No. of Recommendations: 8
So much for the GOP brainwashing the public into thinking that everyone's going to get a check soon:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/12/politics/12TAX.html

Cherry
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 245
So much for the GOP brainwashing the public into thinking that everyone's going to get a check soon:

Cherry


With all due respect, Cherry, why should people who didn't pay the taxes get the rebate this summer? I am SO sick of people kicking and screaming "but not everyone is going to get a rebate because they didn't make 6K/12K in taxable income!" It's not rocket science--this rebate is designed to put money back in the hands of TAXPAYERS, not people who didn't pay taxes.

D
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 80
"With all due respect, Cherry, why should people who didn't pay the taxes get the rebate this summer? I am SO sick of people kicking and screaming "but not everyone is going to get a rebate because they didn't make 6K/12K in taxable income!" It's not rocket science--this rebate is designed to put money back in the hands of TAXPAYERS, not people who didn't pay taxes."


And just to go a step further ... the 'check' is merely a return to us of our money that we overpaid during 2001 due to the change in the tax laws. Some people have not 'overpaid' by the full $300 or $600 and should not get the full rebate.

This is not a government hand-out, but is, in effect, a readjusment of the amount of tax collected so far this year.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
With all due respect, Diana, why should people who pay nothing in payroll taxes get not only the rebate this summer, but thousands off their income taxes, while someone who did pay $1,120 in payroll taxes last year get nothing? I an SO sick of people kicking and screaming "THOSE people DON'T pay TAXES" as if low-wage workers contribute nothing to society, when "those people" are actually decent, hard-working folks who are paying a disproportionate share of their income as payroll, sales, and excise taxes. This rebadte is designed to put money back in the hands of CERTAIN TAXPAYERS, and leave behind plenty of people who sure DID PAY TAXES, just not the "right" kind.

S
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
[So much for the GOP brainwashing the public into thinking that everyone's going to get a check soon]--Cherry, orig. poster

With all due respect, Cherry, why should people who didn't pay the taxes get the rebate this summer? I am SO sick of people kicking and screaming "but not everyone is going to get a rebate because they didn't make 6K/12K in taxable income!" It's not rocket science--this rebate is designed to put money back in the hands of TAXPAYERS, not people who didn't pay taxes.--1st reply w/lusty # rec's. & climbing...
------------------

Cherry, thank you for posting the NYTimes link about the tax cut. I went to the site & even took trouble to free-register to read the article. It's very informative. I wanted to read it for a 2nd reason, too: to see if your chief critic's words above are justified. Well, they aren't.

Why aren't they? For 2 reasons: First, the article is informative, not persuasive. It doesn't argue that everyone in the U.S. should get a tax rebate check. In fact, it states that 26% will get no rebate & 13% only a partial rebate. That's about 40% of the population that's all/partly excluded from this so-called "windfall." Second, you yourself aren't "kicking and screaming." Your total post of 19 words doesn't say anywhere that everyone should get some govt. money. It simply says that too many of the uninformed public--for whatever reason--thought they would get a check, no matter what. (You used "brainwashing," I used "uninformed.") Whatever, it's still up to each person to determine his/her eligibility.

You provided a readable, informative link. Don't be convinced that everyone agreeing w/your critic has read it. This is a case of "knee-jerk, pile-on" in my opinion. I'm not attempting to be a self-appointed mediator...just cranky about what seems to be unwarranted in this case.










Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
With all due respect, Cherry, why should people who didn't pay the taxes get the rebate this summer? I am SO sick of people kicking and screaming "but not everyone is going to get a rebate because they didn't make 6K/12K in taxable income!" It's not rocket science--this rebate is designed to put money back in the hands of TAXPAYERS, not people who didn't pay taxes.

You actually didn't show any respect. Cherry was hardly kicking and screaming. I hate to tell you this, but people who make less than 6K/12K DO pay taxes: SS, medicare, sales tax, excise tax, etc.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
I an SO sick of people kicking and screaming "THOSE people DON'T pay TAXES" as if low-wage workers contribute nothing to society, when "those people" are actually decent, hard-working folks who are paying a disproportionate share of their income as payroll, sales, and excise taxes. This rebadte is designed to put money back in the hands of CERTAIN TAXPAYERS, and leave behind plenty of people who sure DID PAY TAXES, just not the "right" kind.



I'm a low-wage worker. I don't think I deserve $300. I didn't pay enough in taxes to deserve $300.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Your total post of 19 words doesn't say anywhere that everyone should get some govt. money. It simply says that too many of the uninformed public--for whatever reason--thought they would get a check, no matter what.

Thank you for your kind words. <g> Your post above is absolutely correct. I'm glad that you got the gist of it, while others unfortunately (and predictably) overreacted. Aah, just another day in the life of the LBYM board! :-)

Cherry
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (Deluxe 2nd edition) defines REBATE as:

1. to give back (part of an amount paid) ... a deduction; return of part of an amount paid, ...


The is a rebate of funds already paid. Don't pay, and you get no rebate. This isn't a government handout or entitlement. It is simply returning money (without interest, I might add) for an overpayment of funds. It isn't so hard to understand. If someone didn't overpay, they won't be getting money back.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
With all due respect, Cherry, why should people who didn't pay the taxes get the rebate this summer?

The problem with the "rebate" is that it is for 2001 taxes, but is based on what was payed in 2000. So for the family that owed almost no taxes last year because of, say, the wife was out of work, and the twins were still young enough to be dependents; will get no rebate, even though the wife is now making $50000, and the twins have fled the nest.

On the flip side, the guy who retired in February will still get the rebate, even though he will not have to pay taxes this year.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I hate to tell you this, but people who make less than 6K/12K DO pay taxes: SS, medicare, sales tax, excise tax, etc.


