wow an extra

[frisco]

Well, if these were the same people that got the lump sum last time, we know that didn't work. Yes, on a personal level it probably did-people paid down debt or put $$ in savings, but that's not the goal. The goal is to get that $$ back into the economy. It needs to be spent on things that are going to keep other people working, like going out to eat or shopping.

Here's the problem:

Anyone who doesn't think the extra $13 per paycheck is a lot is probably already pumping money into the economy, because tbey have it.
Anyone who thinks the extra $13 is a lot, that $13 won't go into the economy. It'll go into helping pay their bills.

 

[BCDisneyFanatic]

I think the point people are trying to make is they could do much more with a lump sum, as opposed to breaking it up into little tiny amounts.

Well then, maybe we could look at it as an opportunity to help people learn to save up for what they really want .

Or, are you suggesting that it is better for the nanny state to save the money up for people and then send it back every six months as a lump sum? Me, I'd rather have control over my own money and how I choose to save it (gosh, that makes me sound like such a republican )

 

[mirmartinez]

I don't know about the economy but I wouldn't turn my nose up at over $600 extra a year...

Wow. Does anyone else see the irony in some of these responses?

One of the main reasons that the economy is in such bad shape is because people have been irresponsible with the money (overextending their credit, spending more money than they had, etc.). If you find an extra $50 or so a month added to your paycheque is something to be sneered at, either you don't need the stimulus in the first place, or you don't really have a good understanding (or control) of your personal finances.

true

 

[AlexTina]

The payroll tax cut was added to the stimulus bill by the Republicans.

Yes and they also added many other tax cuts that may have actually helped people, like an increases child tax credit and an increase and change to the rules for the first time homebuyer credit which would have been $15,000, would have applied to all homebuyers and would have been available at closing to help with down payments, but those were all nixed by the democrats . They also introduced a stimulus bill that would have included tax cuts and spending at about half the cost the of current stimulus but that was nixed as well.

 

[disney1990]

I think the point people are trying to make is they could do much more with a lump sum, as opposed to breaking it up into little tiny amounts.

Yes, that may be what some people are saying, but too many people put the lump sum in the bank and didn't spent it. That is why it is being done differently this time.

Personally, I am thankful for the $13. It will make a difference to us this time around.

 

[IDoDis]

Yes and they also added many other tax cuts that may have actually helped people, like an increases child tax credit and an increase and change to the rules for the first time homebuyer credit which would have been $15,000, would have applied to all homebuyers and would have been available at closing to help with down payments, but those were all nixed by the democrats . They also introduced a stimulus bill that would have included tax cuts and spending at about half the cost the of current stimulus but that was nixed as well.

I thought the housing issue was going to be looked at separately. The tax cuts the Republicans wanted were corporate. Wouldn't have put any more money in your pocket.

Anyone that doesn't want their extra $26 a month can send it my way

If there's no tax cuts the Republicans whine. If there are tax cuts, they whine, too.

 

[AlexTina]

I thought the housing issue was going to be looked at separately. The tax cuts the Republicans wanted were corporate. Wouldn't have put any more money in your pocket.

Anyone that doesn't want their extra $26 a month can send it my way

If there's no tax cuts the Republicans whine. If there are tax cuts, they whine, too.

 

[Chicago526]

Why do I get the feeling that the same people who are thumbing their noses at the $13 reduction would be screaming their heads off if their taxes were going UP by the same amount?

Only, they wouldn't be saying "my taxes are going up $13 a paycheck" they'd be screaming "OBAMA AND THE DEMS RAISED MY TAXES BY $800 A YEAR!!!".

 

[mirmartinez]

Why do I get the feeling that the same people who are thumbing their noses at the $13 reduction would be screaming their heads off if their taxes were going UP by the same amount?

Only, they wouldn't be saying "my taxes are going up $13 a paycheck" they'd be screaming "OBAMA AND THE DEMS RAISED MY TAXES BY $800 A YEAR!!!".

 

[DancingBear]

It's actually only $26 dollars a month/$13 per pay check.

It's $400/year ($33/month) for singles, $800/year ($66/month) for a couple. For comparison, the median family got a little less than $22/week from the 2003 Bush tax cuts.

 

[Mr.MouseFan]

For all of you that think $13 a week is a joke...please feel free to send me that $52 a month. I promise to put it to good use .

