more than a political gimick in an election year. Democrats want to show they care about the poor people and want to stick it to the mean old rich people.. and the Republicans don't want to be viewed as indifferent.

The handouts are a very short term bump (even though they won't actually help until June) but do nothing to address the real problems of the economy.

[Bhuryn]

I am going to deposit my stimulus check in my savings account just to piss them off.

[Blud]

This is nothing more than a political gimick in an election year. Democrats want to show they care about the poor people and want to stick it to the mean old rich people.. and the Republicans don't want to be viewed as indifferent.

The handouts are a very short term bump (even though they won't actually help until June) but do nothing to address the real problems of the economy.

Very true.

[Stunseed]

< I need a tax attorney. >

You and me both. This year's going to be an interesting one.

[Gan]

I looked for the info you requested -- but didn't find anyone who supported your contention. While I was looking I found http://www.cbpp.org/1-8-08bud.htm


Interestingly enough I did a little google action myself and while reports are out that seem to favor a greater stimulus effect seen by lower income recipients than higher income recipients there's still lots of unknown on the behavioral side as to why.




Households.

In general, tax cuts or increases in transfer


payments from the government to people (such as Food


Stamps or unemployment insurance benefits) increase

household demand by providing consumers with additional

spending power. The bigger the chunk of that
additional income that consumers are willing to spend
instead of save, the more stimulus there will be from a
particular tax reduction or increase in government transfer
payments. But households do not predictably spend a
fixed proportion of the extra income left in their hands
when taxes are reduced or transfers are increased. Rather,
a household’s propensity to consume appears to vary with
its income and depends on expectations of the household
of what will happen to that income over the longer term.
A household’s consumption also varies for other reasons
that are little understood.


Households are particularly likely to spend a greater share
of a temporary reduction in taxes or additional transfer
payments if they are credit constrained (that is, they have
borrowed as much money as creditors will lend them).
Given that these households would probably borrow
additional money if given the opportunity, they are
unlikely to save additional income. They are therefore
likely to spend a greater proportion of a tax reduction or a
transfer increase than other people who have access to
credit. Lower-income households are more likely to be
credit constrained and more likely to be among those
with the highest propensity to spend. Therefore, policies
aimed at lower-income households tend to have greater
stimulative effects.


Two recent studies that evaluate household spending following
the 2001 tax rebate offer historical evidence consistent
with this view. In one study, the authors examine
households categorized by income and liquid assets.
Although the results are not definitive, low-income
households and those with few liquid assets appear to
have increased their consumption far more in response to
the tax rebate than households with higher income or
more liquid assets.9


For example, low-income households
were estimated to have increased spending on nondurable
goods by more than the amount of the rebate in the
three-month period during which it was received, while
middle-income households increased the same type of
spending by less than 20 percent of the rebate amount.
Households with few liquid assets were also estimated to
increase spending on nondurables by more than the
rebate amount, while those with a medium or higher level
of assets were estimated to have decreased such spending.
The other study, which looked at households’ credit card
usage, concluded that households with lower credit card
limits, those with credit card balances near the limit, and
those that used their cards intensively increased credit
card spending much more than other households in the
nine months after receiving their rebates.

10


For example,
households with credit limits under $7,000 increased

spending by more than $140 after receiving the rebates
(which were typically between $300 and $600), while
those with credit limits above $10,500 increased spending
by only $40. Households with balances above 90 percent
of their credit limit increased spending by more than
$330, while those with balances between 1 percent and
50 percent of their credit limits increased spending by less

than $20. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8916/01-15-Econ_Stimulus.pdf








Even with the data reported there's still a gap in consideration of spending amounts solely based on increases based on current spending habits. A low income family who increases spending by $130 in response to a stimulus still does not compare with a spending increase by $40 from a higher income family when the baseline spending between low and high income consumption can be in a range of tens of thousands to begin with. What it boils down to is: the number of low income recipients increase their spending (n) by x amount, will it be greater than the amount of higher income recipients who increase their spending (z) by y amount when n and z are hugely different to begin with.


I'll go along with the perceived notion that the stimulus will have a greater effect even though I fundamentally disagree that there should be a cap due to perceived differences in spending habits - especially when so many higher income families are feeling a greater burden of high interest debt and direct effects of the housing/credit crunch than those of lower income levels who do not own/use assetts comparable to higher income levels... nor consume resources comparable to those of higher income levels.

[oldanforgotten]

So your'e saying that someone who makes under 30k a year will not have the same income/debt ratio as someone who makes over 75k a year?

75k/150k is a bit ridiculous. It should be 110k/150k, but either way, the concept is correct. You put the money in the hands of the people who will use it to purchase goods and services, not bank it. That?s the best short term stimulus an economy can get. Long term health = increase the savings rate, lower debt ratios. Short Term Stimulus = buy lots of shit.
________
SUBARU R1E (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Subaru_R1e)

[oldanforgotten]

Interestingly enough I did a little google action myself and while reports are out that seem to favor a greater stimulus effect seen by lower income recipients than higher income recipients there's still lots of unknown on the behavioral side as to why.


Ts'aah alert!
________
PLYMOUTH ARROW HISTORY (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Plymouth_Arrow)

[Gan]

Agreed, the perception that 75k automatically means you have no debt and that you are a huge savings depot is blanket statement stupid. Especially in areas such as the west coast where the cost of living is so high that 75k a year wont even net you the purchase of a home.

Since its common practice to adjust monetary amounts to current values, it seems logical that Congress would adjust real wage values accordingly. As it stands, apparantly if you make more than 75k a year you're fucking rich. :lol:

[Tsa`ah]

Agreed, the perception that 75k automatically means you have no debt and that you are a huge savings. Especially in areas such as the west coast where the cost of living is so high that 75k a year wont even net you the purchase of a home.

Since its common practice to adjust monetary amounts to current values, it seems logical that Congress would adjust real wage values accordingly. As it stands, apparantly if you make more than 75k a year you're fucking rich. :lol:

No one forces people to move into areas that are above their means to live in.

Additionally, if you make over 75k as a single, or 150k as a couple and you're crying over 300-1200 bucks ... well I really don't know what to tell you ... that's just sad.

[Gan]

No one forces people to move into areas that are above their means to live in.

Additionally, if you make over 75k as a single, or 150k as a couple and you're crying over 300-1200 bucks ... well I really don't know what to tell you ... that's just sad.

Of course you wouldnt be expected to see the principal behind it. Thats ok, some of us are used to that from your posts.

[Keller]

Of course you wouldnt be expected to see the principal behind it. Thats ok, some of us are used to that from your posts.

Are you saying there are fairness considerations?

[Tsa`ah]

Of course you wouldnt be expected to see the principal behind it. Thats ok, some of us are used to that from your posts.

There isn't any principal behind it. It's a bunch of butt hurt rhetoric over a group of people being excluded from something they don't need ... and if they do need it, they should seriously question their lifestyle.

[oldanforgotten]

75k in some areas is a lot, in others, not very much. In NYC, Northern VA, Los Angeles, and other areas, 75k is not as much as people think. I?m more leaning towards a 110k/150k, however, because 150k represents a lot more buying power for 2 people than 75k does for a single person. A couple earning 150k is generally far better off than a single person with 75k.
________
Weed Tracker (http://dispensaries.org/)

[Ilvane]

I might actually buy that new stove I've needed forever with this new stimulus..heh.

Maybe the stores will have sales to go with the stimulus? That would be even better.

I'm the only "taxable" income that comes in, in my house. So we'll see what happens. It's still nice to think of a few extra bucks coming in.

My mom is still sick, we could seriously use the help around our house to get things repaired too. Social Security Disabilty certainly doesn't bring in enough to pay for much aside from just the bills for my mom, anything extra is just difficult.

Angela

[Xaerve]

Tsa'ah is a twat, I don't understand why you guys continue to argue with him. He clearly knows EVERYTHING and is never wrong.

I think its a step in the right direction; and I'm personally glad that a quick agreement could be made to signal that the government is responsive to changing economic conditions.

That being said, it is a small measure, but a helpful measure no the less.

RE: Store's having sales to match the stimulus... thats really wishful thinking Angela...

[Trouble]

I assume they're talking AGIs instead of GI. Most true middle-class families will have a massive reduction between their dependents and itemized deductions. I'm single and childless yet I have around 28k of deductions myself (FU DC area housing market!); a real family would have lots of things to further to lower their AGI. I was thinking more of a 90/180 cutoff though.

[Tsa`ah]

Tsa'ah is a twat, I don't understand why you guys continue to argue with him. He clearly knows EVERYTHING and is never wrong.

I think its a step in the right direction; and I'm personally glad that a quick agreement could be made to signal that the government is responsive to changing economic conditions.

That being said, it is a small measure, but a helpful measure no the less.

RE: Store's having sales to match the stimulus... thats really wishful thinking Angela...

Nice entrance for your e-peen Psykos ... maybe next time read and understand who started the jabs.

Perhaps if your mangina wasn't so sandy you would have understood that I wasn't blasting the package, rather the argument that it needed to be expanded to an income bracket that really doesn't need it.

[Gan]

Are you saying there are fairness considerations?
Yes


There isn't any principal behind it. It's a bunch of butt hurt rhetoric over a group of people being excluded from something they don't need ... and if they do need it, they should seriously question their lifestyle.
LOL at you thinking I'm taking this personally. I'm actually in decent shape financially, not that its any of concern.

What I dont like is the exclusion of a blanket segment of the population based on an arbitrary amount that does not take into consideration the economic demographics of the different regions. I DONT LIKE IT BECAUSE ITS POLITICAL BULLSHIT.

Reality calling Tsa'ah, not everyone is as perfect as you are, so expecting everyone to fall into line with your beliefs is just as stupid as your posts in this thread have been. *Way to be judgemental though. I forgot you were still stuck in the "world according to Tsa'ah" rerun. Someone needs to resend you the letter that your show has been cancelled.

[Celephais]

RE: Store's having sales to match the stimulus... thats really wishful thinking Angela...
Actually that's very likely to occur IMHO... there are Tax Rebate sales, and a store would be stupid not to throw out a few stupid lose leader sales to attract customers with a big wad of disposible cash.

I would be willing to bet there will be tons of sales around the time of the rebate, any store that doesn't follow suit will miss out on a lot of "idiots with cash to burn" syndrome.

[Gan]

Nice entrance for your e-peen Psykos ... maybe next time read and understand who started the jabs.

Perhaps if your mangina wasn't so sandy you would have understood that I wasn't blasting the package, rather the argument that it needed to be expanded to an income bracket that really doesn't need it.

Speaking of e-peen.

:lol:

[Keller]

Gan: To what degree should we sacrifice efficiency (targeting the rebates to those who will spend the most -- ie getting the most bang for your buck) for the sake of fairness?

[Tsa`ah]

LOL at you thinking I'm taking this personally. I'm actually in decent shape financially, not that its any of concern.

Why, did you assume I was? Did I push a button or something? I don't care what your financial situation is.


What I dont like is the exclusion of a blanket segment of the population based on an arbitrary amount that does not take into consideration the economic demographics of the different regions. I DONT LIKE IT BECAUSE ITS POLITICAL BULLSHIT.

I don't really like the idea of crediting people with Hummers and expensive homes living above their means either. That's not political bullshit.


Reality calling Tsa'ah, not everyone is as perfect as you are, so expecting everyone to fall into line with your beliefs is just as stupid as your posts in this thread have been.

I don't expect anyone to fall in line with my beliefs. I do expect people to be financially responsible. If you're making 75k and are having trouble making ends meet ... seems to me you're trying to live above your means. If the area you live in makes it difficult to survive financially, move to an area where your income will allow you to live more comfortably.

One thing you neglect to mention in your post is the additional cost of expanding the rebate.

It's estimated that 117 million households will benefit from the rebate. Let's just assume for now that the average rebate will be 600 bucks. That's 70 billion ... and that's lowball.

Now, I hear conservatives like you bitch to no end about your tax dollars being spent on this and on that. Yet you're advocating we expand the rebate criteria. This is going to do one of two things, increase the total cost of the package, or decrease the rebates.

Say we expand to 88k ... that's 7.6 million people which would be an additional 4.6 billion or a reduction .... knock 50 bucks off of every 600 dollar check.

Now, not only does 600 bucks not mean much to a person making 75-88k, 50 bucks means even less. It does however mean a great deal more to those who make considerably less.

You can also feel free to check my numbers against the 2006 census.

[Gan]

Gan: To what degree should we sacrifice efficiency (targeting the rebates to those who will spend the most -- ie getting the most bang for your buck) for the sake of fairness?
If there were actual data backing up the theories currently adopted then I would say simply conduct a cost benefit analysis and then determine accordingly. However, it still speaks ill of the unfairness of the current tax scheme, unfairly targets those who suffer a large burden of the tax structure to go without any benefit in return or at least a thank (fuck) you very much have a nice day, and assumes that the arbitrary number of 75k is logical to apply across all regions of the US.

Unfortunately I dont know what would be a good divisor in offering a rebate. I would add that it seems that the same school of thought that applies to low income stimulus effect and high income effect also seems to think that this will make little difference in the short or long term especially considering that the timing is so far away as far as benefit received by those in the economy.

So other than disliking the current strategy I dont have an alternative unless you consider I would favor restructuring the tax system completely away from the progressive income tax system that is currently in application.

[Drew2]

I'm actually in decent shape financially, not that its any of concern.


I'll believe that when you move out of the ghetto.

Also, if they want to stimulate the economy, fucking lower gas prices. For serious.

[thefarmer]

If the point is for economic stimulus, then doesn't 300 bucks seem a waste to people over a certain tax/salary bracket?

Poorer people generally don't have a savings account, stocks, etc. Wealthier people generally do.

If the money is going to get socked away why bother giving it to them?

[thefarmer]

Also, if they want to stimulate the economy, fucking lower gas prices. For serious.

Agreed.

[Warriorbird]

Taxes aren't about fairness.

[Celephais]

I can't wait to see the console sale figures for the month the rebates go out... the government should just hand out a free XBox or PS3 to every household that doesn't have one.

[Gan]

Why, did you assume I was? Did I push a button or something? I don't care what your financial situation is.
to wit... your reponse and first post in this thread.

No one forces people to move into areas that are above their means to live in.

Additionally, if you make over 75k as a single, or 150k as a couple and you're crying over 300-1200 bucks ... well I really don't know what to tell you ... that's just sad.



I don't really like the idea of crediting people with Hummers and expensive homes living above their means either. That's not political bullshit.
Yes, because everyone who makes 75k a year has a Hummer. LOL What planet are you from?



I don't expect anyone to fall in line with my beliefs. I do expect people to be financially responsible. If you're making 75k and are having trouble making ends meet ... seems to me you're trying to live above your means.
Amazing how you can automatically know the means and financial capabilities of all of America who make over 75k. LOL x 2.


If the area you live in makes it difficult to survive financially, move to an area where your income will allow you to live more comfortably.
I couldnt agree more, and I proposed that same argument involving the purchase of homes in expensive areas, and yet people still live in those areas. What right do you have to penalize those who make over 75k from living in a high cost area to live if thats where their tied to financially or God forbid other non-economical reasons. But hey, it should be easy as pie to just pick up and move according to the world of Tsa'ah. Give me a fucking break.


One thing you neglect to mention in your post is the additional cost of expanding the rebate.

It's estimated that 117 million households will benefit from the rebate. Let's just assume for now that the average rebate will be 600 bucks. That's 70 billion ... and that's lowball.

Now, I hear conservatives like you bitch to no end about your tax dollars being spent on this and on that. Yet you're advocating we expand the rebate criteria. This is going to do one of two things, increase the total cost of the package, or decrease the rebates.

Say we expand to 88k ... that's 7.6 million people which would be an additional 4.6 billion or a reduction .... knock 50 bucks off of every 600 dollar check.

Now, not only does 600 bucks not mean much to a person making 75-88k, 50 bucks means even less. It does however mean a great deal more to those who make considerably less.

You can also feel free to check my numbers against the 2006 census.
Then lets reduce the cap to 40k... THINK HOW MUCH MONEY WE CAN SAVE!!! FORGET ABOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE STIMULUS. In fact, why have it at all, think of how much money we can save then! Nevermind that 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Incurring a little additional debt now in order to stimulate long term growth and benefit (which is still questionable by this 'stimulus' package) is well worth the cost if you ask me. Now isnt the time to be penny pinching if you're trying to stimulate a slowing economy. The time for penny pinching is when you move out of the recessionary/trough period and back into an expansionary period where growth needs to be reigned back in. If you want to penny pinch, start with Congress and all the bullshit pork (earmarks) they have been passing lately, or the expanded social programs that scream massive draining on future receipts. Talk to the white house about wrapping up our mission in Iraq and cutting down the wartime expenditures that we currently experience.

Basically you're just itching for an e-peen fight because you havent had a good one today. Thanks for the hot air though, its been a little chill lately on the boards. :lol:

[Sean of the Thread]

Mine (If I paid taxes) would certainly get socked away. I'm fairly certain I don't qualify as I have a grand total of $592 recorded for IC last year.

[Sean of the Thread]

I can't wait to see the console sale figures for the month the rebates go out... the government should just hand out a free XBox or PS3 to every household that doesn't have one.

Hahah I had just mentioned that to my wife earlier and she didn't get it.

[Gan]

I'll believe that when you move out of the ghetto.

Also, if they want to stimulate the economy, fucking lower gas prices. For serious.

Heh, my mortgage payment is less than a car note right now, and that counts when I'm paying for post-grad school, new business startup costs, and private school at the same time.

Not to mention that the main ghetto stigma just went into Ch. 11 and the current interest is Wulfe and company who did the revamp/remake of Meyerland Mall. Currently property values have doubled from 10 years ago and after the mall is imploded and revamped into outdoor style shops/stores you'll see our values increase three times as fast. ;)

You want ghetto, head to the wards. Our area is trending the other way. ;)

[Tsa`ah]

Actually Gan ... you're doing what you always do when you're in corner ... arguing circles.

I tend to use "you" often while not directly implying anyone.

However, you are crying over a percieved slight and at the same time arguing for something that is pretty much the opposite of past arguments.

You can't have it both ways.

As people have pointed out, it's a stimulus package. People in income brackets excluded from the package won't change their spending habits be it 300, 600, or 1200 bucks. It defeats the purpose while reducing the effectiveness of tax dollars actually collected.

Perhaps you're in favor of a more widescale rebate ... in which case you'll end up bitching about a larger tax hike next year.

Of course ... you're the one who was itching for a fight in light of you usual snideness added to the end of your first response to me ... only to be backed up by Lycain.

It seems you like me being reactive to insults, yet you have a problem with me responding to them. This is also something you can't have both ways.

[Gan]

blah... blah blah blah.

Whatever.

[Tsa`ah]

I expect nothing less from you.

[Some Rogue]

I can't wait to see the console sale figures for the month the rebates go out... the government should just hand out a free XBox or PS3 to every household that doesn't have one.

That was my first thought of what to spend the money on....:help:

[Gan]

I expect nothing less from you.

Thank GOD we're on the same page then. I actually gave you more credit than you deserve by responding to your drivel in the first place. You're welcome.

[Alfster]

That was my first thought of what to spend the money on....:help:





Here I thought you'd buy a Druid with it :P

[Keller]

If there were actual data backing up the theories currently adopted then I would say simply conduct a cost benefit analysis and then determine accordingly. However, it still speaks ill of the unfairness of the current tax scheme, unfairly targets those who suffer a large burden of the tax structure to go without any benefit in return or at least a thank (fuck) you very much have a nice day, and assumes that the arbitrary number of 75k is logical to apply across all regions of the US.

