http://gamingtrend.com
October 01, 2014, 12:44:23 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Who should get the rebates? Reps and Dems argue....Surprised?  (Read 6635 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« on: January 22, 2008, 05:25:43 PM »

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/22/news/economy/rebate_negotiations/index.htm?postversion=2008012211

Even when the Federal Government wants to give us money.  The Republicans and Democrats can't agree on how to do it.

Do you think it would be better to give the rebate to only those who pay income taxes?  Only those who pay social security, or everybody?

Personally I think it would be best to give it to people who will spend it quickly.  On the other hand it would be much tougher to pay for if they do not use an income tax credit.

Tough call.





Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15468


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2008, 05:29:25 PM »

I'm only midly following this: Is this proposal similar to the one he did years ago where we all got checks or is this a tax credit for us on our taxes?

If it's the former, send me the dough!  If it's the latter, meh.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2008, 05:39:01 PM »

Quote from: ATB on January 22, 2008, 05:29:25 PM

Is this proposal similar to the one he did years ago where we all got checks or is this a tax credit for us on our taxes?

That's pretty much the argument.  FYI it was a tax rebate in 2001.  So if you didn't pay Federal Income taxes you didn't get the money.  That's how the Bush administration wants to do it this time as well. 
Others want to send out checks to everyone who pays social security, IE everyone who is employed but still may not have to pay taxes because of their low tax bracket.



Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8989


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2008, 05:48:36 PM »

So long as it's me, I don't care.

gellar
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2008, 05:51:07 PM »

That's because there are two radically different opinions on how to fix the economy.

Republicans want to stay the course and continue their failed policies which have gotten us to this point in the first place.  Look at Bernanke's first action: lowering interest rates the Fed charges on loans... when the Fed's low interest rates was one of the root causes of the bubbles.

Republicans want to once again claim that giving money to the wealthy is how to "stimulate" the economy, and prosperity for all will simply "trickle down" to everyone else like so much magical pixie dust.

Democrats are once again stating, always correctly, that a healthy economy is a "bottom up" situation.  Helping the poor get fair wages, helping the working poor keep more of their own money, and helping the middle class thrive is going to help the economy, since it's the foundation of the economy.  If there are more people in the country with more money in their pockets, that's going to help everyone else, it's going to keep the money flowing, and it's going to help businesses.


So nothing has changed at all.  Republicans get proven wrong, horribly wrong, they wreck everything they touch and leaving us all holding the bag, then blame everyone else for it and continue to push their radical agenda.

But it must be ok, because "deficits don't matter", "mistakes were made", and "lessons were learned".  It only ends when people stop listening to these idiots.
Logged
olaf
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 582


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2008, 05:54:29 PM »

Ok well common sense would indicate giving a REBATE to those who actually, I dont know, PAY taxes.

And obviously the two parties are going to be on different sides of who ought to get what, both of them are pandering to their voters.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2008, 06:00:00 PM »

Quote from: olaf on January 22, 2008, 05:54:29 PM

Ok well common sense would indicate giving a REBATE to those who actually, I dont know, PAY taxes.

Anyone who pays into Social Security and has income tax withheld from their paycheck is paying taxes.

And obviously, anyone who buys anything with money inside the USA is paying taxes, unless they are using the black market for everything, or somehow getting all their goods from outside the country.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 06:02:02 PM by unbreakable » Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2008, 06:04:50 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 22, 2008, 06:00:00 PM

Quote from: olaf on January 22, 2008, 05:54:29 PM

Ok well common sense would indicate giving a REBATE to those who actually, I dont know, PAY taxes.

Anyone who pays into Social Security and has income tax withheld from their paycheck is paying taxes.

And obviously, anyone who buys anything with money inside the USA is paying taxes, unless they are using the black market for everything.

That is true.  But giving the rebates from Social Security would amount to defecit spending.  While giving the rebates from Federal Income taxes would have the effect of reducing the Federal Government's income.  Not quite the same thing.

We would in effect have to pay for the Social Security rebate down the road anyway since that money is already spent.

Both solutions have their good and bad points.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2008, 06:07:52 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 22, 2008, 06:00:00 PM

Anyone who pays into Social Security and has income tax withheld from their paycheck is paying taxes.

They still aren't paying as much taxes in that case - they should still get a rebate, more than those in the largest tax brackets, but not as much as those in the middle.