Sorry, but this rebate isn't for overpaying SS or medicare, or sales tax. Its for overpaying Federal Income Tax. People earning 6K/12K DO NOT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 46
> I an SO sick of people kicking and screaming "THOSE people DON'T pay
> TAXES" as if low-wage workers contribute nothing to society,
> when "those people" are actually decent, hard-working folks who are
> paying a disproportionate share of their income as payroll

Please tell me that you are not trying to claim that lower-income people pay a higher percentage of their income in fed. income taxes, because if you are, you are flat wrong. Check out the information on the IRS web site. Please note that the recent changes only affect income/estate taxes, so you shouldn't expect a refund based on other taxes.

Along with this, I don't think anyone is trying to imply that people who make less aren't "decent, hard-working folks". What they are saying is that when people are asked to pay 2x as much of their income in income taxes it is not unreasonable for them to expect 2x as much back when income taxes are lowered. The only people I have seen demonizing others are the group that likes to spout "I am for the working class", as if those of use who happen to make more than the national average are somehow evil and undeserving because of it.

> This rebadte is designed to put money back in the hands of CERTAIN
> TAXPAYERS, and leave behind plenty of people who sure DID PAY TAXES,
> just not the "right" kind

What a bunch of BS. It is a refund and a change to the income tax code plain and simple. The refund is simply returning the $ that would have been returned at the end of the year after the return was filed anyway. It is in proportion to what you paid in income taxes.

BTW, whoever thought that the original poster was just informing others, take a look again at what was written:

> So much for the GOP brainwashing the public into thinking that
> everyone's going to get a check soon

First of all, this particular wrinkle to the income tax changes was originally a DEM idea. Anyone who thinks this bill is all GOP has been brainwashed, because if it was, it would be closer to what Bush originally proposed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The problem with the "rebate" is that it is for 2001 taxes, but is based on what was payed in 2000. So for the family that owed almost no taxes last year because of, say, the wife was out of work, and the twins were still young enough to be dependents; will get no rebate, even though the wife is now making $50000, and the twins have fled the nest.

On the flip side, the guy who retired in February will still get the rebate, even though he will not have to pay taxes this year.



So what if it was based on a different time period? Then others would be out. What if someone paid a bunch in 2000 but absolutely 0 in 2001? What about those people who last paid taxes in 1923? Maybe they find it unfair. They had to draw the line somewhere and probably put more thought into this than you or I can imagine.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Your total post of 19 words doesn't say anywhere that everyone should get some govt. money. It simply says that too many of the uninformed public--for whatever reason--thought they would get a check, no matter what.

Just wanted to second this -- my beef isn't with the actual structure of the tax cut/rebate (I *do* have some reservations about it, but that's a different beef), but that I keep hearing all this talk about Americans getting that $300 or $600 check later this summer. It's not all the politicians' fault, or even the media's fault; it's quickly become part of the conventional wisdom of the office water cooler. At lunch with coworkers the other day, one woman mentioned that her accountant had told her she was going to be getting a $600 check back, and that "everyone would be getting it." This was quickly amended to "oh, well, single people will get $300," but immediately everyone at the table started chatting about what they were going to buy with their check. (sigh)

JennyJean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The problem with the "rebate" is that it is for 2001 taxes, but is based on what was payed in 2000. So for the family that owed almost no taxes last year because of, say, the wife was out of work, and the twins were still young enough to be dependents; will get no rebate, even though the wife is now making $50000, and the twins have fled the nest.

On the flip side, the guy who retired in February will still get the rebate, even though he will not have to pay taxes this year.


Good point, which raises an interesting question. The $300 is the difference between the former tax rate of 15% on the first $6,000 of taxable income and the new rate of 10%. They're guessing that people who had at least $6,000 of taxable income last year will have it this year and are sending checks. BUT... I bet we see new lines on our 1040 to determine whether we really deserved the check we got, or to credit us for the check we were entitled to but didn't get.

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to hang on to the money until I actually get my taxes filed...

- KK




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The problem with the "rebate" is that it is for 2001 taxes, but is based on what was payed in 2000. So for the family that owed almost no taxes last year because of, say, the wife was out of work, and the twins were still young enough to be dependents; will get no rebate, even though the wife is now making $50000, and the twins have fled the nest.

On the flip side, the guy who retired in February will still get the rebate, even though he will not have to pay taxes this year.


Bingo. That's the big problem with the "rebate".

The simple solution would have been to put in the 10% bracket on the first 6K (for single, non-HoH) or 12K (for married) taxable income, have companies adjust wage withholding (starting 7/1 or whenever) to reflect this, and simply have many of us get a refund when we filed our 2001 taxes. Unfortunately, for political reasons the decision was made to issue these "rebate checks".

FWIW, the amounts ($300 or $600) reflect the 5% differential on the first 6K or 12K of taxable income. (Note that there is a difference between taxable income and "gross" income. Taxable income is income less deductions and exemptions. If you're married, the couple generally must earn almost 25K to have 12K in taxable income (24950 less 7,350 standard deduction less 5,800 in personal exemptions, using the numbers from 2000. Obviously, if you itemize deductions and/or have children, your gross income will have to be higher to have 12K in taxable income)

Note that I am not taking a position on the merits of the overall tax package or the specifics of any changes in the tax law. I am simply stating that the mechanics of implementing, in effect, the 10% bracket change for 2001 (the 10% change is retroactive to 1/1/01, hence the checks)leave much to be desired.

-synchronicity

(who doesn't play one at the Fool, but in "real life" is a tax guy)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
>
> If someone didn't overpay, they won't be getting money back.
>

President Cheney didn't over pay. He's getting money back.

-MH-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The simple solution would have been to put in the 10% bracket on the first 6K (for single, non-HoH) or 12K (for married) taxable income, have companies adjust wage withholding (starting 7/1 or whenever) to reflect this, and simply have many of us get a refund when we filed our 2001 taxes. Unfortunately, for political reasons the decision was made to issue these "rebate checks".

