when it goes to someone who DOESN'T PAY FEDERAL TAXES? I mean HONESTLY.

So, the cost of this is $690B dollar bux, right? And the national debt is at what, $9T. There are no cost offsets. So, we just increased the national debt by THIRTEEN FUCKING PERCENT. Either that, or we'll print out more money. Either of these solutions decreases the value of the dollar.

And somehow, some way, doing so will help an economy that has been wrecked by the falling value of the dollar.









Pure.

Fucking.

Genius.

2/8/2008 2:39:56 PM

Yeap. Not to mention that the momentary spike in consumer spending won't do much to effect retailer earnings anyway.

A better idea would be middle and lower class tax cuts and a major reduction in the federal budget.

[Edited on February 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM. Reason : >.<]

2/8/2008 2:43:02 PM

guess you haven't heard of payroll taxes.

2/8/2008 2:44:37 PM

Quote :

"major reduction in the federal budget"

this seems to be the hard part for them

2/8/2008 2:49:57 PM

^^ payroll taxes? You mean the ones that people who pay no federal taxes out of their paychecks pay? How do you figure?

If you are talking about the 7.5% that goes to SS (you know, what people generally refer to as "the payroll tax"), keep in mind the following:
1) The EMPLOYER pays that, NOT THE EMPLOYEE, unless the employee is self-employed, in which case he should be reporting way more income earned in the first place...
2) If it goes to SS and we are "rebating" it back, then does that mean he has been calculated as having paid less in to the system, so he would get less back at retirement?

2/8/2008 2:57:00 PM

^ I guess you have overlooked the little box on every paycheck you receive that includes the "social security tax" and the "medicare tax".

Using your logic I guess we could reason that our employer technically pays our federal taxes also.

I do agree though I do not understand how/why those that did not even pay a PENNY to the federal gov't deserves to get a $300 rebate. At least Budweiser will get some increased sales.

Paging BridgetSPK "ZOMG the poor people need money b.c they are oppressed by american society blah blah blah"

2/8/2008 3:10:19 PM

You are retarded.

Quote :

"^^ payroll taxes? You mean the ones that people who pay no federal taxes out of their paychecks pay? How do you figure? "

WRONG. Employee and employer pay

Quote :

"1) The EMPLOYER pays that, NOT THE EMPLOYEE, unless the employee is self-employed, in which case he should be reporting way more income earned in the first place..."

WRONG--Both individuals pay that, along with the medicare tax. The employee pays 6.2% of their payroll in tax and then their employer matches (Social Security). Medicare is an additional 1.45% paid by the employee and matched by the employer. Self employed individuals end up paying 15.3% since they have to cover the cost of the employee (themselves) and the employer (themselves).

Quote :

"2) If it goes to SS and we are "rebating" it back, then does that mean he has been calculated as having paid less in to the system, so he would get less back at retirement?"

There is a base payment out of the system for individuals. If an individual does not make enough money to pay federal income tax, then the odds are they would receive the minimum social security payment anyway. Therefore, they cannot get less.

I suggest you actually read up on the taxes instead of bitching about the taxes.

2/8/2008 3:13:49 PM

^ I've always heard the "payroll tax" as referring ONLY to the portion that the employer pays. The gubment charges 7.5% of their payroll, thus the reason for the term. The other 7.5% is what I've always heard called the "SS tax"

2/8/2008 3:14:16 PM

2/8/2008 3:16:49 PM

Quote :

" I do agree though I do not understand how/why those that did not even pay a PENNY to the federal gov't deserves to get a $300 rebate. At least Budweiser will get some increased sales."

It's a payroll tax rebate, not an income tax rebate.

2/8/2008 3:18:12 PM

so we are refunding money for americans to squander on stupid unneeded consumerables from a system that is barely staying afloat and will most likely capsize when the baby boomers enter retirement. I think SS needs to be phased out in favor of a invididual retirement plan but a lot of people will be fucked by simply just pulling the plug on it.