Quote from: unbreakable on January 22, 2008, 06:00:00 PM

And obviously, anyone who buys anything with money inside the USA is paying taxes, unless they are using the black market for everything, or somehow getting all their goods from outside the country.

From what I know there are no national sales taxes in the United States, so why should the national government give rebates for that? I get that it would be especially beneficial for the lower and middle classes to get a sales tax rebate, but thats a state issue.

But sure, lets give thoe out too and keep up the large deficeit spending.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2008, 06:20:08 PM »

Quote from: CSL on January 22, 2008, 06:07:52 PM

From what I know there are no national sales taxes in the United States, so why should the national government give rebates for that? I get that it would be especially beneficial for the lower and middle classes to get a sales tax rebate, but thats a state issue.

But sure, lets give thoe out too and keep up the large deficeit spending.

There has long been a federal income tax deduction for state sales tax:  http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/20041012b1.asp
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2008, 06:26:45 PM »

Quote from: gellar on January 22, 2008, 05:48:36 PM

So long as it's me, I don't care.

gellar

yep, as long as I get my check screw everyone else.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2008, 06:30:16 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 22, 2008, 06:04:50 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 22, 2008, 06:00:00 PM

Quote from: olaf on January 22, 2008, 05:54:29 PM

Ok well common sense would indicate giving a REBATE to those who actually, I dont know, PAY taxes.

Anyone who pays into Social Security and has income tax withheld from their paycheck is paying taxes.

And obviously, anyone who buys anything with money inside the USA is paying taxes, unless they are using the black market for everything.

That is true.  But giving the rebates from Social Security would amount to defecit spending.  While giving the rebates from Federal Income taxes would have the effect of reducing the Federal Government's income.  Not quite the same thing.

We would in effect have to pay for the Social Security rebate down the road anyway since that money is already spent.

Both solutions have their good and bad points.

You raise a good point of where the money is coming from.  If we are defunding Social Security to "pay" for the refund, that's pretty stupid fiscal policy (since SS itself is actually money saved, not debt).
Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4693


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2008, 06:33:18 PM »

Quote from: olaf on January 22, 2008, 05:54:29 PM

Ok well common sense would indicate giving a REBATE to those who actually, I dont know, PAY taxes.
That does seem to be the logical course of action.  I do see the other side as well though - lower income households are more likely to actually spend the rebate as opposed to squirreling it away.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2008, 06:34:35 PM »

Quote from: CSL on January 22, 2008, 06:07:52 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 22, 2008, 06:00:00 PM

Anyone who pays into Social Security and has income tax withheld from their paycheck is paying taxes.

They still aren't paying as much taxes in that case - they should still get a rebate, more than those in the largest tax brackets, but not as much as those in the middle.

Well of course.  When we talk percentages, things scale by it's very nature.  3% of $100 is obviously less than 2% of $1000, it's just how mathematics works.

Quote

Quote from: unbreakable on January 22, 2008, 06:00:00 PM

And obviously, anyone who buys anything with money inside the USA is paying taxes, unless they are using the black market for everything, or somehow getting all their goods from outside the country.

From what I know there are no national sales taxes in the United States, so why should the national government give rebates for that? I get that it would be especially beneficial for the lower and middle classes to get a sales tax rebate, but thats a state issue.

But sure, lets give thoe out too and keep up the large deficeit spending.

So you don't pay sales tax?  There might be parts of the country which do not charge sales tax, all I know is I don't live in one, and am not aware of any.

But regardless, no matter how much money we want to shell out for this, it's still going to be far cheaper than a week of funding the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And even better, no Americans are going to die because of it, and it can actually accomplish something tangible.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 06:39:53 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2008, 07:16:44 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 22, 2008, 06:34:35 PM

Quote from: CSL on January 22, 2008, 06:07:52 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 22, 2008, 06:00:00 PM

Anyone who pays into Social Security and has income tax withheld from their paycheck is paying taxes.

They still aren't paying as much taxes in that case - they should still get a rebate, more than those in the largest tax brackets, but not as much as those in the middle.

Well of course.  When we talk percentages, things scale by it's very nature.  3% of $100 is obviously less than 2% of $1000, it's just how mathematics works.

Yea, but that same argument can be justified to giving tax breaks to the rich...after all, 1% of $1,000,000 is more than than 2% of $1,000.