- - -

What I'm curious about is how much extra the goverment is going to spend to issue the rebate. I imagine that it will be fairly significant to go back through all the forms and re-determine who gets what back.

(Though I also realize that people would get up in arms if the gov't held on to the money until the following tax season without paying interest on it)

-Ben
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What I'm curious about is how much extra the goverment is going to spend to issue the rebate. I imagine that it will be fairly significant to go back through all the forms and re-determine who gets what back.

Oh, I doubt that is very difficult. More expensive, I would imagine, is thecost of actually printing and distributing the checks.

I agree with synch. The sending out of physical checks is a transparent political ploy.

--Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The simple solution would have been to put in the 10% bracket on the first 6K (for single, non-HoH) or 12K (for married) taxable income, have companies adjust wage withholding (starting 7/1 or whenever) to reflect this, and simply have many of us get a refund when we filed our 2001 taxes. Unfortunately, for political reasons the decision was made to issue these "rebate checks".

It would be a simple solution, but for economic reasons, the government wants the refund to arrive earlier in the hopes that it will boost the economy. Your idea would spread the extra money from lower wage withholding over a longer time frame.

IF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
President Cheney didn't over pay. He's getting money back.

He paid a damn sight more than you did, and you'll probably get similar amounts back.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
Your total post of 19 words doesn't say anywhere that everyone should get some govt. money

It's not the governments money. It's my money that the government is giving back to me. The "windfall" is due to a cut in taxes. According to the tax cut, I've overpaid my taxes the first half of this year. Therefore the goverment is going to give my money back to me.

If 40% of the population isn't getting a check, it's because they didn't overpay their taxes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
It's not the governments money. It's my money that the government is giving back to me. The "windfall" is due to a cut in taxes. According to the tax cut, I've overpaid my taxes the first half of this year. Therefore the goverment is going to give my money back to me.

Of course you underpaid if you worked in the 1980's when a large amount of national debt was accumulated.

..IF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wrote:
The simple solution would have been to put in the 10% bracket on the first 6K (for single, non-HoH) or 12K (for married) taxable income, have companies adjust wage withholding (starting 7/1 or whenever) to reflect this, and simply have many of us get a refund when we filed our 2001 taxes. Unfortunately, for political reasons the decision was made to issue these "rebate checks".

and IndecisiveFool replied:
It would be a simple solution, but for economic reasons, the government wants the refund to arrive earlier in the hopes that it will boost the economy. Your idea would spread the extra money from lower wage withholding over a longer time frame.

Very true.

As you might have guessed (apologies for mentioning a political point here) I disagree with the current Administration regarding the need for an "immediate" tax refund and its impact on the economy as a whole. Thus I prefer the "lowered withholding/refund later" approach. However, I'm not in charge, so my opinion doesn't mean much.

Starting in 2002, the 10% bracket will be incorporated into the tax calculations and into wage withholding.

-synchronicity
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6

Please tell me that you are not trying to claim that lower-income people pay a higher percentage of their income in fed. income taxes

Of course not. Actually, you cut off from your quote of my post the end of the sentence, which was "payroll [i.e., Soc. Sec. & Medicare], sales, and excise taxes." Which, I'm sure you'll agree, are paid disproportionately by those making less than the median income.

Along with this, I don't think anyone is trying to imply that people who make less aren't "decent, hard-working folks".

Well, Diana is apparently under the impression that low-wage workers live completely tax-free. Do you share that impression?

What they are saying is that when people are asked to pay 2x as much of their income in income taxes it is not unreasonable for them to expect 2x as much back when income taxes are lowered.

Nor is it 'unreasonable' to expect that income taxes shouldn't be lowered at all until the public debt is paid off to a much lower level that it's at now, or that other taxes should be lowered instead of income taxes.

The only people I have seen demonizing others are the group that likes to spout "I am for the working class", as if those of use who happen to make more than the national average are somehow evil and undeserving because of it.

You must be joking. Out of the money that the gov't will "spend" (more accurately, not receive) on the tax cut, most of the money will go to those with high incomes. That is a simple fact. It is true that the reason this is so is because the cut is "across-the-board," but there is no reason that it "had" to be so. Some people preferred that it be so, and that view has prevailed for now. Those who disagree, however, are perfectly entitled to point out where the money is "going" and voice their disagreement that other options -- such as those that would include tax relief (hint, not income taxes) that would help low-wage earners -- did not prevail, and they are quite correct in pointing out that not "everyone" is getting the $300/$600.

Some supporters of the tax plan are not content with defending it on fairness principles, as you have done, but instead choose to make factually incorrect statements, like Diana's, to the effect that the only people that do not benefit from this plan are those who don't pay ANY taxes. If the plan is so great, why do the extremists have to lie to sell it? What's wrong with just saying, "I paid more in income taxes last year than most people, so I support an income tax cut because it benefits me more than another kind of tax cut would, and I want more money."?


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Of course you underpaid if you worked in the 1980's when a large amount of national debt was accumulated.


ummm...so if I spend more money than I have coming in, that's my employer's fault for underpaying me? Great! I'll let them know! Boy, I think I'll stop off at the BMW place on my way home.....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>
> Out of the money that the gov't will "spend" (more accurately, not receive)
> on the tax cut, most of the money will go to those with high incomes.
> That is a simple fact.
>

I'm not going to name any of my kids "Squawk1200", but I'm going to take 'em all flying! :)

-MH-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
With all due respect, Diana, why should people who pay nothing in payroll taxes get not only the rebate this summer, but thousands off their income taxes, while someone who did pay $1,120 in payroll taxes last year get nothing? I an SO sick of people kicking and screaming "THOSE people DON'T pay TAXES" as if low-wage workers contribute nothing to society, when "those people" are actually decent, hard-working folks who are paying a disproportionate share of their income as payroll, sales, and excise taxes. This rebadte is designed to put money back in the hands of CERTAIN TAXPAYERS, and leave behind plenty of people who sure DID PAY TAXES, just not the "right" kind.