2/8/2008 3:22:12 PM

So, let's get this straight. Someone who makes 3K a year. They paid 7.65% on 3K to the fed. That's less than 300 dollars. And it's a "rebate" to give them 300 dollar bux. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight... Seems to me that you ought to be paying 2.45% of that to the employer if it's a rebate...

2/8/2008 3:22:25 PM

^ i don't quite understand it either.

something about shedding a tear for poor people or something



[Edited on February 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM. Reason : l]

2/8/2008 3:23:45 PM

^^odds are that person making 3K a year wouldn't qualify for this since, they would most likely be declared a dependent. and in any case, if they are not, they are more than likely collecting other forms of welfare. and it is more than just a rebate for money paid in during the last year.

^^^It's a stupid plan, but let's attack the plan for what it is and not for made up reasons that are devoid of fact like tacoburro is doing.

[Edited on February 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2008 3:26:55 PM

hey i think this is a stupid plan to "save" the economy and is nothing more than a political move with the upcoming election.

regardless i'll gladly take a $600 rebate check if the gov't is giving it out.

2/8/2008 3:29:35 PM

Quote :

"So, the cost of this is $690B dollar bux, right? And the national debt is at what, $9T. There are no cost offsets. So, we just increased the national debt by THIRTEEN FUCKING PERCENT. Either that, or we'll print out more money. Either of these solutions decreases the value of the dollar. "

I posted this article a couple weeks ago.

Quote :

"U.S. Congress to the Next Generation --Drop Dead: Announcing the economic stimulus package agreed to last week by both parties in the House of Representatives, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared that typical Americans can expect to receive a "stipend" of $300 to $1,200. Stipend -- will we get a federally funded sherry hour, too? Calling a government check a "stipend," to make it seem lofty and grand, reflects the modern affection CEOs have for calling the cash they receive "compensation" rather than pay, and consultants and speakers insist on saying they are receiving "honoraria" rather than pay. There is nothing wrong with receiving pay! And no reason to employ euphemisms. The stimulus bill will cost about $150 billion and consists entirely of deficit spending. The secondary euphemism being employed in Washington is to call the checks "tax rebates." But they are not rebates, meaning partial returns of monies paid -- they are pure borrowing. Which is to say, Congress will award most current American adults $300 to $1,200 each, then send the bill to future American adults. Suppose that instead, each American adult today set aside $300 at 5 percent interest. In 20 years, that money would grow to $800, and likely much more if invested in stocks. Such savings would be good for the U.S. economy, which, since 2001, has seen a negative national savings rate. China's national savings rate is currently almost 50 percent. Savings is one reason the Chinese economy is growing far faster than the U.S. economy; the U.S. savings rate is close to negative-4 percent, and our economic growth is sputtering. The framers said, "We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." Today's Congress: "We mutually pledge to pretend to believe what we just promised until the first second it is politically convenient to do the opposite." But rather than help the U.S. economy grow in a generous way that forgoes a little today to gain a lot tomorrow, the American people -- through their representatives in Congress -- just reached into the pockets of future citizens in order to spend more on themselves right now. Explain to me why this is considered a populist action by Congress? Bear in mind, the stimulus package announced last week is only an agreement between the two parties in the House. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in the Senate currently are scrambling to add their own pet projects to the legislation -- whenever a big spending bill moves, there's always a bidding war in which Republicans and Democrats vie to see who can stage the biggest giveaway. The damage to the national debt might get worse because what's happening now is the environment Congress likes best -- an environment of zero fiscal discipline. Lobbyists for retirees, who already are subsidized by the young, are complaining that their special interest isn't being showered with free money by the stimulus bill; lobbyists for pork-barrel projects that could never withstand logical scrutiny are maneuvering to wrap them in the flag and add them to the stimulus bill. By the time the stimulus bill leaves Capitol Hill, the young might be saddled with yet more debt so that members of Congress can congratulate themselves as they hand checks to politically connected fat-cat donors or to retirees already drawing out of Social Security far more than they put in, plus interest. Next, recall that on Jan. 4, 2007, both houses of Congress agreed with considerable fanfare on the Paygo measure, which stated that under no circumstances -- under no circumstances, never, regardless of conditions! -- would Congress enact any bill that increases the federal debt. According to the Paygo legislation, the House and Senate are forbidden even to debate legislation that would increase the debt. ("It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit …") Paygo rules specify that all bills causing appropriations increases or tax favors must be offset be spending reductions or tax increases. When Paygo was enacted, many members of Congress from both parties, prominently Speaker Pelosi, patted themselves on the back in public. How long did this incredible resolve last? Six weeks ago, Congress passed a reduction of the Alternative Minimum Tax; the bill cut taxes by $51 billion but provides no offsetting revenues. Originally, the measure would have reduced the AMT for the middle class while raising taxes by an equal amount on the upper crust of venture capitalists and hedge-fund managers. All the revenue increases ended up deleted -- hedge-fund managers showered members of Congress with campaign donations -- but the tax cuts were approved. Congress ladled out the $51 billion entirely from deficit spending, then handed the bill to the young. Now, the stimulus package goes even further, at least $150 billion in gravy without spending cuts or offsetting revenue increases. Barely 12 months after pledging never, ever again to add to the federal debt, Congress will add at least $201 billion to the federal debt. The federal deficit for the most recent fiscal year, which ended before either of the new actions, was $163 billion. Congress has, in the past six weeks alone, added more to the federal debt than the entire federal deficit for the most recent fiscal year. It's impossible to be sure, but a rough guess might be that every dollar added to the deficit today represents two dollars subtracted from future economic growth -- which in turn means two dollars taken from the pockets of tomorrow's American adults. This is a cynical exercise, robbing future Americans in order to please voters today, and to inspire interest groups to make political donations to incumbents. When are citizens under 30 going to wake up to the disagreeable fact that the country's current leadership, of both parties, is giving them the shaft in order to heap special favors on current voters who refuse to live within their means? Then handing the young the bill."

