Summer Money :D

[PrincessFiona]

OK..so I'm not a supporter of the tax cut at this particular time (big surprise

BUT...

I just heard on CNN that in August, families with children will receive a check for $400/child for a maximum of $1000! Last time we got one, we had to pay taxes on it at the end of the year but hey....$1000!!!! I'm already planning our vacation


kris

[SueC]

Really? I could go for an extra $800! I thought the $600 check we got last time was kind of a stupid idea but I sure enjoyed spending it!

I heard that too. You get $400 per child that you claimed on your 2002 return (as long as they were under 17, I think). I didn't pay attention to a maximum b/c we only have one!
I think this is similar to the $600 -- it is an advance on the recently passed tax cuts. (So you won't really get to claim an extra $400 tax reduction on your 2003 return b/c you will have already received it).
I think. Not an accountant.

[fluffhead]

yeah, I like getting a check in the mail as much as the next guy,
BUT
how stupid is it for the govt to mail checks to everybody?
how much money in administration, accounting, paper, and postage is this costing?
why not just give it as a break on 2003 taxes?
I'll tell you why - so people can say what a wonderful guy the pres is for giving them this stupid check.
I'm ranting.
<lurk mode ON>

But just think about what a *rejuvinating* effect the $600 rebate had on the economy last time!!

I remember hearing how much the last PR stunt cost and it was a lot. I will happily cash the check when it comes but would really prefer to have it come out in the taxes. Since I work as a consultant I withhold my own taxes (pay quarterly taxes) which are based on my prior year's tax bill. So....this rebate kind of hoses things up for me.

[PrincessFiona]

yeah, I like getting a check in the mail as much as the next guy,
BUT
how stupid is it for the govt to mail checks to everybody?
how much money in administration, accounting, paper, and postage is this costing?
why not just give it as a break on 2003 taxes?
I'll tell you why - so people can say what a wonderful guy the pres is for giving them this stupid check.
I'm ranting.
<lurk mode ON>

hehehe..I'm right there with you.

I'm also amazed that he has passed a tax cut at a time where we have a huge deficit (again) and don't even know how much we'll be spending thanx to his multiple military incursions (egads, don't get me started). I can't say that I'll frown when the check arrives..but in the long term, I think the checks and tax cut were huge mistake that we'll be paying for dearly later.

I saw an interview on CNN about this...they were talking to diff. families about what they'd do with the money and every single one of them said "put towards bills"...I don't see this as stimulating the economy...but we'll sure be hurting soon...maybe it will backfire on him

Like you, I think I'll stick with <lurk mode> on this issue....



kris

[Rapunzel]

Well, I think this tax cut is ridiculously low, but then again I believe we should go back to the original intent of the Constitution and not allow the federal government to tax for socialist programs that are not supposed to be run by the federal gov't.

[Auspicious]

I have two stories about the tax rebate:

1) When they were sending around the last set of checks, I asked my friend the economist (she's an assistant prof of economics at Fordham U), "Is this tax cut as bad an idea as it looks to us laymen, or does it just work by principles too complex for non-economists to understand?"

She actually laughed out loud.

"Nooo, it's not the fact that you're a layman that makes it look like a terrible idea . . ."

I realize not all economists agree on everything, but this is one of the smartest people I know, and I believe her. According to her, the majority of the economics field was shaking their heads at this particular policy.

2) My officemate despises George Bush so much I doubt he'd accept a glass of water from the guy in the middle of the desert. So when he got his check he mentioned that and his wife promptly donated it to their favorite pro-choice charity.

I never told him what I did with mine, but I have to say that I, too, had been feelling pretty icky about getting a tax check in the mail . . . I live in a city where the public school system (for example) is in dire straits but I'm going to get $300 from the government? No. I realize public education is funded locally, but the point is that money is not flowing where it is needed.

So I was in the last group to actually get the check in the mail (I forget why) and then I sat on it a couple weeks while I mulled this all over, and in the meantime, September 11 happened. That sealed it--that puppy went straight off to the Red Cross. I felt . . . relieved of it.