How do you make money and still pay nothing in payroll taxes? I want in on this!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"The simple solution would have been to put in the 10% bracket on the first 6K (for single, non-HoH) or 12K (for married) taxable income, have companies adjust wage withholding (starting 7/1 or whenever) to reflect this, and simply have many of us get a refund when we filed our 2001 taxes. Unfortunately, for political reasons the decision was made to issue these "rebate checks". "


That's a simple solution from an economic side, and academics probably back that scenario en masse. But from a practical side, changing withholding would benefit no one but accountants.

Changing withholding would add unneeded expense and complexity for businesses, because they'd have to go back in the middle of the year and restructure their payroll. For companies that do it in-house, it would probably require some overtime. For those that outsource their payroll, a withholding change would be a windfall for accountants and companies like Paychex and ADP, who would be called on to change withholding amounts for everyone and probably rejigger the payroll software for larger employers.

Sure, businesses lobbied for the check rather than the withholding change. And why shouldn't they? If I had to pay an accountant to fill out my rebate forms, I'd complain about it, too. Sending the checks is a much cheaper way to get the money back, in terms of resources spent. and it gives taxpayers like me their money earlier. Personally, I plan to use my rebate in a way I consider wise (or Foolish), and that is paying off debt and thus saving myself a few dollars of interest.


Benevolent
Taking as much as he can get from Uncle Sam since 1902
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
How do you make money and still pay nothing in payroll taxes? I want in on this!

Investment income is one obvious one. Most educational stipends are also not subject to FICA (I am currently on one of these).

--Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Personally, I plan to use my rebate in a way I consider wise (or Foolish), and that is paying off debt and thus saving myself a few dollars of interest.



Yeah, me too. Won't that just blow a huge hole in their "save-the-economy-by-giving-people-money-to-spend" plan. Especially if a large number of people do likewise.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"How do you make money and still pay nothing in payroll taxes? I want in on this!"

You can renounce your SS#. Write to the government and say that you didn't know what it signified and you want to be taken of the Social Security rolls. That's perfectly legal, and you'd become exempt from payroll taxes because you wouldn't be entitled to any of the future benefits that they supposedly fund. Not many people know that you can do that, but IMO the 6.5% of your pay you'd save is not worth the potential trouble you can get in.

However, if you do renounce your SS#, it's an advertisement to the government that you are not a team player. That's an easy way to get onto those lists that little offices like the FBI and IRS keep of people to watch. Not many people do renounce their SS#, so the few that do attract a lot of attention from people I'd rather not rile. Plus, you wouldn't be eligible for SS disability and other such programs.

My advice is to keep paying the payroll taxes and pray that you'll be able to receive a few pennies on the dollar when you retire.


Benevolent
Who knows you were kidding but answered anyway
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
ummm...so if I spend more money than I have coming in, that's my employer's fault for underpaying me? Great! I'll let them know! Boy, I think I'll stop off at the BMW place on my way home.....

It actually is your fault for electing the bozos that spent more money than the revenue from taxes coming in. In this case, "your" is directed at the voters who vote by the party line or the "eenie meenie minie moe" method without learning the views of your candidate.

IF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Yeah, me too. Won't that just blow a huge hole in their "save-the-economy-by-giving-people-money-to-spend" plan. Especially if a large number of people do likewise. "


Did you see the latest consumer credit data? Economists expected an increase of $9 billion last month, while consumers actually added $14 billion in debt, most of it in the form of credit cards and other revolving balances.

I wouldn't invest in consumer stocks this summer if I were you. There's going to be a painful backlash.

On the plus side, those who have cash to use may find some investment bargains after the consumer stocks post a bad quarter or two.


Benevolent
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I wrote:
"The simple solution would have been to put in the 10% bracket on the first 6K (for single, non-HoH) or 12K (for married) taxable income, have companies adjust wage withholding (starting 7/1 or whenever) to reflect this, and simply have many of us get a refund when we filed our 2001 taxes. Unfortunately, for political reasons the decision was made to issue these "rebate checks".

and Benevolent replied:

That's a simple solution from an economic side, and academics probably back that scenario en masse. But from a practical side, changing withholding would benefit no one but accountants.

Changing withholding would add unneeded expense and complexity for businesses, because they'd have to go back in the middle of the year and restructure their payroll.


Well, I don't work in payroll, but the change would not add to expense beyond what will already ahve to occur. Companies have to change their tax withholding calculations at the beginning of every year anyway, when the wage brackets are adjusted for inflation. Also, the tax brackets at 28% and up are being reduced effective 7/1 by 1% (this will work in practice by having a "27.5% bracket" when filing 2001 tax returns, as half the year will have been at 28%, and the other half at 27%. Same for the 31, 36, and 39.6% brackets). This will necessitate a change in withholding on all wages paid after June 30, 2001 (see http://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15t.pdf for all the details). So there is no practical reason why the 10% could not have been accomplished through withholding.

The reasons advanced for the "checks" are essentially either economic ("we need to get these funds into Americans' hands as quickly as possible to help the economy") or political (or a little of both), depending upon one's point of view.

One last note: the checks are for "up to" $300 and $600, and as stated are based on 2000 liabilities. There will be ways for people who don't qualify based on 2000 data but do when they file their 2001 return to claim the credit at that time. See http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/ind_info/apinfo/index.html for more info.

Hope the above is useful,

-synchronicity
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How do you make money and still pay nothing in payroll taxes? I want in on this!

How about by day trading? Or by selling a mansion you've lived in for less than a year for a $2,000,000 gain? Or just about anything by which you aren't paid wages yet still don't owe self-employment income.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
. . . still don't owe self-employment income

Yeesh! Let me try that again: " . .. don't own self-employment (FICO) tax."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If 40% of the population isn't getting a check, it's because they didn't overpay their taxes.

How do you know this? Do you know the formula?