Unfortunately I dont know what would be a good divisor in offering a rebate. I would add that it seems that the same school of thought that applies to low income stimulus effect and high income effect also seems to think that this will make little difference in the short or long term especially considering that the timing is so far away as far as benefit received by those in the economy.

So other than disliking the current strategy I dont have an alternative unless you consider I would favor restructuring the tax system completely away from the progressive income tax system that is currently in application.

The "thank you" you seek is back-loaded to when the stock market bumps back up.

I agree it is fundamentally unfair to give the rebate to someone earning 74k in BFE and not give it to someone earning 76k in NYC. That argument is not lost on me. But at the same time, I'm not sure how you index the rebates to a cost-of-living - GI ratio without excessive complication. There is already enough red-tape politcal bullshit that this has to go through -- can you imagine what the senators from North Dakota would say when their constituents making 45k a year don't get the rebate but someone else in NYC making 85k a year does? I just think we need to realize that since time is of the esence -- we need to accept the rough and ready plan and hope it helps.

[Gan]

Taxes aren't about fairness.

Shouldnt they be?

[Warriorbird]

I'd love to be like Dubai... but no...for the most part they're not designed with fairness in mind.

[Keller]

Shouldnt they be?

If taxes were "fair" they would be more progressive. Note that this is NOT the answer for running an efficient market, which would run best w/ a head tax (1000 tax per person, regardless of income).

[Some Rogue]

Here I thought you'd buy a Druid with it :P

And here I thought you'd just give me that druid for free.

:wtf:

[Keller]

And here I thought you'd just give me that druid for free.

:wtf:


Seriously -- why hasn't Alfster PM'd me. Daddy needs a new healer!

[Gan]

If taxes were "fair" they would be more progressive. Note that this is NOT the answer for running an efficient market, which would run best w/ a head tax (1000 tax per person, regardless of income).

I guess my perspective is that its ok to be progressive if its on the consumption side.

I just feel that if you're going to hand out cash from the government then who and how you hand it out should be given serious consideration - and the economist in me HATES caps of any kind (except for congressional spending caps ;) ).

I would probably have made less of an issue in this thread about it had the cap not been set as low as 75k. In My Opinion thats still within the medium income rage based on my views of wage earning levels in the US using today's value of money.

Now if it were a cap at 100k/200k respectively then I would have accepted that as a less-bitter pill to swallow.

[Latrinsorm]

Shouldnt they be?That sounds like a moral consideration.

[Parkbandit]

Now if it were a cap at 100k/200k respectively then I would have accepted that as a less-bitter pill to swallow.


Haha.. someone made 190k last year and is pissed :P

Sorry.. I'm against giving a tax rebate to people who don't even pay any income tax... regardless of their spending habits. Take that money you are just trying to buy votes with and turn it into some tax relief.

This Robin Hood mentality is part of the problem in this country.

[ClydeR]

Taxes are not normally adjusted based on regional cost of living differences. The tax brackets, standard deduction and other items are the same if you live in New York City or Podunk. Not adjusting for regional cost of living differences encourages people to move to a place with a lower cost of living which reduces cost pressures in high cost areas. If the tax system adjusted for regional cost of living differences, then the government would be subsidizing and encouraging people to live in high cost areas.

It's also more fair to treat everyone equally.

Move to Podunk, Gan! You'll save taxes, and I can show you all the good catfish restaurants.

[ClydeR]

If taxes were "fair" they would be more progressive. Note that this is NOT the answer for running an efficient market, which would run best w/ a head tax (1000 tax per person, regardless of income).

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. I think it would be more fair to treat everyone equally. That would mean charging everybody the same number of dollars each year.

[BigWorm]

I guess my perspective is that its ok to be progressive if its on the consumption side.

I just feel that if you're going to hand out cash from the government then who and how you hand it out should be given serious consideration - and the economist in me HATES caps of any kind (except for congressional spending caps ;) ).

I would probably have made less of an issue in this thread about it had the cap not been set as low as 75k. In My Opinion thats still within the medium income rage based on my views of wage earning levels in the US using today's value of money.

Now if it were a cap at 100k/200k respectively then I would have accepted that as a less-bitter pill to swallow.

Interesting opinion. If there were only a way to find out what the median household income in the U.S....

Oh wait, there is! (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html) (Pretty Charts) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) According to the Census Bureau, the median household income is $44,389, making $75,000 over 67% higher than the median. New Jersey is the only state with a median household income within $10,000 of 75k, at $66,752.

And those number quote HOUSEHOLD income which I was comparing to the individual cap. Against the 150k cap for households, I think these numbers show that the people getting "left out" of the refunds probably aren't exactly hurting for cash. I would even go so far as to say that focusing the refunds on the less affluent is more likely to ensure that the funds get spent and people go out and buy things they otherwise couldn't afford. The refund amount is more useful to people with little or no disposable income than it is to the guy deciding if he should get the Benz or get the Beamer.

That said, this rebate shit is fucking retarded. The economy is fucked, so the government wants to give money to people so they can spend it? Maybe the government should be spending some of the money on finding out ways to get us out of the spend-spend-spend economic model. This reminds me of the post-9/11 crap (isn't that when it was?) when the government was telling us all to be good Americans and buy lots of shit we don't need, otherwise the terrists have won.

[Gan]

And those number quote HOUSEHOLD income which I was comparing to the individual cap. Against the 150k cap for households, I think these numbers show that the people getting "left out" of the refunds probably aren't exactly hurting for cash. I would even go so far as to say that focusing the refunds on the less affluent is more likely to ensure that the funds get spent and people go out and buy things they otherwise couldn't afford. The refund amount is more useful to people with little or no disposable income than it is to the guy deciding if he should get the Benz or get the Beamer.

Interesting opinions and blanket statement thrown in for flavor. I happen to disagree. I'll divulge more into this after dinner.


That said, this rebate shit is fucking retarded. The economy is fucked, so the government wants to give money to people so they can spend it? Maybe the government should be spending some of the money on finding out ways to get us out of the spend-spend-spend economic model. This reminds me of the post-9/11 crap (isn't that when it was?) when the government was telling us all to be good Americans and buy lots of shit we don't need, otherwise the terrists have won.
This happened in the SnL crisis in the 80's and in the dot.com in the 90's before 911. Its a theory thats been around for a while. Not saying its a good theory, just that its been around for a bit.

*Edited to add:
According to the source you gave: Look at the median incomes based on family size, the totals represented for each state are considerably higher than the figure you represented. Shockingly close to or over the 70k levels in many states considered non-rural. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html

Again, this is with polling numbers, which are variant to a degree based on statistical sample sizes and other reporting variables. Yay for you on presenting an accurate representation! Pretty graphs and all even!

Bottom line, 75k isnt that much and is considered close to an entry level salary range for those graduating college with any sort of speciality or other specialized vocational program. Hell the mechanics at the BMW dealership down the freeway from where I live pull in between 70 and 80k a year not including bonus.

Push the cap up to whats considered a wealthy income bracket by those actually earning a realistic paycheck and not by soem elitist in Congress who's lost touch with most of what its like to be a working stiff in the constituency that they represent.

[TheEschaton]

How can it be "fair" to tax everyone equally? It's only "fair" to tax everyone equally if they all made the same amount of money.

To charge a guy who makes $10k a thousand in taxes, and then charge a guy who makes $10m a thousand in taxes is the very definition of unfair.

[Keller]

How can it be "fair" to tax everyone equally? It's only "fair" to tax everyone equally if they all made the same amount of money.

To charge a guy who makes $10k a thousand in taxes, and then charge a guy who makes $10m a thousand in taxes is the very definition of unfair.

Consider to whom you're talking.

[Keller]

Haha.. someone made 190k last year and is pissed :P

Sorry.. I'm against giving a tax rebate to people who don't even pay any income tax... regardless of their spending habits. Take that money you are just trying to buy votes with and turn it into some tax relief.

This Robin Hood mentality is part of the problem in this country.

What would you propose to stimulate the economy?

[Hulkein]

What I dont like is the exclusion of a blanket segment of the population based on an arbitrary amount that does not take into consideration the economic demographics of the different regions. I DONT LIKE IT BECAUSE ITS POLITICAL BULLSHIT.

That is the way the IRS works, why would this be any different? Plenty of deductions/credits aren't available to a segment of the population based on an arbitrary amount that doesn't take into consideration the economic demographics of the different regions.

[Gan]

That is the way the IRS works, why would this be any different? Plenty of deductions/credits aren't available to a segment of the population based on an arbitrary amount that doesn't take into consideration the economic demographics of the different regions.

Nothing like perpetuating idiocracy.

Yes, its true that the current taxation system isnt fair (at least I think so) and yes a tax rebate should be based on the current taxation system; however, some forethought and realistic stipulations should be placed into the enforcement of said 'stimulus'. The 75k cap isnt realistic for those in areas where the cost of living is far beyond that. This package is more like the ambulance running over the victim that its been dispatched to rescue.

[Parkbandit]

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. I think it would be more fair to treat everyone equally. That would mean charging everybody the same number of dollars each year.


That would be stupid, plain and simple. I believe that everyone should carry a portion of the tax burden, but it should be on a % basis and not dollar for dollar.

[Kembal]

Heh, this is a perfect example of the fiscal (specifcally, tax) policy lag in action. This is going to be too late to do much.

I'm glad someone somewhere listened to a few economists though and extended the checks to those who don't pay income taxes but do pay FICA. It'd do almost zero as a stimulus otheriwse.

[Keller]

This package is more like the ambulance running over the victim that its been dispatched to rescue.

I think it might be more analagous to a fleet of ambulances sent to a mass accident. They sent up triage, and decide that given their limited resources they wont treat patients who are in less need of treatment or would benefit the least from immediate treatment.

[Anebriated]

Didnt Japan do something similar recently and hand out cash to each household on the agreement that they spend it all. Why not do something similar, you can have the money on the terms that you go and buy goods/services. Buy the new appliance your house needs, get the repairs, buy some video games, who cares just spend the money. The government ends up getting most of it back in the end and it jump starts the economy.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'M GOING TO SIZZLER!

