Obama +1

[Onkel Neal]

Obama: $300 billion in tax cuts (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/05/news/economy/obama_stimulus/index.htm?postversion=2009010505)

President-elect begins push on Hill for rescue proposal. On tap: Breaks for workers and businesses, energy and road and school construction.


Now we're talking. Combine this with non-NASA/defense/border spending cuts and I'll put an Obama sticker on my Suzuki. :up:

Except this part, it's stupid to give tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes

The tax credit is likely to be offered only to those below a certain income level, but the Obama team hasn't specified where the cut-off point would be. The credit also would be refundable, meaning that even tax filers without any tax liability -- typically very low-income workers -- would receive one.

[Frame57]

Yep! I agree and people that do not pay or have spouses pay into social security should not get that either.

[DeepIron]

Except this part, it's stupid to give tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes
Here, here! Absolutely, if you don't pay in, you don't get back...

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, you got to give a little to get a little.

[Digital_Trucker]

Except this part, it's stupid to give tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes
How else is he gonna "Spread the wealth" without enacting more transparent methods. This is a really easy way of spreading tax dollars to deadbeats without the majority of taxpayers even noticing. [Dons asbestos suit in anticipation of flaming for use of the word deadbeat:rotfl:]. And yes, to those about to flame, I understand that the proposal says "working people" who don't pay tax. I'd like to see a definition of working people before I agree with it. Does this mean someone who works 2 weeks a year?

Edit : Does his definition also include those of us who are unable to work and have no other taxable income? If it does, I'll shut up and take my check:D

[Tchocky]

Except this part, it's stupid to give tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes

The tax credit is likely to be offered only to those below a certain income level, but the Obama team hasn't specified where the cut-off point would be. The credit also would be refundable, meaning that even tax filers without any tax liability -- typically very low-income workers -- would receive one.

It's actually a great idea. Incentivises people to work harder, now that pay rises will not be taxed as severely.
Also, anything that puts more money in the pockets of those on low incomes will help th'economy. They're much more likely to spend increases in wealth, instead of saving. Obviously both spending ans saving is required, but the economy needs to speed up.

A tad Keynesian of me, but it's en vogue

[Hitman]

Except this part, it's stupid to give tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes


But they certainly do. They pay the indirect taxes, i.e. all taxes that increase the price of everything you buy. For example, gas, alcohol drinks, cigarrettes, etc. :know: Whatever they buy to eat, drink, dress or move, it has an indirect tax on it (VAT here in Europe).

[Zachstar]

Those are state taxes.

Anyway.. I am not too much of a fan of these tax cuts. The last thing we need right now are more tax cuts...

At this rate the ONLY way he is going to be able to afford all of his promises is to vastly cut the military.

[Stealth Hunter]

But they're still taxes.:up:

[Sailor Steve]

But they're still taxes.:up:
I disagree. The Federal Income Tax is refunded by the Feds because they often 'accidentally' take too much. A tax cut is supposed to help the economy by giving back some of that. Giving it to someone who didn't pay it in the first place is wasteful, to say the least.

That said, I took one of those 'Deadbeat' refunds, since it was there, which makes me a hypocrite, or at least conflicted. But I'm in good company with John Stossel, who reported himself as a welfare queen for taking offered government money to repair his beach house, saying he was against it but he'd be a fool not to take it when offered.

[AVGWarhawk]

But they're still taxes.:up: I disagree. The Federal Income Tax is refunded by the Feds because they often 'accidentally' take too much. A tax cut is supposed to help the economy by giving back some of that. Giving it to someone who didn't pay it in the first place is wasteful, to say the least.

That said, I took one of those 'Deadbeat' refunds, since it was there, which makes me a hypocrite, or at least conflicted. But I'm in good company with John Stossel, who reported himself as a welfare queen for taking offered government money to repair his beach house, saying he was against it but he'd be a fool not to take it when offered.
You make a good point Steve...but...(you know that was coming :D)...you were continuously look to be gainfully employed. That is the difference. Some make a living at being the 'deadbeat'. In fact, a few family members:roll: I know. Also, the refund is not a "mistake", it was the employees choice of declared dependents on the W2. I declare all my dependents on my week to week check. Why should I give the government a free loan on my money that is rightly do me under the tax code? So some declare no dependents and get a large check at tax time. Others like me take all I can week to week. This lessens the amount on my return but I have more week to week in spendable cash. Your tax returns can be controllable but that is up to the individual on what they declare from week to week. Throw in a house with interest and that makes for more of a return...your house is about the only tax shelter left.