2/8/2008 3:31:12 PM

yeah its a bad idea but whatever my industry won't be hurt thats all i care.

2/8/2008 3:32:24 PM

How much are they giving only $300?

2/8/2008 3:35:26 PM

it angers me when ignorant "conservatives" bitch about paying less taxes when what they should be pressing for is reduced spending and a reduction in the size of gov't which will allowed decreased taxes w/o fucking over the US economy.

I guess much like a 16yr girl with daddy's credit card they just want more money like it grows on trees.

2/8/2008 3:39:28 PM

^^ did you mean

How much are they giving, only $300?

or

How many are they giving only $300?

2/8/2008 3:42:44 PM

Quote :

"When are citizens under 30 going to wake up to the disagreeable fact that the country's current leadership, of both parties, is giving them the shaft in order to heap special favors on current voters who refuse to live within their means?"

http://www.concordcoalition.org/events/fiscal-wake-up/index.html

2/8/2008 3:48:23 PM

Quote :

"when it goes to someone who DOESN'T PAY FEDERAL TAXES? I mean HONESTLY. . . . And somehow, some way, doing so will help an economy that has been wrecked by the falling value of the dollar. "

1) The average tax payer pays for only a fraction of the government services (mostly military) that he or she consumes, so I hardly see the difference. I mean I suppose there is some minute amount of self righteousness that can be derived from getting money back on something you got for next nothing rather than something you got for free, but I seems like splitting hairs to me.

2) The falling dollar is not only not wrecking the economy but is currently the only thing saving the economy as it has contributed to a significant export boom.

[Edited on February 10, 2008 at 9:17 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2008 9:15:52 PM

Quote :

"an economy that has been wrecked by the falling value of the dollar"

i don't think that's what's "wrecked" the economy

2/10/2008 9:22:33 PM

2/10/2008 9:29:57 PM

in 10 years or so, can the young people just agree to not support the retired baby boomers? This is about the only I can see the issue getting resolved w/o the debt rising to 20, 30 trillion.