I'm kidding... I'll go spend all $1800 on crab legs.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Sean2
I'M GOING TO SIZZLER!

Not if Billy Hoyle has anything to say about it...

[BigWorm]

I'M GOING TO SIZZLER!

fuck that, Ground Round ftw

[Ambrosia]

Gan what part of Houston do you live in, cause the cost of living here isn't that bad and if I was making $75,000 a year, I'd be extremely well off. I make less than half that, and I'm still doing pretty well.

[Keller]

Gan what part of Houston do you live in, cause the cost of living here isn't that bad and if I was making $75,000 a year, I'd be extremely well off. I make less than half that, and I'm still doing pretty well.

I'm taking a stab in the dark that you're not supporting kids and a wife on that.

[Daniel]

73k annual salary FTMFW

[Sean of the Thread]

no comment

[Stanley Burrell]

fuck that, Ground Round ftw

Holy Moses and great googly moogly.

They still have these?! Ahhhhh deeyum.

They closed it, kind of close to where I used to live. In fact, they closed effin' Roy Rogers post-closing Ground Round. Them chicken fingers were like the collared green soul food my aura had never been nourished with.

[Sean of the Thread]

Holy Moses and great googly moogly.

They still have these?! AHh

Your mom still has a ground round you butt baby. Where do you think that dirt on your lip came from.

[Stanley Burrell]

Yeah, well, at least I ain't dating my "wife." Fucker.

[Stanley Burrell]

P.S. Where?

[Ambrosia]

No, I'm not supporting a wife... I'm a single mom.

[Stanley Burrell]

No, I'm not supporting a wife... I'm a single mom.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/buttons/quote.gif

Booyah.

[Sean of the Thread]

No, I'm not supporting a wife... I'm a single mom.

35k or so is quite adequate to take care of a single mother and two children. (minus piano lessons)

[Celephais]

When we get these rebates we'll make a CT PC trip to ground round.

ugh nevermind... closest one is in mystic.

[Daniel]

When we get these rebates we'll make a CT PC trip to ground round.

ugh nevermind... closest one is in mystic.

You do that. I'm getting drunk.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm banging the first peg-legged ironworker bitch at Mystic Seaport after I scarf down my chicken fingers. Their vaginas literally walk around town going, "YARGH: C'MERE PEEWEE." I am pretty desperate too.

Let's make this shit happen, people. Get-together for all.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm banging the first peg-legged ironworker bitch at Mystic Seaport after I scarf down my chicken fingers. Their vagina's literally walk around town going, "YARGH: C'MERE PEEWEE." I am pretty desperate too.

Let's make this shit happen, people. Get-together for all.

You should really spread your wings and bang something other than your mom.

[Stanley Burrell]

You should really spread your wings and bang something other than your mom.

I'll bang you, bitch.

[Stanley Burrell]

With my fo'-fo'. Non-fatally and heterosexually, respectively.

[Gan]

Gan what part of Houston do you live in, cause the cost of living here isn't that bad and if I was making $75,000 a year, I'd be extremely well off. I make less than half that, and I'm still doing pretty well.

LOL

I'm on the southwest side. My cost per square foot/mortgage is pretty inexpensive (less than a car note, which has more to do with what I put down/interest rate vs. the value of the home I purchased than what I pay for a monthly payment).

And also, I'm not taking this tax rebate issue personally in that it doesnt affect me. Alot of it will depend on what we actually declare for taxable income this year. ;)

And as Daniel mentioned, its not the cost of living per area but the things that go along with it. Kid's private school, grad school, car note, new business startup costs, and the other bills associated with owning a house and automobiles.

Its great that you're doing well on what you make; however, thats not applicable to areas where I'm highlighting (east coast, west coast, etc.).

Texas and Houston is notable for its low property costs and no state income tax structure.

[Celephais]

You do that. I'm getting drunk.
Oh believe me, drunkeness will ensue; infact I'm considering spending some of mine on a breathalyzer after reading the Tucker Max Sushi story.

[Sean of the Thread]

Don't waste your money on a breathalyzer. You'll just get drunk and lose it like I did. :(

[Celephais]

Don't waste your money on a breathalyzer. You'll just get drunk and lose it like I did. :(
I think that's the point; my thing used to be getting drunk and losing my coat, thankfully I'm past that stage; lately I've been able to get drunk and not do all the stupid shit I used to do... It's kinda boring.

[Warriorbird]

Breathalyzer's = universal get you more drunk tickets.

I lost my breathalyzer, my house keys, and my shoes all in one night.

[Daniel]

success.

[Lucas]

This is odd that conservatives will be pissed at this deal. This is like a tax cut for 90% of the population. Aren't tax cuts what converatives want? So you can keep more of what you earn?

[Mistomeer]

This is odd that conservatives will be pissed at this deal. This is like a tax cut for 90% of the population. Aren't tax cuts what converatives want? So you can keep more of what you earn?

It's not a tax cut. It's a rebate.

Two things I have a problem with are that it doesn't do anything to fix the economy long term and I won't see shit. Mostly the I won't see shit part because Bush fuckered the hell out of the economy and I don't see it getting any better as long as he is in office and we are at war.

[Lucas]

tax cut = you keep more of your taxable money
rebate = you keep more of your taxable money just a bit later.

Seems like the samething to me, other then the fact that people who make over 75k gets screwed. But when you're making that much, do you really care about 600$? I know I don't.

[Mistomeer]

tax cut = you keep more of your taxable money
rebate = you keep more of your taxable money just a bit later.

Seems like the samething to me, other then the fact that people who make over 75k gets screwed. But when you're making that much, do you really care about 600$? I know I don't.

Tax cuts mean a lower tax rate. A rebate is a one time thing. I'd love to pay less in taxes all the time. And yes, I do care about that $600 or $800 or whatever it would work out to be. I especially care that shitbags that don't pay anything in taxes are getting it and the people that pay the most in taxes aren't.

[Daniel]

qq

[Jazuela]

1) The last time we got a tax rebate, it was considered "income" and we had to include it in our 1040 return, and pay the appropriate tax on the income.

2) The government can't afford to give money back. We supposedly pay all those taxes so our country can afford to run efficiently. Obviously this isn't true, but giving money back to the taxpayers is not exactly the best option toward efficiency.

3) There are better ways to spur the economy. One way is to completely overhaul the "deductions and writeoffs" part of how we pay income tax. Rich folks do pay a huge portion of the taxes in this country, as individuals. But proportionately, they pay less overall percentage of their income than middle class, because they can write so much more off as business expenses and charitable contributions (1st class airfare, resort stay, drinks, dinner, attendence ticket, to Cancun to attend the Feast of Joy dinner with the Trumps, which benefits the Kids of Cancun adoption agency is ALL a writeoff). There should be a maximum dollar amount that ANYONE can write off for charitable contributions, with or without a receipt. Not a maximum percentage of income. People like the Gates, etc...it wouldn't matter to them, because they have so much that paying another three million in taxes this year wouldn't even put a dent in their pocketbooks.

There are also billions of dollars in income being held off shore by so-called American tax-payers, protected against taxes in this country. I'd like to see them find a solution to that as well.

And of course if you REALLY want to boost the economy, get these big companies to close shop in India and bring their customer service departments back to the States. It'll spread the wealth here where we need it, providing thousands of the jobs that were lost when big business decided to ship their c-serve departments out in the first place.

[Clove]

1) The last time we got a tax rebate, it was considered "income" and we had to include it in our 1040 return, and pay the appropriate tax on the income.


I hope you don't do your own taxes.

[Sean of the Thread]

1) The last time we got a tax rebate, it was considered "income" and we had to include it in our 1040 return, and pay the appropriate tax on the income.

2) The government can't afford to give money back. We supposedly pay all those taxes so our country can afford to run efficiently. Obviously this isn't true, but giving money back to the taxpayers is not exactly the best option toward efficiency.

3) There are better ways to spur the economy. One way is to completely overhaul the "deductions and writeoffs" part of how we pay income tax. Rich folks do pay a huge portion of the taxes in this country, as individuals. But proportionately, they pay less overall percentage of their income than middle class, because they can write so much more off as business expenses and charitable contributions (1st class airfare, resort stay, drinks, dinner, attendence ticket, to Cancun to attend the Feast of Joy dinner with the Trumps, which benefits the Kids of Cancun adoption agency is ALL a writeoff). There should be a maximum dollar amount that ANYONE can write off for charitable contributions, with or without a receipt. Not a maximum percentage of income. People like the Gates, etc...it wouldn't matter to them, because they have so much that paying another three million in taxes this year wouldn't even put a dent in their pocketbooks.

There are also billions of dollars in income being held off shore by so-called American tax-payers, protected against taxes in this country. I'd like to see them find a solution to that as well.

And of course if you REALLY want to boost the economy, get these big companies to close shop in India and bring their customer service departments back to the States. It'll spread the wealth here where we need it, providing thousands of the jobs that were lost when big business decided to ship their c-serve departments out in the first place.

I wanted no pickles on my burger.

[TheEschaton]

And of course if you REALLY want to boost the economy, get these big companies to close shop in India and bring their customer service departments back to the States. It'll spread the wealth here where we need it, providing thousands of the jobs that were lost when big business decided to ship their c-serve departments out in the first place.

If people really wanted that, they would want the end of capitalism, and the rise of protectionism again. I'm all for that, I just don't think American people really are. What they want is the best of both worlds - the ability to win a competition when they are better, more efficient, and more cost effective...and the ability to win competitively when they AREN'T better, more efficient, or more cost effective.

Sucks when you're on the losing end of the capitalist system, huh?

Go make me a burger, bitch.

[Clove]

If people really wanted that, they would want the end of capitalism, and the rise of protectionism again. I'm all for that...

Bueller... Bueller... Bueller...

[Stanley Burrell]

I wanted no pickles on my burger.

