I had been hearing all the talk about them lately, and I now see they finally passed for the lower 350 billion dollar cuts. What will this do for the average Joe? After checking it out a little, it seems to me that it will decrease the amount withheld from paychecks, and do something to stock divedands(sp?). I also read that anyone who claimed a child tax credit in 2002 automatically gets up to 400.00 dollars. Does that actually mean the actual "Child Tax Credit" or is that any tax credit that involves a child. Because I am 22 and have a child. Because of this I am able to qualify for the earned income credit(which without the child I would not qualify for since you have to be 25+ if you do not have a kid). But since I qualified for that it took me down to having no taxable income, therfore i could not also claim the "Child Tax Credit". So does that mean I will not be getting a check in the mail?
bo whats up with these new tax cuts?
- Thread starter coolred
- Start date
$350 billion you mean.
Well, the theory is, if you give the people more money... they'll spend more, thus kicking up the economy. But that's not necessarily true... if you give them more, and the economy is bad, they're more likely to save that money for rainy days... so it really doesn't help that much. Lowering the interest rate would help more, since lower interest rates, mean lower rates on loans... which means people are more likely to spend.
Well, the theory is, if you give the people more money... they'll spend more, thus kicking up the economy. But that's not necessarily true... if you give them more, and the economy is bad, they're more likely to save that money for rainy days... so it really doesn't help that much. Lowering the interest rate would help more, since lower interest rates, mean lower rates on loans... which means people are more likely to spend.
Social commentary: Heh, I think it's funny that someone who is claiming an earned income credit has a 81 title DVD collection. I love our tax system. When are they going to tax consumption and not income?
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
Wow, you summed up my point about the post above you in one fell swoop
The vast, vast majority of people wouldn't save any more than if they were making 10x as much as they do now
Yes I did mean billion, I corrected it, thanks for pointing it out
81, I need to update that, its more like 87 now since my birthday. Which is were most of my DVD's come from. Well over half of them have been given to me as gifts, while some have been purchased by me with my hard earned money, I usually by the previously viewed ones from blockbuster.
81, I need to update that, its more like 87 now since my birthday. Which is were most of my DVD's come from. Well over half of them have been given to me as gifts, while some have been purchased by me with my hard earned money, I usually by the previously viewed ones from blockbuster.
Liberal response:
Tax cuts only benefit the wealthy.
Tax cuts only serve to drive up the Federal deficit.
This post has been pre-recorded to post whenever there is any mention of tax cuts.
Thank You for your attention.
Tax cuts only benefit the wealthy.
Tax cuts only serve to drive up the Federal deficit.
This post has been pre-recorded to post whenever there is any mention of tax cuts.
Thank You for your attention.
you mean like sales tax?
Anyway, the whole point of the tax cut is to get people to spend more, not save more.
I'm not too sure on this, since i don't follow American politics as closely... but isn't the average cut is $800 for somebody that makes $75k+? If so, they're less likely to live paycheck by paycheck. I suppose Bush could be right... only time will tell i guess. I still think there are better ways to kick up the economy rather than a huge tax cut.
Bush's intentions are good, however the tax cuts are going to the wrong people. $250 in the hands of a poor guy..he's gonna definitely spend it, because he's barely getting by.
$250 to someone driving a $27,000 automobile living in a decent home is piss change.
The whole reasoning behind the cuts are to jumpstart the economy, and this is the fastest way to do it- although a temporary solution. Long term tax policy shouldn't be "give the little guy more because he spends it" but it works well for a short-term jumpstart.
$250 to someone driving a $27,000 automobile living in a decent home is piss change.
The whole reasoning behind the cuts are to jumpstart the economy, and this is the fastest way to do it- although a temporary solution. Long term tax policy shouldn't be "give the little guy more because he spends it" but it works well for a short-term jumpstart.
- Nov 27, 1999
- 65,495
- 408
- 126
I find it even funnier that million/billionaires collect social security when they hit 65. Do they need it? No... do they take it? Yes...
AnyMal
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 15,780
- 0
- 76
I think your perseption of Social Security is at least somewhat flawed. SSI taxes are witheld from every paycheck, regardless whether you are pisspoor burger flipper or CEO of Fortune 500 company, which makes anyone paying income taxes entitled to it whether they need it or not. So if someone worked all their life and contributed to SS fund, who are we to question why they choose to collect their earned money?
I understand that... it's a matter of who actually needs the funds though. Does a billionare "need" the SS he gets? The same can be said for the recent tax cut, who really "needs" the tax cuts? The rich or the poor?
Of course, they will both get a cut, but only one of them "needs" it.
The poor in Africa "needs" the money more than the poor in America. Do you suggest we send social security money to them?
Does it suck for the poor? Yup. Is it fair though? Yup.
P.S. And "Bo knows."
I think the money will end up in a "bank" no matter what.
I am pretty sure the government wants us to "spend" this money to stimulate the economy. Saving it won't help anything.
Also, if you get a $1000 tax cut and spend $900 of that money, someone else (whoever you pay the money to) is going to get $900 dollars. This person will then spend some amount of that money and thus someone else will get more money. They can also save or spend that money, but in the end the money ends up somewhere.
This would be the whole "marginal propensity to consume" crap (and the "multiplier effect", which is 1/MPC).
The poor already pay no taxes, and then they also qualify for EIC. Tell me something, how in the hel do you get a refund if you pay no taxes?
I say we go to a flat tax, as in everyone pays a set % of their income. Or go to a cunsumption tax. This way, even the "black market" winds up paying taxes somehow. They may make cash deals for their goods and services, but they do purchase food, clothing, transportation, etc.
I say we go to a flat tax, as in everyone pays a set % of their income. Or go to a cunsumption tax. This way, even the "black market" winds up paying taxes somehow. They may make cash deals for their goods and services, but they do purchase food, clothing, transportation, etc.
Another tax cut that totally leaves out those who need the tax cut the most, which are the poor, or more specifically anyone who makes less than 27 or 28k a year. That is so not right, but of course Bush left that out when he was pimpin'
it to the country.
it to the country.
Really, so I didn't pay any taxes on the 25k I made last year? Bullcrap!! You know, poor doesn't necessarilly mean totally destitute. There are people called the working poor, which I am on the border of, making in the mid-twenties per year. I could use that money a hell of a lot more than GWB could use the million or two he'll be getting back, which he'll never even be able to spend he's got so much. Not that I don't think he earned his money(although he didn't earn it himself, but that's another strory) or that he's not entitled to just as much a break as everyone else, but use common sense here, I mean a rich man can do without a big taxcut a lot more than a person in the lowest of income brackets. Like it or not, that is how most Americans feel. They don't think the rich should get the same percentage of their taxes back, just because the poor do, because whether the rich like it or not, they are in a much better situation to pay higher taxes than the poor, and what is the big deal with paying a slightly higher percentage than the poor. They act like it will kill them. Yes, they made their money, but it's childish to get mad when poor people are not taxed as the rich, because it's just not doable. It's always been that way, and it's the way that works. The more you make, the more they take, and GWB thinks he's going to change that, which is why many people can't stand republicans. I can much more stand a Democrat than a Republican. BTW, I concider myself a centrist.
To totally leave the people who need the money most out of the equation totally is just plain wrong.
To totally leave the people who need the money most out of the equation totally is just plain wrong.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter