So what are YOU going to do with your $76?

[Pig Pen]

The Sunday morning talking heads were analyzing Bush's proposed economic stimulus package due to be released this week.

They say the tax cut for people making $50,000 per year will average about $76 per year.

For people making $1 million annually, the tax cut will be $24,000.

Since this is supposed to be a "stimulus" package, what will you do with your extra tax savings that will stimulate the economy?

Hmmmm, my $76 will just about cover the increase in my health care premium...for 3 months.

 

[Serena]

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Mom2Em]

You aren't kidding... I wish you were but you aren't...

 

[nativetxn]

Well, that's good for at least one night at one of the All Stars...hmmmm I think that's what I will do with my $76

 

[TheLionKing]

Doesn't everybody love 3 second sound bytes?

 

[AirForceRocks]

I haven't heard these numbers prior to this thread, so I won't comment on them specifically.

But it is fairly obvious, to me at least, that tax cuts should go to the people that pay the most taxes.

 

[caitycaity]

They say the tax cut for people making $50,000 per year will average about $76 per year. For people making $1 million annually, the tax cut will be $24,000.

that's not very proportional, is it.

 

[AirForceRocks]

I'd be curious to see where these numbers came from - the only cut I've heard about in the new package is a cut in the dividend tax rate. If that is the case, then it makes sense, seeing that someone with a $1,000,000 income is more likely to own stock than someone that is making $50,000 per year.

Do you have a link Pig Pen that shows where these numbers are being discussed?

 

[TheLionKing]

Porportional in terms of gross amount or porportional in terms of percentage of what they pay?

 

[HorizonsFan]

I keep hearing about "tax cuts for the rich" but I never hear anyone define "rich".
If everyone gets a (hypothetical) 10% tax cut, obviously the folks who pay more will save more. How is that disproportional?
Whomever attempts to answer this, please try to do so without making subjective judgements on how much money someone "needs" or "should" make... (I think this is still a capitalist society)

 

[Pin Wizard]

I think the ones with more bucks should give up more than we do. At least the SAME PERCENTAGE! (Or is that the same percentage?) My health insurance went up about $50 per month this year. (Insert flaming smilie here.)

 

[Beanie]

LOL Kath! I say that is an excellent way to spend it!!

 

[disneefamily]

Disnee Dad Says..................................... This thing about the rich not paying taxes is really getting old. And the people who state this never have numbers to back it up.
Here are some numbers for California for 2001.
People who made over $100,000 a year as a group made $362 billion dollars.
People who made under $100,00 a year as a group made $391 billion dollars.
If our tax system was fair, each group would pay about the same amount.

As a group, those over $100,000 paid $23.4 billion in income tax.
As a group, those under $100,000 paid $ 7.9 billion in income tax.

Don't ask the rich to pay the same % as me, that would make my taxes go way up, and their's go way down. I know these are California numbers, but you get the point.

BTW. I will be happy with my $76 and probably donate it to a good cause. If I give to Salvation Army, about $65 will get to help people. If I give to government, people will be lucky to get $20

 

[Jeff in BigD]

Originally posted by Pin Wizard
I think the ones with more bucks should give up more than we do.

Uhm, they do. Sometimes twice the percentage of the middle class.

At least the SAME PERCENTAGE! (Or is that the same percentage?)

I think the upper income brackets would love to pay the same percentage as people making 50k or less (any more is what the DNC considers "rich"), but that's what we call a flat tax & some of the liberals were up in arms about that, claiming that the rich should pay a lot higher of a percentage.


Out of couriousity is this really a debate board topic in disguise?

 

[papagooch]

As a rebate it works out .00152 for $50,000
and .024 for $1,000,000 so it"s not proportional at all.

 

[shortbun]

As someone who makes around $100,000 gross annually and
is self-employed, therefore pays over 40% of his
income to cummulative governments, my husband thinks
tax reform - not refunds - is way overdue. As the person
who pays the bills....I heartily agree. We will never see our
$76.00.

 

[pw2pp]

Hmmm.....
I haven't decided yet what I will do with my $24,000

 

[Towncrier]

From what I've heard, the point of the tax cut is NOT to stimulate consumer spending. Consumer spending is doing just fine. The tax breaks are supposed to stimulate business spending and jump start the stock market. Companies would be taxed less on the dividends that they pay stockholders. The $76 tax cut is just an added bonus for the average Joe taxpayer. And if anyone wants to send me their $76, I'll send you my address. I never complain about income.

 

[ripleysmom]

I think the point being missed here is that $24,000 in a few pockets is not going to do very much. Neither will that $76 in many pockets.

Until I see a plan that promotes economic stimulus in the form of TRUE stimulus dollars going out to EVERYONE, I will continue to believe that GWB cares about nothing but making sure that the taxes they pay are returned to the wallets of himself and his friends.

Percentages are great and certainly fair. Can't argue with them. However, if GWB is truly looking to stimulate the economy, big bucks spread out to the true consumers of the economy will work much better than bigger bucks to the few.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Gee this sounds like a great way to stimulate the business economy. If it fails then there is a chance he will lose the election.