Not everyone's allowed to pose as a USMC war gimp and collect shell shock benefits for never fighting all while in the comfort of bartering their should've-worn-a-condom kids' school funding on gambling websites using hacks.

[Gan]

3) There are better ways to spur the economy. One way is to completely overhaul the "deductions and writeoffs" part of how we pay income tax. Rich folks do pay a huge portion of the taxes in this country, as individuals. But proportionately, they pay less overall percentage of their income than middle class, because they can write so much more off as business expenses and charitable contributions (1st class airfare, resort stay, drinks, dinner, attendence ticket, to Cancun to attend the Feast of Joy dinner with the Trumps, which benefits the Kids of Cancun adoption agency is ALL a writeoff). There should be a maximum dollar amount that ANYONE can write off for charitable contributions, with or without a receipt. Not a maximum percentage of income. People like the Gates, etc...it wouldn't matter to them, because they have so much that paying another three million in taxes this year wouldn't even put a dent in their pocketbooks.
90% of the charities of the world would like to thank you for fucking up 80% of their income by cutting back on the deductable amounts. You consider scaling back charitable deductions and who's going to donate to charities? What creative incentive will you use to encourage donations?


There are also billions of dollars in income being held off shore by so-called American tax-payers, protected against taxes in this country. I'd like to see them find a solution to that as well.
You do that and I'm buying stock in personal vault/safe construction companies as wealth is converted to a portable commodity and stashed where its untraceable.


And of course if you REALLY want to boost the economy, get these big companies to close shop in India and bring their customer service departments back to the States. It'll spread the wealth here where we need it, providing thousands of the jobs that were lost when big business decided to ship their c-serve departments out in the first place.
Jesus did you just fall off the protectionist wagon? I have two words for you - Comparitive Advantage. Go grab a MicroEcon 101 book and look it up.

[TheEschaton]

90% of the charities of the world would like to thank you for fucking up 80% of their income by cutting back on the deductable amounts. You consider scaling back charitable deductions and who's going to donate to charities? What creative incentive will you use to encourage donations?


Oh, but isn't that the central message of the GOP? Give us back our money, and we'll make sure all necessary social services are taken care of because we'll donate out of the goodness of our heart!

Hmmm, yeah, that's what I thought.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Oh, but isn't that the central message of the GOP? Give us back our money, and we'll make sure all necessary social services are taken care of because we'll donate out of the goodness of our heart!

Hmmm, yeah, that's what I thought.

-TheE-

So the message of the GOP is dont donate to charities?

:wtf:

Is this a smoking night for you?

[Lucas]

Oh, but isn't that the central message of the GOP? Give us back our money, and we'll make sure all necessary social services are taken care of because we'll donate out of the goodness of our heart!

Hmmm, yeah, that's what I thought.

-TheE-

No that arguement doesn't hold water. People donate because it's essentially paying taxes toward stuff they WANT to see spent on. Thus charities in general are tax deductible.

However, paying taxes can also stimulate lower class spending and provide people with some hopeful jobs. People under crushing levels of poverty are by in no ways able to look for education or seek self-improvement/training because well... they've got just enough food in them to keep their heart pumping, and they've got just enough to get back to their illegal 9 person apartment, they don't have any health insurance, and if they get sick hospitals send them away and they literally die in a ditch somewhere. No, I'm not talking about some 3rd world nation in Africa...this is America. Dreaming about college and buying your own home is laughable to these people, thats the dreaming part not the actual doing part. The doing part is unthinkable.

These folks need enough food/money/shelter to get themselves up and running. Ultimately, the benefits they recieve does come back to people like you and me.

[TheEschaton]

So the message of the GOP is dont donate to charities?

:wtf:

Is this a smoking night for you?

I don't think the message is "don't donate to charities", it's "give us back all our money, and we'll take care of it ourselves", but the reality of the situation is when you say things like "Make charities not tax deductible?? THen who's gonna donate to them??"

-TheE-

[Clove]

Is this a smoking night for you?

Yes

[Sean of the Thread]

Never thought of it until now but is donating time/volunteering deductible???

[Clove]

Never thought of it until now but is donating time/volunteering deductible???

No, but you can deduct travel expenses related to charity work. This would not be commuting (traveling to/from the charity) but travel done for the charitable work at your expense.

[Gan]

I don't think the message is "don't donate to charities", it's "give us back all our money, and we'll take care of it ourselves", but the reality of the situation is when you say things like "Make charities not tax deductible?? THen who's gonna donate to them??"

-TheE-

It must be a smoking night indeed.

So you're implying that less taxes means no charities will be donated to. You may be correct in so far as receipt of government grants; HOWEVER, the intent of the post you responded to (my post) was specifically pertaining to individual tax DEDUCTIONS for charititable contributions.

You should know first hand since you deduct your charitible donations off of your own taxes. Use your fucking head. I can guarantee you that if you drop charitible deduction allowance you will see a drop in donations to charities which will then HAVE to be made up for in government donations in the form of grants if some of them expect to keep operating.

You may try and hide your silver spoon socialist views, but they still come shining through. ;)

[Gan]

Never thought of it until now but is donating time/volunteering deductible???

hahahahaha court ordered community service doesnt count jailbitch.

:whistle:

[Clove]

hahahahaha court ordered community service doesnt count jailbitch.

:whistle:

Winner!

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

I think it's time to infuse some intelligent conversation into this mindless nonsense! YUM YUM CHOCOSTICK! YUM YUM CHOCOSTICK! IN MY TUMMY YUM YUM!!!

[Sean of the Thread]

hahahahaha court ordered community service doesnt count jailbitch.

:whistle:

I've had one parking ticket in the last 12 years and I wasn't even driving. That's the extent of my recent brushes with the law.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

MWAHAHAHA

[Gan]

I've had one parking ticket in the last 12 years and I wasn't even driving. That's the extent of my recent brushes with the law.

Love the disclaimer. ;)

(you know I'm pulling your chain right?)

[Clove]

I've had one parking ticket in the last 12 years and I wasn't even driving. That's the extent of my recent brushes with the law.

You can't claim parking tickets either.

[Latrinsorm]

I can guarantee you that if you drop charitible deduction allowance you will see a drop in donations to charitiesYou recognize that you're agreeing with Eschaton, right?

[TheEschaton]

You should know first hand since you deduct your charitible donations off of your own taxes. Use your fucking head. I can guarantee you that if you drop charitible deduction allowance you will see a drop in donations to charities which will then HAVE to be made up for in government donations in the form of grants if some of them expect to keep operating.

Seriously, Latrin is right. I know my views very well, and I KNOW that if tax deductability is taken away from donations, donations will go down.

Maybe I should have put the first post in italics, but it seems like it's been said before, possibly by you, or another conservative on this board, that we should lower taxes, and to take care of social services which are largely covered by charities/NGOs or federal funds, rely on individual people to donate out of the goodness of their hearts to support those NGOs/causes.

Now, I raised the criticism in the past that there are unpopular causes people individually might not donate to, and therefore there needs to be gov't funding of these things. But in the above scenario, keeping in mind you said earlier IN THIS THREAD something to the effect of "Take away tax deductability? Who's gonna donate then??" my question is thus: If you cut tax deductability, will conservatives still give once you cut their taxes?

I personally doubt it. Which is where the flaw in your whole line of "why we should cut taxes" lies.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And as a follow up: Even if we keep deductability (which I think is here to stay), in your ideal fantasy Republican world where tax cuts are made permanent, do you really think if the top rate goes from 40% to, say 32%, that those people rich enough to be taxed at the top rate are: a) gonna donate 8% of their income to make up the loss in federal money, and b) donate in general when they've already reached lower, presumably "acceptable" levels of taxation in your fantasy world?

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

And as a follow up: Even if we keep deductability (which I think is here to stay), in your ideal fantasy Republican world where tax cuts are made permanent, do you really think if the top rate goes from 40% to, say 32%, that those people rich enough to be taxed at the top rate are: a) gonna donate 8% of their income to make up the loss in federal money, and b) donate in general when they've already reached lower, presumably "acceptable" levels of taxation in your fantasy world?

Deductible donations would still remain the same so long as they remain deductible. If taxes are cut by whatever, and you can still claim donations ... they'll donate ... it's a tax shelter.

Now, if you find a way to cut deductible contributions to organizations (loop holes) that end up giving large portions of said contributions back to the contributors ... well then some will stop.

[Parkbandit]

The rampant abuse of the tax money being poured into social services is what needs to be fixed. Tighten the money by lowering taxes and maybe, JUST MAYBE someone will get off their ass and figure out who's abusing the systems we have in place.

I'm at a HUD community this morning.. and what do you know.. FIRST apartment I walk into I am face to face with a beautiful 60+" plasma TV hanging on the wall. I'm looking around in the parking lot right now and see a nice Cadillac (with nice rims), a new BMW, a brand new Honda Accord and a beautiful Lexus SUV.

3 weeks ago, we were at another HUD property, where the PROPERTY PAYS MANY OF THE RESIDENTS TO LIVE THERE FOR FREE!? WTF.

Something is terribly wrong with the current system.

[Tsa`ah]

The rampant abuse of the tax money being poured into social services is what needs to be fixed. Tighten the money by lowering taxes and maybe, JUST MAYBE someone will get off their ass and figure out who's abusing the systems we have in place.

I'm at a HUD community this morning.. and what do you know.. FIRST apartment I walk into I am face to face with a beautiful 60+" plasma TV hanging on the wall. I'm looking around in the parking lot right now and see a nice Cadillac (with nice rims), a new BMW, a brand new Honda Accord and a beautiful Lexus SUV.

3 weeks ago, we were at another HUD property, where the PROPERTY PAYS MANY OF THE RESIDENTS TO LIVE THERE FOR FREE!? WTF.

Something is terribly wrong with the current system.

It's often easy to assume the systems in place are filled with those that abuse and defraud them. While these cases are common, they're not the majority.