[FIREWALL]

Obama's got it figured out. :yep:

He'll send you a gold plated dollar for $9.99

Gold veneer just like him. All glitter but, not gold.

His recovery idea's will break this country.

[AVGWarhawk]

So is handing out $700 billion to the banks. We are truly on a rudderless ship on a voyage to nowhere. :dead:

[Digital_Trucker]

@Anyone who took offense to my deadbeat statement. My definition of a deadbeat is someone who deliberately does exactly as much, and not one bit more, as is necessary to collect all the government benefits possible. That excludes anyone not able to work, anyone seeking work and not finding any (or finding little) and probably thousands of possibilities that I haven't considered as of yet.

[nikimcbee]

Obama: $300 billion in tax cuts (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/05/news/economy/obama_stimulus/index.htm?postversion=2009010505)

President-elect begins push on Hill for rescue proposal. On tap: Breaks for workers and businesses, energy and road and school construction.


Now we're talking. Combine this with non-NASA/defense/border spending cuts and I'll put an Obama sticker on my Suzuki. :up:

Except this part, it's stupid to give tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes

The tax credit is likely to be offered only to those below a certain income level, but the Obama team hasn't specified where the cut-off point would be. The credit also would be refundable, meaning that even tax filers without any tax liability -- typically very low-income workers -- would receive one.


I'd pay money to see that bumpersticker.:rotfl:

[nikimcbee]

I we get a refund, I'll spend mine on a NRA membership.:up:

[Hitman]

In the end it's all a matter of ecomical decissions. You give money away to people, they spend it and a big part of it returns to the state via taxes, if not all. Or you give money to the banks and they loan it to the citizens because their business is to get an interest rate, not simply to store it. Since any transmission of goods or services has a tax cost, as long as the money keeps circling around the state and the citizens benefit from that. The real problem comes when the money stops moving, and that's what has happened here. They are now truly desperate to get it moving again.

The rest of it all -who to give the money first- is more a political than an economical consideration, as it will in the end come back to the state via taxes.

[1480]

See the problem that most people have about a "tax cut" "tax rebate" or whatever cute moniker they attach to it is one must assume that in order for you to get the benefit, you must put into it. Not with the chosen one's plan. Suck off the welfare teat, guess what, you get the same benefit of a check that someone who has to work their a$$ off will get. Getting high and popping out childrens does not constitute work, nor being a contributing member to society. That is why some get a bit worked up about this. Fornicate this socialism bull stool...

[Aramike]

Look, I'm totally and completely against giving tax dollars to those who don't pay taxes to begin with.

However, that being said, I believe those individuals constitute a distinct minority. Therefore, if giving them a few bucks will also put money back in ACTUAL taxpayers' hands, I'm all for it.

I'd rather real people have the money instead of government any day.

[XabbaRus]

What about working people who don't pay tax as they don't earn enough.

I don't know how it works in the US but in the UK your first £6000 approx. is untaxed so some parttime workers will earn under that in a year and not pay tax or national insurance, however my wife gets child benefit and tax credits to help with childcare for my youngest. As she doesn't pay direct tax in your book should she not also benefit from any government payback?

[Digital_Trucker]

What about working people who don't pay tax as they don't earn enough.

I don't know how it works in the US but in the UK your first £6000 approx. is untaxed so some parttime workers will earn under that in a year and not pay tax or national insurance, however my wife gets child benefit and tax credits to help with childcare for my youngest. As she doesn't pay direct tax in your book should she not also benefit from any government payback?
Obama's plan would pay rebates to those who work, but don't pay taxes, so she would qualify (if the plan is what he says it is). But how do you define "a working person who doesn't make enough to pay taxes"? That is my problem. If it's the crack-head that works two weeks at MickyD's in order to get that check, it's not right. If it's the person who is honestly attempting to earn a living (including those full time seeking employment) or the person who is unable to work, then I can agree.

[Aramike]

As she doesn't pay direct tax in your book should she not also benefit from any government payback?Correct. Sort of. That would be redistribution of wealth.

However, she (like anyone else) would directly benefit from the public services paid for by taxes, in any case.

But that isn't the issue here. If we're talking about tax REBATES, how could you possibly REBATE the money to people who don't pay it in the first place?

So yes, someone who doesn't pay actual dollars in taxes shouldn't get actual dollars back when taxpayers are given a rebate on the actual money they paid.

However, like I said before, I'll deal with it if it means that real people get money instead of the federal government.