It's pretty simple to me.  The tax break should be to anyone who worked, as they did pay taxes (Social Security) and should be a flat amount.  After all, the largest price increases have been on staple goods - food and gas - which disproportionally hit the poor and middle class versus the rich.  And the poor and middle class are more likely to spend (out of need, not want) their tax rebate versus the rich.  But excluding the very rich would be inherently unfair since they (presumably, not including the tax cheats) paid the most.  So the only real equitable thing to do is put the same amount of dough in everyone's pocket.

And fuck business tax breaks.  They already get enough loopholes and government assistance to choke a horse.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2008, 08:02:30 PM »

Well I remember pre-2000 all the "fiscal conservatives" were crying and whining and gnashing their teeth and pulling out their hair because they wanted to overhaul the IRS and put in a flat tax.

Kind of amazing how that entire issue disappeared once they seized control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.  I guess they were too busy accomplishing... um... uh... something?

Well, at least they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bill Clinton did, indeed, get a blow job.  That's gotta count for something.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2008, 08:50:05 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 22, 2008, 08:02:30 PM

Well I remember pre-2000 all the "fiscal conservatives" were crying and whining and gnashing their teeth and pulling out their hair because they wanted to overhaul the IRS and put in a flat tax.

Kind of amazing how that entire issue disappeared once they seized control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.  I guess they were too busy accomplishing... um... uh... something?

Actually Democrats (Jerry Browne) and Republicans (Steve Forbes) have both proposed a flat tax over the years.  It's not just a Republican issue. 

It's not the Bush tax cuts that I have a problem with, it's the increased spending. Bush is much less "fiscally consevative" than Clinton ever was. 
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2008, 09:06:20 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 22, 2008, 08:50:05 PM

Actually Democrats (Jerry Browne) and Republicans (Steve Forbes) have both proposed a flat tax over the years.  It's not just a Republican issue. 

All "flat" taxes are not created equal.  Ron Wyden has a proposal that accounts for low/middle income families without being punitive.  Meanwhile, Steve Forbes wasn't interested in fixing FICA to apply to wage earners who make more than 90k.  The Republicans play a shell game where they try to convince their constituents to vote against their economic self interest.  You'd be hard pressed to show any circumstances under which Wyden's proposal does anything other than benefit the lower and middle classes, simplify the tax code, and remove the ridiculous deductions that exist to enrich corporate interests.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2008, 09:15:38 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 09:06:20 PM

All "flat" taxes are not created equal. 

I never said they were.  I was merely saying that a flat tax is not just a Republican issue.

As for what type of flat tax you prefer, it depends on your income level.  Many people in the very low income levels don't pay income tax anyway.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2008, 09:16:34 PM »

And please note that my above statement does not endorse these "rebates".  In fact, they're a band-aid on an overall extremely poor economic policy.  I'm going to try to summarize as much as possible, so don't try to nitpick my generalizations below.  And while I cite a couple of sources, you can find the majority of this discussion in any college-level Finance classroom or numerous articles on the web.

Consumer spending is the driving force of the US economy, making up about 2/3rds of the GDP.  However, the majority of consumers - especially the all-important middle class - have seen their real spending power decrease over the last 30 years.  Households, which is what is often reported, have not due to more women working.  But the average 40 year old male now makes about 15% less than his father did (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/LifeStages/story?id=3213731).  Households make more (about 9% for the same group), but that does not account for rising costs (prepared food, day care, gas, etc.) of having two people in a household working.  In fact, when using a more realistic version of inflation (see below), worker salaries may have decreased as much as 30% of the last 40 years (http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/paulos090904.html).

For years, equity from the housing market has helped make up the difference.  US savings rates are in the tank, but people felt that their rising home equity make up for their lack of savings.  Others even borrowed against this equity to fuel more consumer spending.  However, that gravy train has derailed and, much like the dot-com boom of 1990-2001, that money has gone up in smoke.  Unlike the dot-com boom, where the average consumer felt it more in his/her retirement accounts than real consumer spending dollars, the housing market correction/collapse has resulted in a very real decline in consumer spending.  Another big market driver has been the credit card, but that market has clamped down because many Americans cannot take on any more debt since their one last source of real financial stability - the equity in their house - is no longer "guaranteed" as many people thought it was. 