I do agree that something needs to be done about the fraud and the abuse ... cutting tax funds to these programs is not the solution.

First you have to consider the people filling the employment ranks at these government institutions .... most are pretty unqualified to begin with. A few months ago I had to take documents to the local IDES office because the guy handling a claim for a former employee couldn't open up a fucking attachment and didn't trust the fax machine. When I was escorted to the office area I saw more people wearing wrist braces than Walgreens could stock.

My first experience the IDPA as a college student expecting a child was with Shanaynay who referred us to a case worker, Barbara Sue ... see what I'm getting at? Many of the people who fill these jobs were those that utilized the systems to a great extent. If you can use a keyboard and answer a phone ... that's qualified enough as far as any state is concerned.

Your observations at HUD properties are also the result of the property owner defrauding the system ... just as many of the recipients of said service are abusing/defrauding them.

It's just unfortunate that we tend to notice the nice cars, and lavish furnishings and over look the clunkers and run down decor that out number them.

[Parkbandit]

From my vantage point in my truck, I can see perhaps 60 cars... I would guess ONE might be considered a 'clunker'.. and that is the work van of one of my employees. There are 394 apartments in this complex and today is just my first day, so we'll see.

And speaking of vehicles.. this parking lot has a noticeable amount of vehicles in it.. and a noticeable amount of people that are home when we knock. But hey.. maybe this is one complex that has an inordinate number of night and graveyard shift workers.. and they are not just sitting at home and waiting for another liberal social handout.

I doubt it though.

[Gan]

90% of the charities of the world would like to thank you for fucking up 80% of their income by cutting back on the deductable amounts. You consider scaling back charitable deductions and who's going to donate to charities? What creative incentive will you use to encourage donations?


Oh, but isn't that the central message of the GOP? Give us back our money, and we'll make sure all necessary social services are taken care of because we'll donate out of the goodness of our heart!

Hmmm, yeah, that's what I thought.

-TheE-


So the message of the GOP is dont donate to charities?

:wtf:

Is this a smoking night for you?


I don't think the message is "don't donate to charities", it's "give us back all our money, and we'll take care of it ourselves", but the reality of the situation is when you say things like "Make charities not tax deductible?? THen who's gonna donate to them??"

-TheE-


It must be a smoking night indeed.

So you're implying that less taxes means no charities will be donated to. You may be correct in so far as receipt of government grants; HOWEVER, the intent of the post you responded to (my post) was specifically pertaining to individual tax DEDUCTIONS for charititable contributions.

You should know first hand since you deduct your charitible donations off of your own taxes. Use your fucking head. I can guarantee you that if you drop charitible deduction allowance you will see a drop in donations to charities which will then HAVE to be made up for in government donations in the form of grants if some of them expect to keep operating.

You may try and hide your silver spoon socialist views, but they still come shining through. ;)


You recognize that you're agreeing with Eschaton, right?
You're ability to follow a conversation thread sucks, significantly.


Seriously, Latrin is right. I know my views very well, and I KNOW that if tax deductability is taken away from donations, donations will go down.

Maybe I should have put the first post in italics, but it seems like it's been said before, possibly by you, or another conservative on this board, that we should lower taxes, and to take care of social services which are largely covered by charities/NGOs or federal funds, rely on individual people to donate out of the goodness of their hearts to support those NGOs/causes.
Its been said by someone I agree, possibly me because I certainly agree that our tax money should not go to charitable organizations but to social programs that are efficiently run and specifically designated as a receiver of said taxes. In my opinion charities are double dipping by taking both contributions from the public and tax money from the government (money again from the public).


Now, I raised the criticism in the past that there are unpopular causes people individually might not donate to, and therefore there needs to be gov't funding of these things. But in the above scenario, keeping in mind you said earlier IN THIS THREAD something to the effect of "Take away tax deductability? Who's gonna donate then??" my question is thus: If you cut tax deductability, will conservatives still give once you cut their taxes?
If you cut their income taxes, thus increasing their disposable income, and yet still offer an incentive to donate to charity by making it tax deductable then HELL YES they will still donate. Wouldnt you?


I personally doubt it. Which is where the flaw in your whole line of "why we should cut taxes" lies.
You're confusing tax receipts with tax deductions. Bottom line:
1. Cut the amount of tax money given to charities by the government in the form of taxpayer grants.
2. Leave the individual tax deduction allowances in place so that people who wish to give to charity of their own free will can be encouraged to do so at a greater amount.


And as a follow up: Even if we keep deductability (which I think is here to stay), in your ideal fantasy Republican world where tax cuts are made permanent, do you really think if the top rate goes from 40% to, say 32%, that those people rich enough to be taxed at the top rate are: a) gonna donate 8% of their income to make up the loss in federal money, and b) donate in general when they've already reached lower, presumably "acceptable" levels of taxation in your fantasy world?

-TheE-
LOL at you playing the fantasy role card. :lol:
In my perfect world I would put the burden of the tighter budget back on Congress to spend wisely (yes, now THATS a BIG Fantasy).

Review

[Keller]

For those wanting the Keller's Notes version:

Gan says: No one will donate to charities without the incentive of deductions.

TheE says: But don't republicans always cry using taxes to provide social welfare is inefficient because the government doesn't have a profit motive. So republicans say, "Give us back our money and we'll donate it to charities that will more efficiently provide for social needs." That doesn't square with what you're saying, Gan.

Gan says: Dude, you're high or something.

TheE says: No I'm not. Read what I wrote above.

Gan says: Dude, you must be smoking. And I am, too! See, I'll reiterate what you just said.

Latrin says: Gan, you just said what TheE said.

TheE: Exactly.

Gan: Na'unh!

[TheEschaton]

This is why you win at legal writing, and I lose.

[Gan]

For those wanting the Keller's Notes version:

Gan says: No one will donate to charities without the incentive of deductions.

TheE says: But don't republicans always cry using taxes to provide social welfare is inefficient because the government doesn't have a profit motive. So republicans say, "Give us back our money and we'll donate it to charities that will more efficiently provide for social needs." That doesn't square with what you're saying, Gan.

Gan says: Dude, you're high or something.

TheE says: No I'm not. Read what I wrote above.

Gan says: Dude, you must be smoking. And I am, too! See, I'll reiterate what you just said.

Latrin says: Gan, you just said what TheE said.

TheE: Exactly.

Gan: Na'unh!

:lol:

[Celephais]

For those wanting the Keller's Notes version:
Thanks, i didn't feel like reading all that crap but wanted to be able to stay up on the topic because there aren't many other interesting threads going on (and this one has... er had, some potential)

[Clove]

A tax deduction isn't the same as revenue budgeting.

[Keller]

For those who still don't understand the bill and what it means to you:

http://tax.cchgroup.com/legislation/2008-stimulus-package.pdf

[Bobmuhthol]

It means I don't get shit. :(

[Parkbandit]

The term "rebate" cracks me up with this handout. Why is it the people who pay the most aren't getting anything rebated to them?

[Gan]

According to some schools of thought, it appears that the benefit of said rebate/refund/handout will be better felt by the economy if it was sent to the lower income households. While I dont necessarily agree, there seems to be prevalent expert opinion that it works, so it is what is is.

Those of us who shoulder the majority of the tax burden are supposed to be happy with/if what we get and consider it part of our civic responsibility to be satisfied with that.

[Daniel]

The term "rebate" cracks me up with this handout. Why is it the people who pay the most aren't getting anything rebated to them?

qq.

[Clove]

Those of us who shoulder the majority of the tax burden are supposed to be happy with/if what we get and consider it part of our civic responsibility to be satisfied with that.

I think Keller summed up the sentiment best.


...he posits that the as a taxpayer receives a higher income for his labor, each dollar he earns is of declining value and therefore to equalize the burden (the actual "pain" felt from confiscating a dollar through tax, not the monetary amount) a progressive rate structure is mandatory to fairly allocate the burden among society...

When it comes to taxes it isn't enough for those with more to pay more. They need to feel more pain.

[Daniel]

Yes. I'm sure you're really feeling alot of pain if you are making over 75k.

[Clove]

Yes. I'm sure you're really feeling alot of pain if you are making over 75k.

No, and you should be.

[Warriorbird]

The whole handout idea is pretty stupid.

[Drunken Durfin]

www.fairtax.org

[CrystalTears]

Yes. I'm sure you're really feeling alot of pain if you are making over 75k.
So does this mean that people making 75k and over are rich regardless of their residential state? Is that what you're implying?

[Parkbandit]

www.fairtax.org


The more I read about this tax idea, the more I like it.

[Parkbandit]

So does this mean that people making 75k and over are rich regardless of their residential state? Is that what you're implying?


I think what he's implying is that he's only a poor black man and that he deserves the rebate more than any white person does.

[Keller]

I think Keller summed up the sentiment best.



When it comes to taxes it isn't enough for those with more to pay more. They need to feel more pain.

Not more pain. Equal pain. But equal pain =/ equal dollars.

[CrystalTears]

I'm all for fair tax. I think it's bullshit that ANYONE feel "pain" for taxes on the money they earned.

[Keller]

The more I read about this tax idea, the more I like it.

Why? If you say, "it's fair," why is it fair? And please don't go circular and say, "because everyone pays the same rate."

[Keller]

I'm all for fair tax. I think it's bullshit that ANYONE feel "pain" for taxes on the money they earned.

Let's be clear, because Clove took a quote out of context, that "pain" means sacrificed utility.

Do you still have the same objection? If so, that means you don't think anyone should pay a cent of taxes. Why?

[Keller]

I think what he's implying is that he's only a poor black man and that he deserves the rebate more than any white person does.

Daniel brings up his skin color, independant of your prompting him to talk about it, maybe 1 time for every 100 times you bring it up. Any reason for that?

[Warriorbird]

Nobody should ever pay taxes! Then everything will get better when we have no government.

[CrystalTears]

Let's be clear, because Clove took a quote out of context, that "pain" means sacrificed utility.

Do you still have the same objection? If so, that means you don't think anyone should pay a cent of taxes. Why?
On their income? Not at all. Let them keep everything they make and pay taxes on the goods and services they spend it on.

And if utilities and necessities such as certain clothing, certain food, heating, water, electricity are tax exempt, then the poor will have to pay very little taxes (if at all to get that teeny color TV) and can use what's left to save.

[Keller]

The term "rebate" cracks me up with this handout. Why is it the people who pay the most aren't getting anything rebated to them?

There is a finite number of dollars to be handed out. There is empirical data that suggests people with lower amounts of disposable income will spend a higher percentage of any additional money they receive. If our goal is to stimulate the economy in the most efficient manner, then we want to put that money into the hands of people who will spend the most.

[Keller]

On their income? Not at all. Let them keep everything they make and pay taxes on the goods and services they spend it on.

And if utilities and necessities such as certain clothing, certain food, heating, water, electricity are tax exempt, then the poor will have to pay very little taxes (if at all to get that teeny color TV) and can use what's left to save.

Got'cha.

So then, do you favor flat consumption tax or progressive consumption tax?

[CrystalTears]

If it's really about stimulating the economy, give it to the people who can spend it freely without worrying about bills (i.e. the richer) as the poorer people may spend it on luxuries, but true poor (and responsible) people will probably use it help pay bills, and I don't blame them.

[Warriorbird]

Rich people don't spend money at the rate the poor do.

[CrystalTears]

I'd probably favor a flat consumption tax.

[Clove]

Well then I'm misunderstanding you Keller. What DO you mean by...

"the actual 'pain' felt from confiscating a dollar through tax, not the monetary amount"

[Clove]

Rich people don't spend money at the rate the poor do.

They don't?

[Clove]

This is a genuine question Keller, because I haven't looked into progressive consumption tax proposals.

A flat consumption tax seems simple and straight-forward, but how would you implement a progressive consumption tax?

[Warriorbird]

Generally not. Depends on your definition of rich though. There's certainly a vast degree more relative poor than rich in America and they tend to get weighted down by sheer numbers. That being said... I oppose this particular stimulus idea completely due to its long delay and inadequacy at solving real issues. The mortgage lifeline is equally as dumb.

[Keller]

If it's really about stimulating the economy, give it to the people who can spend it freely without worrying about bills (i.e. the richer) as the poorer people may spend it on luxuries, but true poor (and responsible) people will probably use it help pay bills, and I don't blame them.

I see your point.

But, and I'm not saying this is right but merely suggesting it as food for thought, they will be saved from using their income from work to pay the bills they paid with handouts.

My sister (who is a stay-at-home mom w/ 3 kids and a husband who makes about 55k/yr) said the same thing you suggested when we talked about the hand-outs. She is perhaps the most fiscally responsible individual I know (out of necessity) and she said she would use her check to pay off the rebuilt engine in their mini-van. But, that means she now has $2100 less debt and will have a looser budget. Granted, she'll just use that extra money for her kids college funds and not actual consumption -- but that just means she has less to save in the future. You can keep shifting the income from place to place -- but the real economic result is that she has more to spend at the end of the day and she is more likely to spend it on consumer goods than someone who has enough money to purchase consumer goods without the hand-out.

[Keller]

Well then I'm misunderstanding you Keller. What DO you mean by...

"the actual 'pain' felt from confiscating a dollar through tax, not the monetary amount"

Let's create a fictional unit, the Util, which represents a unit of utility. It's accepted that a Util represents a lower amount of money for someone who earns $30k/yr than it represents to a person who earns $300k, or even $30,001/yr.

I mean that if you take one Util from a low-income individual it will be a MUCH lower percentage of that person's total income (and obviously a very different real dollar amount) than if you take 1 Util from a high-income individual. To be sure, my emphasis (MUCH) is not warranted in cases of small income disparities, but I think you could infer that.

[Keller]

I'd probably favor a flat consumption tax.

Why? I'm not sure I disagree, but I'm just curious to see people articulate why they favor a flat tax.

[CrystalTears]

Explain progressive consumption tax a little more and then I can answer. :)

And if progressive consumption tax is what I read not too long ago regarding being taxed on the income you didn't save, I'd still go with flat tax.

[Clove]

I mean that if you take one Util from a low-income individual it will be a MUCH lower percentage of that person's total income (and obviously a very different real dollar amount) than if you take 1 Util from a high-income individual. To be sure, my emphasis (MUCH) is not warranted in cases of small income disparities, but I think you could infer that.

Right, then we do understand each other. By "fair" we're talking about taking the same "utility" (as if we could fairly establish that) from those with more. It's not about who pumps how much revenue into the government to pay for things, it's about everyone feeling a similar "hit".

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know that I agree with the philosophy. Those with more should contribute more to the public coffers; that much I can abide. I don't think we all need to contribute the same "utility" even if it could be fairly computed.

[Keller]

This is a genuine question Keller, because I haven't looked into progressive consumption tax proposals.

A flat consumption tax seems simple and straight-forward, but how would you implement a progressive consumption tax?


I think the easiest way would to use an unlimited IRA model and tax distributions from the IRA. So you'd track income and IRA appreciation.

In Y0, IRA is $0. In Y1, you earn 100k of income and your year end balance in the IRA is 55k. You'd have 45k of consumption and would be taxed on the determined rates. Y2 you earn another 100k of income and 5.5k interest on the amount remaining in the IRA. At the end of the year your IRA has 100k, so you've spent 60.5k and will be taxed on the appropriate amount.

That's the best proposal I've heard to track consumption and also quickly and effectively transition to a consumption tax without having to completely re-write the tax code.

[Keller]

Explain progressive consumption tax a little more and then I can answer. :)


Take my explanation to Clove of how I would implement a progressive consumption tax and apply the current marginal income tax rates. Except our new definition of income is Income + existing IRA going into the year - End of year IRA. Apply the progressive marginal rates as you would do today (of course we may adjust down because consumption will be lower than income is today).

[Keller]

And I officially have to leave the cafe to go to class. I wish I could coninue as I <3 tax and not corporate law.

[CrystalTears]

Pretend that someone doesn't have an IRA and is a mediocre Joe making 50k a year. How does it affect him?

It's looking like I'm favoring flat tax even more now, but I'm willing to hear more.

[Clove]

Pretend that someone doesn't have an IRA and is a mediocre Joe making 50k a year. How does it affect him?

It's looking like I'm favoring flat tax even more now, but I'm willing to hear more.

By "IRA model" I think what Keller is saying is that EVERYONE would have to keep their income in a trackable location. You'd be taxed on how much you spent vs how much you earned. Keller?

[Parkbandit]

The best part of the "Fair" tax is that everyone pays upon consumption. Everyone who now 'beats' the system by paying for shit in cash and getting paid with cash will now be paying their taxes upon buying anything.

[CrystalTears]

You'd be taxed on how much you spent vs how much you earned.
Yeah, that blows.

[Clove]

The best part of the "Fair" tax is that everyone pays upon consumption. Everyone who now 'beats' the system by paying for shit in cash and getting paid with cash will now be paying their taxes upon buying anything.

That's why I'm all for a flat value added tax somewhere around 18%. You spend, you pay.

[ClydeR]

That's why I'm all for a flat value added tax somewhere around 18%. You spend, you pay.

There would need to be an exception for big ticket items like houses and cars.

[Keller]

By "IRA model" I think what Keller is saying is that EVERYONE would have to keep their income in a trackable location. You'd be taxed on how much you spent vs how much you earned. Keller?

Right. By IRA model I mean that income goes in pre-tax and is only taxed when it is removed.

[Keller]

Yeah, that blows.

It's no different than a straight sales tax except that it allows a regulatory body to track your "consumption" and apply graduated marginal rates instead of just a flat sales tax and nothing more.

[Keller]

The best part of the "Fair" tax is that everyone pays upon consumption. Everyone who now 'beats' the system by paying for shit in cash and getting paid with cash will now be paying their taxes upon buying anything.

Oh boy, that's Pandora's box right there. If there was a consumption tax that was applied through a sales tax at purchase only -- I'd buy everything in Canada or Mexico. That would be terrible for the economy.

[Clove]

Oh boy, that's Pandora's box right there. If there was a consumption tax that was applied through a sales tax at purchase only -- I'd buy everything in Canada or Mexico. That would be terrible for the economy.

Knock yourself out, an equivalent tariff on imports would equalize that. Unless you planned on smuggling it all in.

[Stretch]

Currently 9 trillion.

Historical perspective of the Debt.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Do you have a similar chart that shows the debt as a multiple of tax revenue?

On a side note, I think this rebate is really fucking dumb. We need to just let fiscal natural selection do its thing.

[Clove]

There would need to be an exception for big ticket items like houses and cars.

Naw. Although yes, you would have to be careful about how much you financed. People would not be financing cars and houses on the bleeding edge of their budgets.

[Daniel]

No, and you should be.

It's all a conspiracy to fuck over rich people. George Bush has been pushing that socialist agenda for a long time now.

[Daniel]

So does this mean that people making 75k and over are rich regardless of their residential state? Is that what you're implying?

I'm saying that unless you're living well beyond your means then you probably don't need the 600 bucks if you make 75k.

[Keller]

Knock yourself out, an equivalent tariff on imports would equalize that. Unless you planned on smuggling it all in.

I was responding to PBs assertion that people who currently operate in an all-cash world now be forced to pay taxed on all their unreported earnings as they spent it.

I assume that if they're willing to evade taxes under the current regime they're willing to evade taxes under a sales tax regime. Except now, more people can engage in the behavior because even people with salaried jobs will be able to shelter their consumption by smuggling large purchases.

Obviously people will need to grocery shop, go to movies, etc in their home-town. I considering larger, more meaningful, purchases.

Further, what affect will this have on US tourism? I would vacation outside the US if it meant an 18% (assuming a flat 18% sales tax) savings.