[1480]

As she doesn't pay direct tax in your book should she not also benefit from any government payback?Correct. Sort of. That would be redistribution of wealth.

However, she (like anyone else) would directly benefit from the public services paid for by taxes, in any case.

But that isn't the issue here. If we're talking about tax REBATES, how could you possibly REBATE the money to people who don't pay it in the first place?

So yes, someone who doesn't pay actual dollars in taxes shouldn't get actual dollars back when taxpayers are given a rebate on the actual money they paid.

However, like I said before, I'll deal with it if it means that real people get money instead of the federal government.

See the problem is that this is being termed a "tax rebate." I never had a problem for people who do not earn enough to warrant payment of taxes getting money. It's the obese a$$hole who is on SSI because he is too fat to work. It's the yagoff that was shot 6 times while he was a lookout for a dope spot. It's the gal who smokes rock and has 8 kids who gets WIC and public aid, that, I have a problem with getting a "tax rebate."

[Onkel Neal]

But that isn't the issue here. If we're talking about tax REBATES, how could you possibly REBATE the money to people who don't pay it in the first place?



I agree. Of course, we're talking around the basic concept: democrats want to take money obtained from taxing the middle class to upper class and feed it to a large base of low-earners to ensure their domimance in elections. That's all there is to it: buying votes. It will ruin our democracy in the long run, and economy.

[Aramike]

As she doesn't pay direct tax in your book should she not also benefit from any government payback?Correct. Sort of. That would be redistribution of wealth.

However, she (like anyone else) would directly benefit from the public services paid for by taxes, in any case.

But that isn't the issue here. If we're talking about tax REBATES, how could you possibly REBATE the money to people who don't pay it in the first place?

So yes, someone who doesn't pay actual dollars in taxes shouldn't get actual dollars back when taxpayers are given a rebate on the actual money they paid.

However, like I said before, I'll deal with it if it means that real people get money instead of the federal government.

See the problem is that this is being termed a "tax rebate." I never had a problem for people who do not earn enough to warrant payment of taxes getting money. It's the obese a$$hole who is on SSI because he is too fat to work. It's the yagoff that was shot 6 times while he was a lookout for a dope spot. It's the gal who smokes rock and has 8 kids who gets WIC and public aid, that, I have a problem with getting a "tax rebate."I agree with you, 100%. There are always the bad seeds. Also, they are far more common than most liberals would like people to think.

However, that being said, I'm in favor of a system weeding the bad seeds out. If an economic stimulus is needed immediately, however (which I partially agree *IS* needed), I don't think we have time to develop that system.

Therefore, in order to get taxpayer money back in the hands of the people (the vast majority of whom are actually taxpayers), I'll just have to deal with checks being sent to those unworthy.

No system is perfect, I understand. So, I lean towards the side that comes closest. I find that getting some of my money back from the government comes the closest, in this case.

Although, I do have a theory for what would consititute REAL economic stimulus ... but I'll save that for another thread... :ping:

[Tchocky]

But that isn't the issue here. If we're talking about tax REBATES, how could you possibly REBATE the money to people who don't pay it in the first place?


I agree. Of course, we're talking around the basic concept: democrats want to take money obtained from taxing the middle class to upper class and feed it to a large base of low-earners to ensure their domimance in elections. That's all there is to it: buying votes. It will ruin our democracy in the long run, and economy.
This new business of vote-buying?

You might have a point if there was no economic crisis. Put more money into the hands of people who will spend it, and you're doing an ailing economy good. Simple as. Taxes have never been, and will never be, about who deserves not to pay them.

Also, the GOP is on a downhill slide, wouldn't it be a little early to start buying votes?

[Aramike]

But that isn't the issue here. If we're talking about tax REBATES, how could you possibly REBATE the money to people who don't pay it in the first place?



I agree. Of course, we're talking around the basic concept: democrats want to take money obtained from taxing the middle class to upper class and feed it to a large base of low-earners to ensure their domimance in elections. That's all there is to it: buying votes. It will ruin our democracy in the long run, and economy.I also agree with this 100%.

[magic452]

It's all about buying VOTES. Same as lending money to people that couldn't repay it to buy houses they couldn't afford. Which, by the way, is why we are in a "crisis" now.


Magic452

[FIREWALL]

What we seem to be forgetting is Prez-elect BO just has a game plan.

He's got to get a majority of Senators and Congressman to buy it.

By the time it rolls back across his desk for signing it could and probably will be somewhat different.