2/11/2008 1:16:43 AM

The entire budget proposed this time around is fantastic.

A royal bird by the White House to the democratic congress.

2/11/2008 1:20:12 AM

Quote :

" The Federal deficit is declining and on a path to elimination. Last year, we successfully met our goal of cutting the deficit in half, three years ahead of schedule. This occurred because tax relief helped the economy to recover and grow, resulting in record-high revenues while we restrained non-security discretionary spending. With continued strong economic growth and spending discipline, we are now positioned to balance the budget by 2012, while providing for our national security and making tax relief permanent. My Budget proposes to keep non-security discretionary spending below inflation for the next five years. My Budget also reforms projects and spending that don’t get the job done. We need lawmakers’support to help us accomplish this goal—including reforms that will improve the Congressional budget process. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/message.html


But WAIT! My president says that the budget is under control. Why does the liberal media try to tell me something else?

2/11/2008 1:38:21 AM

The problem in capitalist economic policies is we can chose to tackle the problem of growth or inflation (one or the other). Were in this housing crisis because we lowered interest rates too much after 911 (also lets inflation creep up). People are also to blame, yes predatory lending exists, but way to many americans buy too much house, products, etc, without considering the impacts (hell it's part of being American in these times). If we don't buy, buy, buy then retail and services suffer as do other sectors. Hence, we tend to promote anything that will allow most americans to spend more (rate cuts, tax rebates, consumer debt). If we start saving it has to be put into investment or we hurt the ecomony by not spending because we fear a recession that has not yet been proven to exist.

So our recent solution is to drastically cuts rates basically in the same way we did during 911, but this time there will be no big boom as a result. A similar situation happened in the late 1970's, and we raised rates instead, which caused dramatic unemployment and deep recession, but overall it snapped inflation and the underlying causes of the problems in the 70's. Sometimes recession is needed for future growth.

2/11/2008 3:08:40 AM

Quote :

"2) If it goes to SS and we are "rebating" it back, then does that mean he has been calculated as having paid less in to the system, so he would get less back at retirement?"

You've been called out on pretty much everything else, but SS is not a 401K. People pay SS taxes, and the Federal government pays for SS, but there is no "system" you are paying into other than the Federal treasury.

2/11/2008 5:39:45 AM

^

Yes, a better way to think about the tax is as an insurance premium. In a sense you could think of it as survivor insurance. If you happen to survive past the age of 67 then SS will provide you with income. However, how much you paid in premiums is unrelated to how much you get back. For example, if you kick the bucket one day short of your 67th birthday you are just SOL.

2/11/2008 9:04:43 AM

Quote :

"So, we just increased the national debt by THIRTEEN FUCKING PERCENT. Either that, or we'll print out more money. "

I believe we are borrowing most of the money from China and Saudi Arabia. We're basically borrowing money from them so that we can then buy their oil and manufactured goods. So on a balance sheet you'd see China and Saudi Arabia loaning out money with interest and then getting some/most of the money right back in the form of goods sold.

Foreign Countries 1
US 0

You're probably right on both accounts. Our debt will increase, we'll print more money just to pay the interest, and the value of the dollar will go down.

But, I didn't think it was $690B. I have $150B in my head for some reason. Can someone confirm?

[Edited on February 11, 2008 at 1:15 PM. Reason : l]

2/11/2008 1:15:09 PM

^ I've heard both numbers floating around. One appears to be the "House version" and the other appears to be the "Senate" version... lemme do some CNNooglin... Welp, the article I looked at when I made this thread has conveniently been changed.. It originally said 690B, but it now says 170B. I remember doing a triple-take when I read that $690B dollar bux figure, so I remember where it was in the article. Sheisty online editing by CNN.

2/11/2008 9:22:04 PM