Finally, the underreported inflation rate has really caught up to us.  Many people don't realize that inflation has been vastly underreported with changes made to the way the rate is calculated.  The Boskin Commission, appointed by the Republican Congress in 1996 (and supported by the Democratic President Bill Clinton) changed the way inflation is reported.  As a result, the inflation rate is woefully undercalculated.  To provide an example, if steak gets too expensive and people buy hamburger instead, the inflation rate is then calculated with hamburger, without regard to the price of the steak.  In other words, the CPI is trying to evaluate the cost of buying a basket of goods when it keeps changing the goods to cheaper and cheaper ones!  Other manipulations (false weighing, hedonics, downward-only seasonal adjustements) have made the CPI and other indexes entirely incorrect.  Anyone who has been to the gas pump or supermarket in the last few years should fully understand that.  The real rate of inflation is very likely over 6% and some estimate it over 10%.

So what does all this mean?  It means that $800 in your pocket now doesn't mean shit in the long term and isn't enough to turn the economy around because many of the underlying problems need to be corrected.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2008, 09:29:07 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 22, 2008, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 09:06:20 PM

All "flat" taxes are not created equal. 

I never said they were.  I was merely saying that a flat tax is not just a Republican issue.

As for what type of flat tax you prefer, it depends on your income level.  Many people in the very low income levels don't pay income tax anyway.

Sure...  We'll just ignore that the plans proposed by democrats and the plans proposed by republicans largely benefit completely different segments of the American economy.  It's just like they're equal, because they both have "flat" in their title!

People in "low income levels" pay plenty in taxes, just not income tax, hence my mention of FICA which disproportionately taxes people who make less than 90k annually.  If you make 500k a year, 410k of that is exempted.  How nice for those guys, huh?

Oh, and preference doesn't depend on your income level.  It depends on your sense of injustice.  As a case in point, I am in a very high tax bracket, and yet I'm still in favor of the Wyden proposal because I want all Americans to be prosperous.  I'm happy to pay higher taxes if it goes towards universal health care, education, and clean energy.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2008, 09:29:55 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on January 22, 2008, 09:16:34 PM

So what does all this mean?  It means that $800 in your pocket now doesn't mean shit in the long term and isn't enough to turn the economy around because many of the underlying problems need to be corrected.

And, as evidenced by the collapse in foreign markets yesterday, no one else thinks it's enough to turn the economy around either.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2008, 09:45:19 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 09:29:07 PM

I'm happy to pay higher taxes if it goes towards universal health care, education, and clean energy.

Very nice.
Spoken like a true liberal.   icon_biggrin

Unfortunately that's why alot of the really rich people are Republicans.  They would rather keep own their money and buy good health care, good schooling for their children, and pay more for the hybrid car.  Instead of giving it to the Government and letting the bureaucrats figure it all out.

I see merit to both positions.

George W Bush is trying to do both.  He is trying to pay for a war and fund huge government programs while still cutting taxes.  He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 09:55:45 PM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8989


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2008, 09:56:12 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 09:29:07 PM

Oh, and preference doesn't depend on your income level.  It depends on your sense of injustice.  As a case in point, I am in a very high tax bracket, and yet I'm still in favor of the Wyden proposal because I want all Americans to be prosperous.  I'm happy to pay higher taxes if it goes towards universal health care, education, and clean energy.

But what you want is an impossibility.  The minute that the rich (typically, the smarter, innovative people) have to subsidize the poor is the minute that the rich check the fuck out to happier, socialist areas of the world.

I'm FINE (not happy, but FINE) with paying my part to help fund SOME of the financial inequality in this country.  However, the minute I feel I am paying MORE than my fair share, I'm out.  Simple as that.

gellar
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2008, 09:57:13 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 22, 2008, 09:45:19 PM

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 09:29:07 PM

I'm happy to pay higher taxes if it goes towards universal health care, education, and clean energy.

Very nice.
Spoken like a true liberal.   icon_biggrin

Unfortunately that's why alot of the really rich people are Republicans.  They are never happy to play higher taxes.

