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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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. 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 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:

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?

I also agree with this 100%.

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

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.