My point is (wait, I think I had a point here . . . ) if you really don't like the game, consider not playing. Or changing the rules. You may feel better.

[Rapunzel]

I have two stories about the tax rebate:

2) My officemate despises George Bush so much I doubt he'd accept a glass of water from the guy in the middle of the desert. So when he got his check he mentioned that and his wife promptly donated it to their favorite pro-choice charity.

So, to "get back" at some guy he's never met and has "anger issues" with nonetheless he and his wife contributed financially to the abortion lobby? That just made me so sad.

I never told him what I did with mine, but I have to say that I, too, had been feelling pretty icky about getting a tax check in the mail . . . I live in a city where the public school system (for example) is in dire straits but I'm going to get $300 from the government? No. I realize public education is funded locally, but the point is that money is not flowing where it is needed.

So, it gave you a moral dilemma to have control over more of your hard-earned money? I, for one, feel that the federal beauracracy takes far too much out of it's citizens' pockets to misuse and abuse.

So I was in the last group to actually get the check in the mail (I forget why) and then I sat on it a couple weeks while I mulled this all over, and in the meantime, September 11 happened. That sealed it--that puppy went straight off to the Red Cross. I felt . . . relieved of it.

Good for you! You were able to use your money in the manner that you chose! Unfortunately the federal government so severly burdens US citizens financially that most of them contribute little if anything to charity. I can't remember the exact percentage the average US household contributes towards charities (someone feel free to look it up) but it is abysmally low - much lower than the 10% my husband and I regularly contribute. Anyway, that last part confused me - you were "relieved" to have chosen to give your income to charity? Or were you stating you were relieved to be rid of your own income? I don't know if that is what you intended to say or not.

My point is (wait, I think I had a point here . . . ) if you really don't like the game, consider not playing. Or changing the rules. You may feel better.

In theory I agree with you (which is why I subscribe to the radical idea of actually following the Constitution) however, if you are implying that individuals in the US should not be able to have more control over their own incomes then I strongly disagree.

[Auspicious]

So, to "get back" at some guy he's never met and has "anger issues" with nonetheless he and his wife contributed financially to the abortion lobby? That just made me so sad.

I see that I made him sound angry, but in reality everyone comments on how laid-back he is--it's kind of funny to picture an angry version of him; it doesn't fit. He's more the type to quietly do what he thinks is right. He does whole-heartedly disagree with the direction in which the president is taking the country, though.

So, it gave you a moral dilemma to have control over more of your hard-earned money? I, for one, feel that the federal beauracracy takes far too much out of it's citizens' pockets to misuse and abuse.

My gut was telling me that someone was trying to buy my vote, and I didn't like it. Also, that money was coming to me that had previously been earmarked for programs in real need. I think tax dollars serve a very real and worthwhile purpose, and I'm happy to give them if I feel they will be properly spent . . . which is why I need an administration I can believe in.

Good for you! You were able to use your money in the manner that you chose!

So was my coworker.

Unfortunately the federal government so severly burdens US citizens financially that most of them contribute little if anything to charity. I can't remember the exact percentage the average US household contributes towards charities (someone feel free to look it up) but it is abysmally low - much lower than the 10% my husband and I regularly contribute.

I strongly disagree that this is the reason more people don't donate more to charity. Strongly. If everyone would donate 10% the world would be a whole different place and we'd be having a whole other conversation. They don't. They won't. We're not.

Anyway, that last part confused me - you were "relieved" to have chosen to give your income to charity? Or were you stating you were relieved to be rid of your own income? I don't know if that is what you intended to say or not.

I was relieved that money I thought I had sent off to schools and roads and public-servant paychecks and defense was going back to a program in need, where I intended it to go in the first place.

however, if you are implying that individuals in the US should not be able to have more control over their own incomes then I strongly disagree.

I don't think it would work. You can't just let the public only give to the causes they like--some stuff is just too boring or low-profile to attract people's giving, even if it's vital.