I'm unabashedly liberal, progressive, whatever.  I am also very very angry because the taxes I pay benefit corporations, HMOs, Blackwater, etc, rather than people who need medical care or want to go to college.  We deserve a better society, and a better network of services, and we could afford one - but it might require taking money away from the military industrial complex.   Imagine if we took 20% of our 600 billion dollar military expenditures for those causes.  Instead, we're fighting an elective war and spending away the treasury, and who does it benefit?  Defense contractors.  Eisenhower warned us about this.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2008, 09:57:34 PM »

Quote from: gellar on January 22, 2008, 09:56:12 PM

I'm FINE (not happy, but FINE) with paying my part to help fund SOME of the financial inequality in this country.  However, the minute I feel I am paying MORE than my fair share, I'm out.  Simple as that.

gellar

You sir are not a true liberal.  icon_biggrin
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8989


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2008, 09:59:40 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 22, 2008, 09:57:34 PM

Quote from: gellar on January 22, 2008, 09:56:12 PM

I'm FINE (not happy, but FINE) with paying my part to help fund SOME of the financial inequality in this country.  However, the minute I feel I am paying MORE than my fair share, I'm out.  Simple as that.

gellar

You sir are not a true liberal.  icon_biggrin

Social liberal, fiscal conservative slywink

gellar
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 22, 2008, 10:03:01 PM »

Quote from: gellar on January 22, 2008, 09:56:12 PM

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 09:29:07 PM

Oh, and preference doesn't depend on your income level.  It depends on your sense of injustice.  As a case in point, I am in a very high tax bracket, and yet I'm still in favor of the Wyden proposal because I want all Americans to be prosperous.  I'm happy to pay higher taxes if it goes towards universal health care, education, and clean energy.

But what you want is an impossibility.  The minute that the rich (typically, the smarter, innovative people) have to subsidize the poor is the minute that the rich check the fuck out to happier, socialist areas of the world.

I'm FINE (not happy, but FINE) with paying my part to help fund SOME of the financial inequality in this country.  However, the minute I feel I am paying MORE than my fair share, I'm out.  Simple as that.

The problem here is your definition of "my fair share", not the idea of using tax revenues to finance social programs.  How do you quantify your "fair share"?

Regardless, the "fair share" that needs to be fixed is the amount that corporations and the super-rich pay.  Wage earners should have a smaller overall tax burden than investment income, yet the Bush administration has shifted the tax burden to the former and away from the latter.
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8989


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 22, 2008, 10:09:04 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 10:03:01 PM

The problem here is your definition of "my fair share", not the idea of using tax revenues to finance social programs.  How do you quantify your "fair share"?

Real, real easy for me.  I look at my W2.  I look at how much I paid this year.  I decide whether or not less poor people are worth the amount I paid.  That's pretty much it.  Selfish, for certain.

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 10:03:01 PM

Regardless, the "fair share" that needs to be fixed is the amount that corporations and the super-rich pay.  Wage earners should have a smaller overall tax burden than investment income, yet the Bush administration has shifted the tax burden to the former and away from the latter.

Agreed to a certain extent.  Certainly the system is not fair.  Certainly it's WAY overly complex.  Certainly it fucks the poor more than it does the rich.  Problem is, the US is struggling enough in the world economy that it doesn't need to give corporations MORE of a reason to pull out of ours.  We need big corp to provide jobs, else those low income tax payers don't have any incomes at all.

gellar
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 22, 2008, 10:15:03 PM »

Quote from: gellar on January 22, 2008, 10:09:04 PM

Agreed to a certain extent.  Certainly the system is not fair.  Certainly it's WAY overly complex.  Certainly it fucks the poor more than it does the rich.  Problem is, the US is struggling enough in the world economy that it doesn't need to give corporations MORE of a reason to pull out of ours.  We need big corp to provide jobs, else those low income tax payers don't have any incomes at all.

You think they'd all just up and pull out of the US?  I suspect that's a largely empty threat - I mean, they already shelter money offshore anyway, so how would this incent them any more than the various tax havens already do?  Corporations are, at best, largely amoral enterprises.  If they save money by incorporating in Dubai or whatever, they do it.  The economics are already in favor of them evading taxes.
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8989


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2008, 10:19:26 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 10:15:03 PM

Quote from: gellar on January 22, 2008, 10:09:04 PM

Agreed to a certain extent.  Certainly the system is not fair.  Certainly it's WAY overly complex.  Certainly it fucks the poor more than it does the rich.  Problem is, the US is struggling enough in the world economy that it doesn't need to give corporations MORE of a reason to pull out of ours.  We need big corp to provide jobs, else those low income tax payers don't have any incomes at all.