[Daniel]

The best part of the "Fair" tax is that everyone pays upon consumption. Everyone who now 'beats' the system by paying for shit in cash and getting paid with cash will now be paying their taxes upon buying anything.

Nevermind those people who use tax shelters.

[Daniel]

Knock yourself out, an equivalent tariff on imports would equalize that. Unless you planned on smuggling it all in.

Well, fuck free trade huh?

What would your bother say to that?

[Parkbandit]

Nevermind those people who use tax shelters.

Actually, it has the opposite effect you are believing in. It actually does away with most tax shelters by taxing them when they purchase items. There is no reason to hide your income anymore.. since it's not the basis of how much taxes you spend.

Taxes are based upon spending.. not income.

[Daniel]

So people will shelter their purchases. Now, who will have the ability to do that? Poor Joe working two jobs to get by or Mr. Ceo who already outsources most of his income?

[Lysander]

Gan, it's been proven to a statistical 2% margin that people that make lower income spend their income directly cash money on retail items like comic books to flat screen televisions. They almost never use it to pay back debt, I have no idea why, but this I think is a serious problem. Maybe people below this income level are just not good with money and spend spend spend (and thus are operating at this income level)?

Anyhow people who make over 75k a year are pretty much satiated with the stuff they would like AND are excellent savers and tend to hoard their money. Again, I think education level and maturity level are commensurate with earning power... wow go figure.

[Parkbandit]

Anyhow people who make over 75k a year are pretty much satiated with the stuff they would like AND are excellent savers and tend to hoard their money. Again, I think education level and maturity level are commensurate with earning power... wow go figure.

I know people who make 100K a year and live paycheck to paycheck. Income doesn't denote how you budget your money.

[Gan]

Gan, it's been proven to a statistical 2% margin that people that make lower income spend their income directly cash money on retail items like comic books to flat screen televisions. They almost never use it to pay back debt, I have no idea why, but this I think is a serious problem. Maybe people below this income level are just not good with money and spend spend spend (and thus are operating at this income level)?
I've seen some of the studies and I'm not convinced the data is all inclusive or should be taken as a static model or baseline behavior on spending. I'm not the only person who does not agree with these studies either. We all know statistics are not absolute and that they can be manipulated to fit data ranges that align with the bias of the reporting mechanism. Either way, I'm not satisifed, that being said - time will tell if this stimulus will be effective. I'm curious to see how much of an impact it will have and if that impact is measurable or can be seperated from the other market forces that are already rebounding.


Anyhow people who make over 75k a year are pretty much satiated with the stuff they would like AND are excellent savers and tend to hoard their money. Again, I think education level and maturity level are commensurate with earning power... wow go figure.
LOL
Please give me a source on that. Because I know lots of folks who make over 75k and are spendhardy fools. And as PB indicates in a thread - they live paycheck to paycheck.

Its funny that you talk about studies and statistics to support your support of the low income stimulus utility benefit and yet make a quantum leap into conjecture for the rest of the sample that makes up the other part of the market participants.

:lol:

[Lysander]

75k + is a HUGE range. You mean people who make 75,001 $ a year or people who make 75,000 $ a DAY?

[Gan]

Quit being stupid.

[Daniel]

I know people who make 100K a year and live paycheck to paycheck. Income doesn't denote how you budget your money.

So much for personal responsibility. Stop the hand outs!

[Clove]

Well, fuck free trade huh?

What would your bother say to that?

I don't think he'd bother to address you.

[Parkbandit]

So much for personal responsibility. Stop the hand outs!


God, you are such a tool. You are making about as much sense as Stanley. I doubt YOU even know what YOU are posting on most days.

[Clove]

Except now, more people can engage in the behavior because even people with salaried jobs will be able to shelter their consumption by smuggling large purchases.

Further, what affect will this have on US tourism? I would vacation outside the US if it meant an 18% (assuming a flat 18% sales tax) savings.

I really think you're over-estimating the black market effect and tourism impact of a high national sales tax, but they are fair points. Intense pressure to evade high sales taxes is a classic criticism of them.

That being said before we get into a back and forth let me order my preferences in tax reform:

1 Value added tax
2 Sales tax
3 Flat income tax
4 Our current crappy income tax

My dream would be a VAT, but I'd settle for a sales tax over an income tax and my hunch is Americans would go for a sales tax before a VAT.

[Daniel]

God, you are such a tool. You are making about as much sense as Stanley. I doubt YOU even know what YOU are posting on most days.

Funny thats how most people take your posts.

[Daniel]

I don't think he'd bother to address you.


His problem and Irregardless of the point.

[Gan]

Do you have a similar chart that shows the debt as a multiple of tax revenue?
I'll have to look through my links. Doubtful though, thats a pretty custom comparison.


On a side note, I think this rebate is really fucking dumb. We need to just let fiscal natural selection do its thing.
You cruel cruel man.

[Back]

Good to see Congress working together on this one. Of course, any extra income would be welcome right about now. I’ll have to talk with some well-off folks I know to get their opinion on the subject.

All that said, something about it bugs me. Can’t put my finger on it. Anyone else get the feeling its just a quickie fix to a larger problem?

[Keller]

I really think you're over-estimating the black market effect and tourism impact of a high national sales tax, but they are fair points. Intense pressure to evade high sales taxes is a classic criticism of them.

That being said before we get into a back and forth let me order my preferences in tax reform:

1 Value added tax
2 Sales tax
3 Flat income tax
4 Our current crappy income tax

My dream would be a VAT, but I'd settle for a sales tax over an income tax and my hunch is Americans would go for a sales tax before a VAT.

What I was trying to convey is that people who work in an all-cash world can still evade taxes in a consumption-tax regime. That is not a valid reason to prefer a consumption tax.

For the record, I subscribe to optimal tax theory and would prefer a sizable demogrant followed by a slowly regressive income tax. It would provide the tax relief for low-income taxpayers, progressive average tax rates, and regressive marginal rates.

In practice it would look like: 10k demogrant to anyone filing a tax return, 40% income tax on the first 15k, 30% to 35k, 27% to 75k, and 25% beyond 75k.

No clue how those numbers model out, but I just wanted to give an example to make sure you understand my meaning.

[Keller]

All that said, something about it bugs me.

I think Jon Stewart said it best, "Ehhhhhh, sorry about messing up your economy folks. Here is a few hundred dollars, buy yourself something special."

[Clove]

What I was trying to convey is that people who work in an all-cash world can still evade taxes in a consumption-tax regime. That is not a valid reason to prefer a consumption tax.

Yes, those who evade taxes today- will probably attempt to evade taxes tomorrow (regardless of the tax plan). I can't dispute that.



For the record, I subscribe to optimal tax theory and would prefer a sizable demogrant followed by a slowly regressive income tax. It would provide the tax relief for low-income taxpayers, progressive average tax rates, and regressive marginal rates.

In practice it would look like: 10k demogrant to anyone filing a tax return, 40% income tax on the first 15k, 30% to 35k, 27% to 75k, and 25% beyond 75k.

I realize you were only giving example numbers, I just want to do the math to make sure I understand the idea.

Income: 20,000 Tax: 20,000x40%=8,000-10,000 Net Effect: -2,000 income tax

Income: 25,000 Tax: 25,000x40%=10,000-10,000 Net Effect: 0

Income: 35,000 Tax: 25,000x15%+35,000x30%=20,500-10,000 Net Effect: 10,500 income tax

Income: 75,000 Tax: 25,000x15%+35,000x30%+75,000x27%=40,750-10,000 Net Effect: 30,750 income tax

Income: 100,000 Tax: 25,000x15%+35,000x30%+75,000x27%+100,000x25%=65,75 0-10,000 Net Effect: 55,750 income tax

Income: 1,000,000 Tax: 25,000x15%+35,000x30%+75,000x27%+100,000x25%=250,0 00-10,000 Net Effect: 280,750 income tax.

[Lysander]

As someone who is in the 1,000,000 + bracket all I can say is I don't pay close to that in taxes.

[Gan]

As someone who is in the 1,000,000 + bracket all I can say is I don't pay close to that in taxes.

Just wanted to quote the absurdity in case it is retracted later on.

:lol:

[Daniel]

Under our current system you *should* be paying for $326,864 for the first million and $350,000 for each thereafter.

[Clove]

I put the million dollar bracket in as a lark. I believe Keller intends for the tax rates to progress far above the 75k bracket. And they were "junk" numbers anyway for example purposes.

[Daniel]

I was posting to Lysander.

I trust that you can add without my help.

[Keller]

Yes, those who evade taxes today- will probably attempt to evade taxes tomorrow (regardless of the tax plan). I can't dispute that.



I realize you were only giving example numbers, I just want to do the math to make sure I understand the idea.

Income: 20,000 Tax: 20,000x40%=8,000-10,000 Net Effect: -2,000 income tax

Income: 25,000 Tax: 25,000x40%=10,000-10,000 Net Effect: 0

Income: 35,000 Tax: 25,000x15%+35,000x30%=20,500-10,000 Net Effect: 10,500 income tax

Income: 75,000 Tax: 25,000x15%+35,000x30%+75,000x27%=40,750-10,000 Net Effect: 30,750 income tax

Income: 100,000 Tax: 25,000x15%+35,000x30%+75,000x27%+100,000x25%=65,75 0-10,000 Net Effect: 55,750 income tax

Income: 1,000,000 Tax: 25,000x15%+35,000x30%+75,000x27%+100,000x25%=250,0 00-10,000 Net Effect: 280,750 income tax.

Yes, and that (2000) liability will be refunded to the taxpayer in the form of a check cut from the IRS to that person.

I like it because it produces some distributive justice. But the distribution in the form of a non-phased out grant wont fuck with incentive to work because everyone gets the same 10k hand out regardless of what they make. Then the regressive marginal rates will have an income effect because the low-wage ppl will be paying the highest marginal rate (while paying the lowest average rate because of the demogrant) and will want to work more to keep saving more of their money. Same phenomenon as you progress up the brackets and the tax keeps getting more and more regressive.