Are you sure it's not because the pols decided certain people weren't worthy of getting a rebate?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Well, Diana is apparently under the impression that low-wage workers live completely tax-free. Do you share that impression?

Diana is NOT under the impression that low-wage workers live completely tax-free, but she IS aware that this is an INCOME TAX rebate, not an excise-tax rebate or payroll tax rebate. If the rebate were for PAYROLL taxes, things would be different.

D
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
> Or by selling a mansion you've lived in for less than a year for a
> $2,000,000 gain?

You would owe capital gains taxes on $2M in this case. You must own the home for >= 2yrs in order to get the capital gains exemption.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Who's trying to brainwash who. Here is a quote from the peice you neglected to mention in your argument against letting us keep more of our money

The main reason is that after deductions, exemptions and credits, these people owed little or nothing in income taxes, even though most of them paid Social Security and Medicare taxes.

The calculations showing the large number of taxpayers who will not get a rebate were made by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal, nonprofit research institute that has the only computer model outside the government that can figure what the tax law signed last week by President Bush means for people at different income levels.


Leave it to the liberals to believe that the only one who should get tax cuts are those who earn the least and therefore pay the least taxes and consume more government resources, (Medicare, welfare and other entitlements)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Diana is NOT under the impression that low-wage workers live completely tax-free

Glad to hear it. So when you said: "this rebate is designed to put money back in the hands of TAXPAYERS, not people who didn't pay taxes," what you meant to say is "this rebate is designed to put money back in the hands of people who paid income taxes last year, not people who did not pay federal income tax, no matter how much of their income went to other taxes." Right?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Or by selling a mansion you've lived in for less than a year for a
$2,000,000 gain?


You would owe capital gains taxes on $2M in this case. You must own the home for >= 2yrs in order to get the capital gains exemption.

Exactly. And it would be taxed at the regular income rates (since it's short-term), but there wouldn't be any payroll taxes owed.

Perhaps the seller could get the $2M profit in cash and use his $300 tax rebate to but a nice suitcase to carry it around in. ;)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
This is not a government hand-out, but is, in effect, a readjusment of the amount of tax collected so far this year.

That would explain why SOME people *coughdaschlecough* are so upset about it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Liberals just can't make up their minds.

"Social Security is great!"

"Those low-wage earners aren't getting a tax rebate, and they pay FICA you know!"

Boo-hoo. Calling all liberals: why don't you work to reduce the SS tax rate to a sustaining level?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It actually is your fault for electing the bozos that spent more money than the revenue from taxes coming in.

But I couldn't vote until 1988. Can I file a class-action suit against the boomers?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Frecs and co: "Personally, I plan to use my rebate in a way I consider wise (or Foolish), and that is paying off debt and thus saving myself a few dollars of interest.

Yeah, me too. Won't that just blow a huge hole in their "save-the-economy-by-giving-people-money-to-spend" plan. Especially if a large number of people do likewise. "

Hi Frecs,

Actually, this is part of the debate I don't understand. The only way you really take money out of the economy is to literally put it under your mattress or use it to light your charcoal grill or something. If you deposit your money in a bank they lend it out, if you buy stock with it the person selling you the stock now has the money, if you buy a bond with it the entity issuing the bond uses the money for something. It's all a big circle.

In my eyes, giving people loans for houses or lending to a start-up business or giving your municipality money to build a road is a very productive use of capital. Just because it doesn't get spent at Best Buy for a new tv or on X number of drinks at the local pub doesn't make it any less stimulating to the economy.

In fact, just as many economists are worried about the low savings rate of the US populous as are worried about how many low-priced consumer goods were sold this month. Concentration of capital is needed to stimulate economic progress, and whether you create that by having lots of people buy chewing gum at the store and have Wrigley allocate the money or whether you give large chunks over to a bank, a market maker or a government entity it still finds it's way back through the economy to (hopefully) end up in places like our paychecks.

I guess I just don't understand how people saving this money could be bad for the economy. Though, with how much the press at large encourages us to spend our money frivolously instead of saving and investing it wisely it doesn't really surprise me.

Cheers,

Chris

ps Anyhow, I don't think you have to worry about even 10% of the American public saving their checks...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The simple solution would have been to put in the 10% bracket on the first 6K (for single, non-HoH) or 12K (for married) taxable income, have companies adjust wage withholding (starting 7/1 or whenever) to reflect this, and simply have many of us get a refund when we filed our 2001 taxes. Unfortunately, for political reasons the decision was made to issue these "rebate checks". "


That's a simple solution from an economic side, and academics probably back that scenario en masse. But from a practical side, changing withholding would benefit no one but accountants.

Changing withholding would add unneeded expense and complexity for businesses, because they'd have to go back in the middle of the year and restructure their payroll. For companies that do it in-house, it would probably require some overtime. For those that outsource their payroll, a withholding change would be a windfall for accountants and companies like Paychex and ADP, who would be called on to change withholding amounts for everyone and probably rejigger the payroll software for larger employers.


As a software developer who used to write payroll software, I would have to agree with this statement. Most of the software I have worked with allows the user to easily change the tax rates but may have a fixed number of tax brackets which would require a change in the software.

Even Microsoft Money has this problem. The tax estimator cannot correctly estimate 2001 taxes because it does not have a slot for the new 10% tax bracket.

I do agree that most of us could have waited until tax time to receive our refund. The expense of sending out millions of checks could have been used to give us a slightly larger refund instead. And what is with this snail-paced implementation of the other tax changes? In two years a new congress could totally undo the whole package. In ten years congress could, by doing nothing, implement the largest tax increase in history as the whole thing rolls back.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
"Thank you for your kind words. <g> Your post above is absolutely correct. I'm glad that you got the gist of it, while others unfortunately (and predictably) overreacted. Aah, just another day in the life of the LBYM board! :-)

Cherry "

Oh come now. Your original post was meant to inflame, otherwise you would not have put in the cheap shot at the GOP.