You think they'd all just up and pull out of the US?  I suspect that's a largely empty threat - I mean, they already shelter money offshore anyway, so how would this incent them any more than the various tax havens already do?  Corporations are, at best, largely amoral enterprises.  If they save money by incorporating in Dubai or whatever, they do it.  The economics are already in favor of them evading taxes.

Depends largely on the nature of change.  Your statement is correct - Corporations are amoral enterprises.  They will do what suits them best.  If it suits them to leave, they will leave.  Just like people, really.

gellar
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2008, 10:28:57 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 22, 2008, 09:45:19 PM

Unfortunately that's why alot of the really rich people are Republicans.  They would rather keep own their money and buy good health care, good schooling for their children, and pay more for the hybrid car.  Instead of giving it to the Government and letting the bureaucrats figure it all out.

Warren Buffet: Liberal, #1 wealthiest man on planet Earth
Bill Gates: Liberal, #2 wealthiest man on planet Earth

Actually, if someone were to make a list (and I'll see if there has been a study), I doubt the proportion of wealthy people who are liberal or conservative are any different than any other segment of the US population.

Quote from: gellar on January 22, 2008, 10:09:04 PM

Problem is, the US is struggling enough in the world economy that it doesn't need to give corporations MORE of a reason to pull out of ours.

The answer is quite simple.  If they pull out of the US, cut off their trade in the US market.  Access to the largest market on the planet is a very important thing- ask all those nations trying to increase their trade with the USA.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 10:30:57 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4693


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2008, 10:38:50 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 22, 2008, 09:45:19 PM

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 09:29:07 PM

I'm happy to pay higher taxes if it goes towards universal health care, education, and clean energy.

Very nice.
Spoken like a true liberal.   icon_biggrin

Unfortunately that's why alot of the really rich people are Republicans.  They would rather keep own their money and buy good health care, good schooling for their children, and pay more for the hybrid car.  Instead of giving it to the Government and letting the bureaucrats figure it all out.
I find it quite amusing how some can - in almost the same breath - criticize the government's handling of money, and then turn around and say we should give them *more* of our income for all these federally subsidized programs.  Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency there?

Edit: grammar
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 03:44:53 AM by Laner » Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2008, 10:54:58 PM »

Quote from: Laner on January 22, 2008, 10:38:50 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 22, 2008, 09:45:19 PM

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 09:29:07 PM

I'm happy to pay higher taxes if it goes towards universal health care, education, and clean energy.

Very nice.
Spoken like a true liberal.   icon_biggrin

Unfortunately that's why alot of the really rich people are Republicans.  They would rather keep own their money and buy good health care, good schooling for their children, and pay more for the hybrid car.  Instead of giving it to the Government and letting the bureaucrats figure it all out.
I find it quite amusing how some can - in almost the same breath - criticize the government's handling of money, and then turn around and say we should give them *more* of our income all these federally subsidized programs.  Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency there?

As we've covered in these threads before, government is not the problem.  There are plenty of governments (democracies and otherwise) who spend money in responsible ways, and there are plenty of programs within our own government that handle their budgets admirably (particularly the government funded health care program:  the VA).  Our government has been co-opted by lobbyists and self-interested politicians who have no interest in changing the status quo that got them elected.

I'm smart enough to know that "government" and "efficient" are not mutually exclusive.  There are plenty of examples..
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2008, 12:32:59 AM »

Quote from: Laner on January 22, 2008, 10:38:50 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 22, 2008, 09:45:19 PM

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 09:29:07 PM

I'm happy to pay higher taxes if it goes towards universal health care, education, and clean energy.

Very nice.
Spoken like a true liberal.   icon_biggrin

Unfortunately that's why alot of the really rich people are Republicans.  They would rather keep own their money and buy good health care, good schooling for their children, and pay more for the hybrid car.  Instead of giving it to the Government and letting the bureaucrats figure it all out.
I find it quite amusing how some can - in almost the same breath - criticize the government's handling of money, and then turn around and say we should give them *more* of our income all these federally subsidized programs.  Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency there?

