DISQUS

Funny about Money · 1 year ago

Exactly! I had exactly the same thought when I heard that yesterday. Come on, Barack: we need you to make sense!!!

The last thing I need is another $600 check (or $200 or $300 or whatever) that won't show up until six months after everyone else gets theirs, probably won't show up at all, and if it ever does show up will be a tiny addition to a very large mutual fund. This amount is so small it's almost negligible. Since I'm not spending it (whatever I covet either costs so much that the rebate does nothing to make it affordable or so little that I don't need the gummint to pay for it), it's not doing any stimulating of the economy. Any day I'd rather have a tax cut.

Or, infinitely preferable, I'd rather forego the rebate AND
the tax cut in favor of paying off the national deficit, bringing our country's healthcare system up to par, and getting our troops out of Iraq.

Matt · 1 year ago

Did the previous stimulus check work? Has the economy recovered?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

FFB · 1 year ago

Politics. That's what this is. I'm sure we'll see lots of interesting things from both sides now that the democratic nominee is set. Truth is we won't know if the first round worked for months at least (heck, we don't even know if we're in a recession for sure). The fact that they are talking about a second round makes no economic sense. All politics.

Frugal Dad · 1 year ago

Well, I'll deposit the check into savings if they send another, but I'm not for a second round of stimulus payments. The way to increase middle-class wealth in this country is not to tax those who are rich, but to ease the very taxes on corporations (such as oil) they are talking about taxing even higher. Those companies are owned by shareholders (~98% of the company, that is) and those shareholders are made up of middle class Americans investing in mutual funds inside retirement portfolios. By taxing the corporations into oblivion politicians are ultimately hurting the very class they claim to be protecting.

your cousin · 1 year ago

Wait. Mexico might have radicalized me a little bit more (and think---I still have four weeks left of this corruption!), but don't you like saving money by going to the library? Or didn't you appreciate your high school education? Or knowing that every kid can go to school in the US and that 5 year olds don't loose their futures because their parents are disabled and can't make enough to pay school fees? Taxes pay for things. You can only get out of your government what you put in.

Money Matters · 1 year ago

I do appreciate all the wonderful services the government has to offer. I believe in taxation, to a point. At the same time I don't hold the government in as high esteem as you do. I think the government has way too much wasteful spending, there are way too many useless programs, and that waste is the governments middle name. I think if politicians had their way we'd just be handing over 100% of our income only to have it redistributed. So do I believe in taxation? Yes. Do I think that we already have more than enough taxation? Yes.

Lise · 1 year ago

Seriously, the only argument I have ever heard from anti-taxation folks is "the government mis-spends our money!" Well, yes... but let me ask you: do you think if you gave them less money, they'd spend it more frugally? Coming from a place where I believe people are fundamentally selfish and greedy, I'd think that if they had less money, the things that would suffer would be core services (roads, libraries, etc), not politicians' pet projects.

Mattress · 1 year ago

Initially you'd probably be correct, but once the core services stopped functioning and nothing was done about it, we can hope those politicians responsible would get voted out.

Dave · 1 year ago

I think lower taxes for all is a good idea. How about less government spending. I also don't think we should fix the housing situation. The market does that best.

As far as the stimulus check goes. I don't think it is fair to steal from the rich to give to the poor but I will take it.

Josh · 1 year ago

Good comments. Quick thoughts I heard today at work was 1) This won't work and 2) we'd rather have tax cuts, both commented here. What I've yet to hear: a good way to get rid of income tax and rather raise taxes on purchased items. On the surface, it sounds like a good idea, plus I like the

Josh · 1 year ago

sorry that last post got cut off:

What I meant to say was, I like the idea of paying taxes on things I buy, because I always have the choice not to buy things. With that being said, I know there are details to be worked out (i.e. taxes on food staples) but to me it sounds like a great idea. Plus, there's no more income tax and you are able to tax those individuals with a, let's say "less than legal," income. What do you think? At the 10,000 foot level it sounds good to me.

Matt · 1 year ago

The problem with this is it is a regressive tax, ie people who don't make a lot of money need to spend a larger % of their income just to survive. These people will end up paying a much higher % of tax relative to their income vs those who are better off and able to save large portions of their income.

Yes you can choose how much you want to buy, and thus choose how much you are taxed, but at the same time there is a minimal amount that you must buy in order to live (food, shelter, clothing, etc.)

Solve this problem and I'm all for it!

Josh · 1 year ago

Good point. I never said I had the answer to the problem (plus I haven't thought TOO much about it) BUT you are probably bringing up a big reason why we haven't adopted it in the first place. What did we do before income tax?

Mattress · 1 year ago

That's a good question. I do think we need to switch to either an all income tax or all sales tax system, as it is currently you're getting taxed twice on your money, when you earn it and when you spend it.

jamy · 1 year ago

Hi,
I could not agree more !!!

ryan · 1 year ago

Am I to assume that you make more than $150,000 a year? Jeesh! How's it feel to me upper crust?
"The 2006 census showed that an income of $174,012 put an American household within the top 5 percent of income earners." Either you are or your close to being in the top 5%. Good Work.

Money Matters · 1 year ago

you could assume that - but you wouldn't be right. :) My problem is that I don't trust politicians when they say they're going to tax only the "rich". Their definition of rich often changes depending upon the day. One day rich is 75k, another day 150k. And when they say they're going to tax the rich , but not the middle class - they really mean they're going to tax the rich FIRST. They'll be around for our money next.

Lise · 1 year ago

"but where exactly is this money coming from?"

They're printing it >.<

I more or less support Obama, but he's clueless about economics, just like every other candidate.

Lise · 1 year ago

I should probably add that I'm not against the "tax the hell out of the rich" approach to economics; but the problem is that we basically do that now, but only for earned income. That only affects the upper middle class, i.e. where I live it's quite possible to earn $150,000 a year with dual earners and still only be breaking even, due to the cost of living.

As you probably know, interest and capital gains are taxed differently than earned income, and there are many ways out of paying the full amount on capital gains tax. The people who are really wealthy aren't getting rich with earned income; they're making money speculating, and they have savvy accountants who make sure they only pay the minimum tax on those investment returns.

So I'm not confident that the rich *are* going to be taxed as they should with this plan. Likely it will only affect those people who look wealthy on paper but are devoting every spare minute of their life to making earned income (and who, if they lost an earner, would lose everything).

Matt · 1 year ago

Taxing the hell out of the rich doesn't work: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/obamas-plan-to... It has no effect on tax revenue as a % of GDP. The better option is to implement policies that will increase the GPD.

Mattress · 1 year ago

Here's a great illustration of that concept: http://boomerang.blogs.com/optimist/2008/06/tax...