I feel no sympathy for someone makes an incendiary comment, then complains about people "overreacting".

jb

.... and no, I'm not a Republican (or a Democrat). Just a mild mannered Libertarian ( www.lp.org ) who thinks all this tax nonsense could be avoided with a Libertarian government.....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It actually is your fault for electing the bozos that spent more money than the revenue from taxes coming in.

I couldn't vote until 1988. Can I file a class-action suit against the boomers?


Won't do any good ... aren't many of the boomers (present company largely excluded) in debt to the point they couldn't pay up anyway?

Get the pols on this board. Face reality, spend less than you make, pay down the debt. I'm trying to figure out how we have a huge surplus but the national debt clock keeps going up myself. . .
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
How do you make money and still pay nothing in payroll taxes? I want in on this!

******

Investment income is one obvious one. Most educational stipends are also not subject to FICA (I am currently on one of these).

--Mike


Also:

Own rental property.

Write novels, etc. and collect royalties.

Become a self-employed subsistence farmer.

Day Trade. (Ideal, but too complicated to go into right now. Of course, you also need to MAKE money)

Win the lottery.

Marry rich.

Inherit money.

Move to Montana and live in a 10' x 10' shack.

Enter lots of contests for jingles, and recipes.

However, do NOT become an exotic dancer. The IRS recently lost a case trying classify them as employees instead of as independent contractors. If you want to shake your thang for money you'll have to do it on a 1099-MISC, not a W-2...and pay SE tax at 15.3%, less a small credit.

IJL

PS: When do I get my 114 recs?



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<Diana is NOT under the impression that low-wage workers live completely tax-free, but she IS aware that this is an INCOME TAX rebate, not an excise-tax rebate or payroll tax rebate. If the rebate were for PAYROLL taxes, things would be different.

D >>

Screw payroll taxes. My patience has been taxed for years and I want a damned rebate!

And don't get me started about the thumb tax.

grumblegrumblegrumblegrumble.

Wada
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Glad to hear it. So when you said: "this rebate is designed to put money back in the hands of TAXPAYERS, not people who didn't pay taxes," what you meant to say is "this rebate is designed to put money back in the hands of people who paid income taxes last year, not people who did not pay federal income tax, no matter how much of their income went to other taxes." Right?

My apologies for the mistake. I'm so glad that Squawk1200n is here to point out my inconsistencies.

d
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Well hot damn!! I'll bet I'M one of the 99.99999999% that didn't get Sony's last rebate on DVD players either! Why? Because I didn't buy one!

I don't care what percentage of the population is "left out." If they didn't pay INCOME TAXES, then it's insane to think they should qualify for an income tax rebate.

And sure, low-paid workers contribute to society. But they also get benefits "denied" to those who earn more. THEY are the people that directly benefit from all of the programs the rest of us pay for. (whether we want to or not)

And when someone talks about government 'BRAINWASHING,' they're editorializing. And unjustifiably.

Yep. Plenty of people are uninformed. But not for the government's and the media's lack of trying.

This is not a gift. It's a rebate.

Where is that post about the dudes going to lunch and one of them pays 59 percent of the bill, and some of them don't pay at all?? Maybe that's a simple enough metaphor for these people to understand....

Grrr grrrr grrrrr.....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm trying to figure out how we have a huge surplus but the national debt clock keeps going up

Isn't that a hoot? It turns out that the so called surplus was a reduction in the rate of increase of the debt!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
But I couldn't vote until 1988. Can I file a class-action suit against the boomers?

Taxation without representation? Hmmm.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But I couldn't vote until 1988. Can I file a class-action suit against the boomers?

I think that is the real meaning of those bumper stickers that say, "We're spending our children's inheritance!"

Although it might be more explanatory to say, "We're wasting our children's means of supporting themselves!"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"With all due respect, Cherry, why should people who didn't pay the taxes get the rebate this summer? I am SO sick of people kicking and screaming "but not everyone is going to get a rebate because they didn't make 6K/12K in taxable income!" It's not rocket science--this rebate is designed to put money back in the hands of TAXPAYERS, not people who didn't pay taxes." Diana Kalt.
************

Greetings all, very lively board.

After reading a few posts, I come to one conclusion.

The Force is with Dianakalt.

USE THE FORCE!!! JEDIKNIGHT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
With all due respect, Cherry, why should people who didn't pay the taxes get the rebate this summer? I am SO sick of people kicking and screaming "but not everyone is going to get a rebate because they didn't make 6K/12K in taxable income!" It's not rocket science--this rebate is designed to put money back in the hands of TAXPAYERS, not people who didn't pay taxes.

D
====

Are you Obviousman?


Dreamer
ps...nice post.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
At the risk of getting flamed a bit here, I'd like to put in my 2¢...

I would personally really like to see our government take a real stand for the future, rather that just doing the "politically correct" thing.

I would rather that money be used to pay down the national debt. and/or put into the Social Security system. By buying back US Govt. bonds, our nation would strengthen the dollar, provide for a better future, and re-secure our situation with the trade deficit. If our government were to reinvest the money in Social Security, I would sleep better at night knowing that my ward would have a brighter future.

Quite frankly, giving back $300 or $600 to those who put the money in is fine (and yes, that money will be spent, pumping up the economy a bit), but I'd rather the government was more fiscally sound, in the areas of Social Security, the national debt, and our trade imbalance.

Jon
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I would rather that money be used to pay down the national debt. and/or put into the Social Security system. By buying back US Govt. bonds, our nation would strengthen the dollar, provide for a better future, and re-secure our situation with the trade deficit. If our government were to reinvest the money in Social Security, I would sleep better at night knowing that my ward would have a brighter future.

So you're saying that we should pay down our debt and invest in ourselves before spending money on discretionary items?