I never said we should give them more.  When did I say that?  Again I am fully in favor of tax cuts as long as there are spending cuts to go along with them.  I would much rather pay less taxes and fend for myself when it comes to health care, educating my kids, etc. That's what the Republican party used to be about.  George W Bush has thrown that philosophy out the window.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2008, 01:26:25 AM »

Quote
That does seem to be the logical course of action.  I do see the other side as well though - lower income households are more likely to actually spend the rebate as opposed to squirreling it away.

two people in this thread actually made this comment.  the last time i saw the breakdown was for the years 1992 and 2000.  in both cases, the LOWER income quintiles spend less money, as a percentage of their disposable income.  by a LOT. (id LOVE to see more current data if anyone can find it - but i doubt its changed terribly)

the bottom quintile spent about 96% of their disposable income.  second from the bottom were even less, at under 95%.  the top quintile, however actually spent about 104% of their disposable income (they were spending so much, they spent out of savings / loans / future earnings / credit, whatever)
Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4693


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2008, 03:43:57 AM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 23, 2008, 12:32:59 AM

Quote from: Laner on January 22, 2008, 10:38:50 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 22, 2008, 09:45:19 PM

Quote from: Brendan on January 22, 2008, 09:29:07 PM

I'm happy to pay higher taxes if it goes towards universal health care, education, and clean energy.

Very nice.
Spoken like a true liberal.   icon_biggrin

Unfortunately that's why alot of the really rich people are Republicans.  They would rather keep own their money and buy good health care, good schooling for their children, and pay more for the hybrid car.  Instead of giving it to the Government and letting the bureaucrats figure it all out.
I find it quite amusing how some can - in almost the same breath - criticize the government's handling of money, and then turn around and say we should give them *more* of our income all these federally subsidized programs.  Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency there?

I never said we should give them more.  When did I say that?  Again I am fully in favor of tax cuts as long as there are spending cuts to go along with them.  I would much rather pay less taxes and fend for myself when it comes to health care, educating my kids, etc. That's what the Republican party used to be about.  George W Bush has thrown that philosophy out the window.
I wasn't referring to you - or anyone in particular in this thread... just making an observation smile
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 03:46:29 AM by Laner » Logged
the Nightbreeze
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 465

Done posting.


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2008, 04:11:19 AM »

Quote from: Doopri on January 23, 2008, 01:26:25 AM

Quote
That does seem to be the logical course of action.  I do see the other side as well though - lower income households are more likely to actually spend the rebate as opposed to squirreling it away.

two people in this thread actually made this comment.  the last time i saw the breakdown was for the years 1992 and 2000.  in both cases, the LOWER income quintiles spend less money, as a percentage of their disposable income.  by a LOT. (id LOVE to see more current data if anyone can find it - but i doubt its changed terribly)

the bottom quintile spent about 96% of their disposable income.  second from the bottom were even less, at under 95%.  the top quintile, however actually spent about 104% of their disposable income (they were spending so much, they spent out of savings / loans / future earnings / credit, whatever)

Okay, and if the legislation comes about that to any extent it excludes demographics of people, be they high or low federal income tax payers or non-payers, how much of a percentage will the excluded spend?

There's what? 280+ million folks out there?  If we hand out a couple of hundred dollars to some of them, some would try to figure out what's the least amount we can infuse to stimulate the most motion in the economy.   If we were trying to build a wall to break the World Record, we'd be trying to figure out how to have each one of the 280+ million bring us a 5 gallon bucket of bricks to use.   Put the money to work in the most hands possible.

Just my opinion.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 04:13:35 AM by the Nightbreeze » Logged

Done posting
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2008, 04:18:23 PM »

So what's the claim here?  That giving a lower rebate to poor people means poor people spend less money?  Well then, let's give people a meaningful amount of money.  Give them, say, $1000.  Or maybe $2000.  That's the kind of money that can change somebody's life for the better: they can go to school, they can get out of debt, they can stop choosing between eating and paying rent, etc.

No matter how much money you give them, it's going to get spent.  They simply don't have enough money to be saving it, and for many of them, even if they were making a lot of money they don't have the background to know how to save properly, budget themselves, etc.  So take advantage of this, and use it to stimulate the economy.

And the beauty of it is that, no matter how much you give away to the poor, it's still cheaper than one month in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And even regardless of that, deficits don't matter!
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2008, 04:30:16 PM »

I could deal with 600 bucks.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.285 seconds with 102 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.139s, 2q)