Nonpolitically, what do you think of the Bush tax cut plan?
My selfish side tells me that getting rid of the marriage penalty and lowering my tax bracket and giving me back some of my tax dollars is good. My other side tells me that we should pay as much as we can to the national debt and to education.
I'm not asking for a political fight, just curious to see what the general S2K owner population feels about this? Would you be happy with an extra few thousand dollars or would you rather see it go to pay down the debt?
I'm not asking for a political fight, just curious to see what the general S2K owner population feels about this? Would you be happy with an extra few thousand dollars or would you rather see it go to pay down the debt?
I was more impressed with the budget plan than I expected to be but I'm unimpressed with the tax cut. It's the usual snow job that comes with XXXXXXXXXXX(nonpolitical) administrations. BTW, It won't stimulate the economy because the people who'll get most of it don't need to spend it. They'll just sock it away with the rest of their excess revenue.
BTW, I wouldn't expect to see an "extra few thousand dollars". Given your public struggle between having an expensive car and having a house, I don't think you are at that level. I'm doing fine but I'm not either.
Theoretically, paying down the debt is good for the government but not good for us. Interest rates drop when money to borrow is in more abundance. All that said, I'm for paying down the debt.
The only real tax plan that makes any sense is an annual rebate (shareholder dividend) based on excess revenue from the prior year. Now that's a tax plan!
BTW, I wouldn't expect to see an "extra few thousand dollars". Given your public struggle between having an expensive car and having a house, I don't think you are at that level. I'm doing fine but I'm not either.
Theoretically, paying down the debt is good for the government but not good for us. Interest rates drop when money to borrow is in more abundance. All that said, I'm for paying down the debt.
The only real tax plan that makes any sense is an annual rebate (shareholder dividend) based on excess revenue from the prior year. Now that's a tax plan!
Okay...I am *very* political and have followed Bush's campaign from day one. He also used to be my governor. So...
My biggest problem with the tax cut is that some ppl don't understand what it really means. Bottom line (and in very simplistic terms, I know), it means you get to keep more of your money. If you save it, fine. Banks then have more money to lend so more capital is returned to the economy. If you spend it, same thing. If Gov't gets it, it's gone! They *WILL* spend it!
(BTW: did you know that in some departments, 25-45 cents is lost due to ineffiency?)
If you really want to spend the money on entitlements or other programs, by all means, donate it to a local shelter or church. It kills me when ppl say they want the Fed Gov't to spend the money to help the homeless. Over the last 30 years, the FG has spent 5 trillion dollars on the "War on Poverty" and the poverty rate has only fallen ~.5% (In 1968, the poverty rate was ~10.1%; in 1999, the poverty rate was ~9.6%)
Lastly, Senator Daschle says that the average working class family only gets a muffler. Well, damnit, I *NEED* a muffler!!
Anyway, just my thoughts (gave up giving $.02 along time ago...too expensive when you have an opinion about everything
)
Mark
My biggest problem with the tax cut is that some ppl don't understand what it really means. Bottom line (and in very simplistic terms, I know), it means you get to keep more of your money. If you save it, fine. Banks then have more money to lend so more capital is returned to the economy. If you spend it, same thing. If Gov't gets it, it's gone! They *WILL* spend it!
(BTW: did you know that in some departments, 25-45 cents is lost due to ineffiency?)If you really want to spend the money on entitlements or other programs, by all means, donate it to a local shelter or church. It kills me when ppl say they want the Fed Gov't to spend the money to help the homeless. Over the last 30 years, the FG has spent 5 trillion dollars on the "War on Poverty" and the poverty rate has only fallen ~.5% (In 1968, the poverty rate was ~10.1%; in 1999, the poverty rate was ~9.6%)

Lastly, Senator Daschle says that the average working class family only gets a muffler. Well, damnit, I *NEED* a muffler!!

Anyway, just my thoughts (gave up giving $.02 along time ago...too expensive when you have an opinion about everything
)Mark
1. Thats more like it Mingster
2. Where does that innefficiency figure come from (some industry shill "think tank" like Heritage perhaps?)
3. Where does that homelessness figure come from (ibid?)
4. Even if your homeless figure is true, it pales in comparison to spending on the stupid "War on Drugs" (read law enforcement slush fund)
2. Where does that innefficiency figure come from (some industry shill "think tank" like Heritage perhaps?)
3. Where does that homelessness figure come from (ibid?)
4. Even if your homeless figure is true, it pales in comparison to spending on the stupid "War on Drugs" (read law enforcement slush fund)
I am all for helping education and cutting our debt. However, look at what the state of GA has done with the lottery - all to education. TN doesn't even have a lotto and if every state followed GA's lead, well, we would only have the debt to worry about (and of course other things like war on drugs, poverty, etc).
I am enthusiastic about Bush's plan - I hope it works out. Now, if we can just stop social security, give me back the $100k I have in there and let me reinvest it....
(of course, my .02 cents)
Larry
I am enthusiastic about Bush's plan - I hope it works out. Now, if we can just stop social security, give me back the $100k I have in there and let me reinvest it....
(of course, my .02 cents)
Larry
Trending Topics
How about repealing income tax altogether and instituting a national sales tax? You only pay taxes when you make a purchase. This would please the Dems. because the richest, and presumably, the greatest consumers , would pay the most (which they already do anyway). In this way, you would only be "penalized" for spending, and not for earning. Savings/investing would be incouraged, capital formation would be enhanced.
Originally posted by cdelena
I thought cthree said anything that involves politics is outlawed!? BTW, I would rather spend my money than let Congress do it.
I thought cthree said anything that involves politics is outlawed!? BTW, I would rather spend my money than let Congress do it.
Anything political is outlawed. This was very good discussion, but not allowed in here.
I may get over ruled on this, but I am locking it now.