Those are pretty radical concepts, I don't know if America is ready for such advanced thinking. Maybe we should just vote ourselves bread and circuses right now and worry about the debt another time. There will always be plenty of time to pay down our debts later.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
> I would rather that money be used to pay down the national debt.
> and/or put into the Social Security system. By buying back US Govt.
> bonds, our nation would strengthen the dollar, provide for a better
> future, and re-secure our situation with the trade deficit. If our
> government were to reinvest the money in Social Security, I would
> sleep better at night knowing that my ward would have a brighter
> future.

First of all, there is a projected 5.6 Trillion dollar surplus, of which, 1.35 Trillion is being returned to tax payers (over 11yrs, if I recall correctly). Parts of the national debt (including the bonds that you talked about) have a PENALTY for early repayment and it is therefore not useful to retire them early.

Could some of the debt be retired more quickly? Probably. The problem is with the assumption that the politicians would use the money to repay debt rather than buy votes through various increases in spending programs or additional spending programs. I don't trust them with MY money, so I would rather just have it returned to me.

Also, unless you are just talking about paying back the "trust fund" of social security, then taking money from income tax revenues and applying them to SS is just a back door way to increase SS taxes. SS is supposed to be a separate program that pays for itself.

I also don't understand how letting the govt. keep more of my money will help the trade imbalance (please look up the recent article on the Fool sight about this figure) or strengthen the dollar. Maybe you have read some articles detailing this, but I haven't seen anything of the sort. Also, if by strengthening the dollar you mean increase the amount of foreign currency we can buy with one dollar, this usually increases trade deficit (makes our goods more expensive overseas and oversea goods less expensive here).

This is not intended as a flame. I am just questioning your assumptions and conclusions.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<speaking of ways to not pay payroll taxes>
> Own rental property.
> Write novels, etc. and collect royalties.
> Day Trade. (Ideal, but too complicated to go into right now. Of
> course, you also need to MAKE money)
> Win the lottery.
> Enter lots of contests for jingles, and recipes.

While none of these occupations may pay FICA tax through a traditional paycheck, they will still have to pay it. As long as their is income, it is taxed, and if you actually believe that gambling profits (lottery) aren't taxable, then I have a bridge to sell you.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<I.Parts of the national debt (including the bonds that you talked about) have a PENALTY for early repayment and it is therefore not useful to retire them early.

Which bonds? What penalty? Please provide links, if you have them, or citations, if you don't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
While none of these occupations may pay FICA tax through a traditional paycheck, they will still have to pay it.

Um . . . no.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And don't get me started about the thumb tax.

Just watch out for the pinkie tax on NADA. It will cause you to start misspelling words.

IF

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Greetings all, very lively board.

After reading a few posts, I come to one conclusion.

The Force is with Dianakalt.

USE THE FORCE!!! JEDIKNIGHT >>

Warning. This guy works for the Department of Defense. He lives off our tax money and fantasizes that he is something on the order of Luke Waterwalker.

He is the best reason I can think of for eliminating all taxes and having a fund raising telethon every April.

Wada
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Are you Obviousman?

No, I'm not Obviousman. I'm Obviousman's trusty sidekick Captain Observant.

D

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How do you make money and still pay nothing in payroll taxes? I want in on this!

Investment income is one obvious one. Most educational stipends are also not subject to FICA (I am currently on one of these).

--Mike


Oh, someday! At the moment I still need to work in order to have money to invest.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Personally, I plan to use my rebate in a way I consider wise (or Foolish), and that is paying off debt and thus saving myself a few dollars of interest.



Yeah, me too. Won't that just blow a huge hole in their "save-the-economy-by-giving-people-money-to-spend" plan. Especially if a large number of people do likewise.


I don't think that matters. Any money saved is available for investment which is great for the economy. Debt retired also makes the money available for further investment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"How do you make money and still pay nothing in payroll taxes? I want in on this!"

You can renounce your SS#. Write to the government and say that you didn't know what it signified and you want to be taken of the Social Security rolls. That's perfectly legal, and you'd become exempt from payroll taxes because you wouldn't be entitled to any of the future benefits that they supposedly fund. Not many people know that you can do that, but IMO the 6.5% of your pay you'd save is not worth the potential trouble you can get in.

However, if you do renounce your SS#, it's an advertisement to the government that you are not a team player. That's an easy way to get onto those lists that little offices like the FBI and IRS keep of people to watch. Not many people do renounce their SS#, so the few that do attract a lot of attention from people I'd rather not rile. Plus, you wouldn't be eligible for SS disability and other such programs.

My advice is to keep paying the payroll taxes and pray that you'll be able to receive a few pennies on the dollar when you retire.


Benevolent
Who knows you were kidding but answered anyway


Wow! Thanks, Benevolent! That is interesting! I think you are probably right that this would attract too much attention, but it is interesting that it is a part of the system. How did you find out about this? Where do I look for information?

Since I am conservative with the IRS I have stayed out of their sights for many years now and I think I would like to stay that way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
How do you make money and still pay nothing in payroll taxes? I want in on this!

----

How about by day trading? Or by selling a mansion you've lived in for less than a year for a $2,000,000 gain? Or just about anything by which you aren't paid wages yet still don't owe self-employment income.


Day trading because loses arn't taxable? ;)

I'll work on that 2meg mansion idea.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm trying to figure out how we have a huge surplus but the national debt clock keeps going up myself. . .

Much of the debt is in the form of bonds that cannot be paid off early. Thus they have a contractual obligation to keep accruing interest until they mature.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Anytime, a citizen keeps more money, that person becomes just a little more self sufficient, even if it is $300 bucks worth.

Be it on taxes, or any issue, there is a political force in the world that want to keep people dependant on government.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=15123061&sort=recommendations

USE THE FORCE!!! JEDIKNIGHT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>
> Anytime,(sic) a citizen keeps more money, that person becomes just a little
> more self sufficient, even if it is $300 bucks worth.
>

And anytime a nation pays its debts, that nation becomes just a little more self sufficient, even if it is only $300 bucks worth.