 

[Lauree]

For me, I guess the disappointment comes from listening to Pres. Obama's campaing speeches. He made a point of saying he wanted tax cuts for the middle class. He wanted people to have more money in their pockets to pay their mortgages, send their kids to college, etc. So, in my mind that meant a more noticable tax cut and more money in my bank account each month. Any amount will help. This just isn't what I thought it was going to be. Maybe others had higher hopes like I did.

 

[DancingBear]

For me, I guess the disappointment comes from listening to Pres. Obama's campaing speeches. He made a point of saying he wanted tax cuts for the middle class. He wanted people to have more money in their pockets to pay their mortgages, send their kids to college, etc. So, in my mind that meant a more noticable tax cut and more money in my bank account each month. Any amount will help. This just isn't what I thought it was going to be. Maybe others had higher hopes like I did.

Maybe you need to show a little patience and see what else is coming.

 

[Mr.MouseFan]

Maybe you need to show a little patience and see what else is coming.

Seriously. It's been four weeks! Can we give the man some time to actually unpack his stuff first!?

 

[DVCLiz]

For me, I guess the disappointment comes from listening to Pres. Obama's campaing speeches. He made a point of saying he wanted tax cuts for the middle class. He wanted people to have more money in their pockets to pay their mortgages, send their kids to college, etc. So, in my mind that meant a more noticable tax cut and more money in my bank account each month. Any amount will help. This just isn't what I thought it was going to be. Maybe others had higher hopes like I did.

Lauree, what amount did you expect? I ask that because in the campaign he said his tax cut plan was $500 for singles and $1000 for married couples. And I think he got pretty close - the difference was what was negotiated in Congress in order to be able to pass the bill at all.

Were you expecting more than the $500/$1000 amount?

 

[brerrabbit]

I posted on the other thread about the tax cuts that I don't look at the weekly or monthly number because it means nothing to other then when I do my taxes at the end of the year.

The more important issue here is that people complain it is not enough. If so how much is enough? I mean think about it, if we assume the 150 million tax payers in the US ( and this is a pure guess on my part) recieve a $400 a year tax break that translates to $60 billion. That's a big number by anyones standard. I for one am grateful for any tax cut but at the same time temper that by virtue of the fact that if you include all the spending and bailouts we are merely mortgaging our futires and out kids future.

Another way to look at it is that if you take the $750 billion bailout under Bush and the approximate $850 billion stimulus package under Obama and add them together and divide by the same 150 million taxpayers, that is only $10,667 each. While no one I know would not like to receive that amount at what cost would it come at? The money would merely be collected in the future with interest back from us and our children.

Remember the US Government creates no wealth at all! Every dollar they spend, earmark, direct, or flat give away comes out of our (the taxpayers) pocket.

 

[Lauree]

I hadn't thought in terms of a specific $ amount such as $500 or $1,000. Just a change in the bottom line of a paycheck. I agree that the lump sum idea has backfired. More money in my check each month will stimulate me to spend. More money means I will feel o.k. to eat out, buy a DVD, purchase new clothes (w/o waiting for major discounts), etc. Also, a bigger paycheck means I can more quickly pay off that credit card. I don't have a huge amount of credit card debt (now I refrain from using them). I worry a lot (probably more than I should) and get so disappointed with our leaders in Washington.

 

[DVCLiz]

I hadn't thought in terms of a specific $ amount such as $500 or $1,000. Just a change in the bottom line of a paycheck. I agree that the lump sum idea has backfired. More money in my check each month will stimulate me to spend. More money means I will feel o.k. to eat out, buy a DVD, purchase new clothes (w/o waiting for major discounts), etc. Also, a bigger paycheck means I can more quickly pay off that credit card. I don't have a huge amount of credit card debt (now I refrain from using them). I worry a lot (probably more than I should) and get so disappointed with our leaders in Washington.

Yes, everybody is worried. I have to believe that it will all work out, though - I'd rather be supportive of the ideas that someone actually has than to just wring my hands and fret. If they don't cure everything I hope they will at least inspire some confidence and get things moving in the right direction.

 

[mtdevine615]

What most are forgetting about is the componding factor. It's not just $13 a week. It's $13 a week times most working people. That's a lot of money being put back into the econmy.

 

[frisco]

What most are forgetting about is the componding factor. It's not just $13 a week. It's $13 a week times most working people. That's a lot of money being put back into the econmy.

But again, I still thing you have 2 types of people:

1.The person that is already putting money into the economy, and that extra $13 won't do anything.
2.The person who can't afford to put anything into the economy. Will that $13 allow them to start?

I'll never complain about a tax break. But I think calling this a "stimulus" and expecting that this is really going to help is just silly.