This nation has a VISA card with a balance due of $1,000. We've been making payments of $100, instead of "only" the $75 that VISA wants. VISA has decided to send us back $25 and now we're all giddy because we think we're getting our own money back.

What will we tell our grandchildren? Sorry, sonny. That windbag on the AM radio said it was going to be a good idea to give the money to the rich, instead of paying the debt?

The Force is a crock.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
That windbag on the AM radio said it was going to be a good idea to give the money to the rich, instead of paying the debt?

The Force is a crock.


Windbag is an ad homin attack.

AM radio is a generalization.

Giving money to the rich is propaganda. Tax cuts don't give money, they reduce the rate at which money is confiscated from the people who earn it.

There is no evidence that the Federal government would use additional tax revenue to pay off debt. In fact the size of the federal budget has grown by about 5% after inflation for the past several years. After this year's tax cut, it will grow by only maybe 2% after inflation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I think you are probably right that this would attract too much attention, but it is interesting that it is a part of the system. How did you find out about this? Where do I look for information?"

I know a man who did it and another who considered it but changed his mind after considering the possible consequences. To tell you the truth, I don't know how to find out info. I would recommend starting with the Social Security Department.

It might actually be on their Web site, but I wouldn't count on it, as if they publicized this, the people most likely to opt out would probably be the ones the system needs most, those with high AGI who contribute a large amount in payroll taxes.

Benevolent
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
'What's wrong with just saying, "I paid more in income taxes last year than most people, so I support an income tax cut because it benefits me more than another kind of tax cut would, and I want more money."?
*******************************************************************

Nothing at all. As a matter of fact, I'm looking forward very much to my $300 check, because I got laid off Monday night. It'll come in handy the third week of July, right around the time my severance money runs out! LOL Plus, if I stay unemployed for a long while (NOT the plan, believe me!) but if I do, I'll have already paid the better protion of this year's taxes in the first 5 months. If I end up being undeserving of that tax cut/rebate check I don't have to pay it back when my taxes come due on April 15th! (read the article again, it states that if anyone doesn't get a rebate check, but they end up earning enough this year so they should have gotten one, they can get it when they file their 2001 taxes next year. If someone gets their rebate but ends up earnign less money this year, they won't have to pay back the rebate check they got....that could be ME.)

:^>
<evil grin>
Mak

SHOW ME THE MONEY!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"In ten years congress could, by doing nothing, implement the largest tax increase in history as the whole thing rolls back. "

EXCELLENT POINT! I just hope we're still around debating this type of thing, so we can remind each other to talk to our friends/family/coworkers/congresspeople and mobilize so that Congress doesn't just let it revert!
Mak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm not an economist, but I do spend money, so I'm going to weigh in on the national debt and trade deficit issue.

First of all, as I understand it, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with government debt. Don't forget that Treasury securities serve as the "risk-free asset" that is the basis of many investment-valuation models, not to mention a key component to constructing a huge variety of portfolios with different risk and reward characteristics. There is a demand for Treasury securities, and if the government started to buy them back en masse, it would reduce the supply, driving up prices.

Second, interest rates are very low now. If the government started buying back Treasury bonds, it would have to pay some pretty steep prices (using our tax dollars, of course). 30-year bonds issued years ago when the prime rate was much higher are trading far above par value. I don't want the government buying those bonds back now. The best time for that is during a period of high interest rates, when bond prices are lower. Can you see politicians backing that strategy in that kind of economic climate? And suppose prices are low, and the feds do indeed start buying bonds back? I can only imagine how expensive T-bonds would get if the only source for them started buying them back in huge numbers all at once. (It almost makes me want to go out and buy a bond just for the resale value.) A lot of people think that the government can just issue a $1 million bond for 30 years, then pay $1 million and buy it back after 5 years. That's not the case. Only a small number of older government bonds are callable (meaning that they can be repurchased at par value under certain circumstances), so the feds will have to buy the vast majority back at market rates. None of the bonds issued in the last few years (I forget the exact figure, though I'm pretty sure it's more than 10 years) are callable.

Third, there is also nothing intrinsically wrong with a trade deficit. The dollar is strong in part because we do a much better job of controlling our currency than do many other nations. That's unlikely to change. And so what if we import more products than we export? It's a sign that 1) we are affluent enough to keep on buying, and 2) plenty of Americans are buying American-made goods. I don't really think it matters whether American manufacturers are selling domestically or locally, as long as they're selling. There's nothing wrong with a trade surplus either, in theory. But look at Japan. That country has had a trade surplus for years, and I wouldn't trade our economy for theirs. Just as a trade deficit does not cause recessions, neither does a trade surplus prevent them.

Bottom line: It's easy to say "pay down the debt" or "reduce the trade deficit," but both the debt and the deficit serve an economic purpose, and making such change is not a simple matter of changing entries in a spreadsheet. Revamping our fiscal and monetary policy to such a degree is not a simple proposition, nor is it, necessarily, a wise one.


Benevolent
Who really wants a light saber: An elegent weapon from a more civilized age.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Benevolent
Who really wants a light saber: An elegent weapon from a more civilized age.


Me, too. Since I was 12. Nothing like an elegent, civilized way to reduce someone to rubble, no sir!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah, me too. Won't that just blow a huge hole in their "save-the-economy-by-giving-people-money-to-spend" plan. Especially if a large number of people do likewise.

This still puts the money back into the economy just as surely as spending it at Walmart. You think that money paid on debt just goes into a hole in the ground? It's immediately available to the economby as a whole. The result is the same.

glh
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
There is no evidence that the Federal government would use additional tax revenue to pay off debt.

How right you are! Anybody who thinks they would NOT use it for more spending is either naive or purposely shading the truth to hide the fed's real intentions.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
well for all you conservatives just think about what kind of stimulation the economy will have if everyone got a tax rebate. not just
us who will probably not even put it back in the economy
Print the post Back To Top