(I should have kept quiet in the first place, shouldn't I? )

For those of you interested in more details on the tax cut and how it may/may not affect you, this is a helpful article:
http://yahoo.smartmoney.com/taxmatters/ ... fl=myyahoo

(Julie: Don't keep quiet! I enjoy your opinions )

[mommax3]

No one should keep quiet! I love these kinds of threads. (Probably because I spend most of my day involved in less than intelligent conversations......i.e. "Nathan, please don't rub your toast in your hair." and other similar statements that I never dreamed in a thousand years would come out of my mouth)

For the record.......

I believe that the BIG boys/girls (meaning those with substantial $$$$$$$) should be taxed more heavily and the shelters they use should be disallowed.

Human nature being what it is, I don't trust us as a society to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.......we are much more likely (at least where I live) to NOT take care of them when they are young and helpless and then put them to death a few years later when they take someone's life because no one ever taught them that life (their own and their fellow man's as well) is precious........okay, obviously I digress (and over-simplify a huge and complex issue! ), but I wholeheartedly support tax funding for social programs as long as the programs are helping people and not enabling them, unless they are helping people who truly can't help themselves.

I will be happy to get the check, but I think it is ridiculous to go to the bureaucratic expense of sending them out to everyone.

I would not be a politician for ANY amount of money.

I really am an independent! But I am strongly pro-life, which puts me in a quandary most of the time on election day.

Sally

[PrincessFiona]

politics

Sally, Julie...I agree with you guys 100%...though I would have sent my money to the pro-lifers if I had been your friend's wife.

I don't dare get into the political arena on this one. My last political debate with ThuVan got me in the hot seat... I would say I follow the politics of the independents, greens and...probably the socialists

I have a lot of problems with the way our govt spends the tax money that it gets..We are, for example #1 in military spending in the world. WE spend 6 times more money (our 203 budget is currently 396.1 BILLION) than Russian(the #2 spender) and we spend 26 times more money than the COMBINED budgets of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Yet, these countries appear to be our greatest nemesis right now, if we believe the media reports and "intelligence" info out of Washington. At the same time that we are hemmoraging money to our armed forces (and don't get me wrong a good military is important) we are ignoring issues like...38 million americans living in povery...40% of those in abject poverty unable to afford food, potable water, etc. WE have how many underinsured and uninsured hard-working americans in this country? That is a disgrace. I'm not talking about bottom-feeding, able-bodied people who don't work. I'm talking about people who work hard but aren't offered benefits....people who work for say..TARGET for example where the CEO is earning what...19.5 mil a year

Has the 396.1 billion been money well-spent? We still are at risk of terrorism..perhaps more so than before? We don't know where Hussein is or whether BinLaden is still alive...AlQuaeda continues to be a growing formidable force.....

We could spend say...only 3 times the budget of the Russina govt. and still be the world's leader in military spending...We wouldn't have to raise taxes and think of what we could do with the money for our own citizens.

I'm not for socialized medicine though. I think the govt. has done a horrible job with medicare and medicaid. I think that the govt. should mandate though that all employers be forced to offer healthcare coverage (hmo, etc) for their employees...and that this should be supplemented by billion dollar fines levied on corrupt companies like Enron......


rant, rant, rant........didnt' I say that I shouldn't get involved in a political discussion? I hope my ideas don't offend. I totally respect the rights of all of us as americans to debate the issues. I'm always afraid of alienating people that don't agree with me or expressing my views too...vehemently (which I've been told from time to time that I do )

So in advance, my apologies for feeling the way that I do I respect that there are people that feel the exact opposite. That is what makes this country great...that we have the freedom to openly talk about these things and disagree.


kris

[Rapunzel]

but I wholeheartedly support tax funding for social programs as long as the programs are helping people and not enabling them, unless they are helping people who truly can't help themselves.

Sally

So, you basically support socialism - a centralized government "taking care" of it's citizen's from cradle to grave? Unfortunately this extends federal government beyond it's original intent adding significant power over the citizenry. Social programs should be run by the individual states - it is in direct opposition to the Constitution's mandate that we have the federal government taxing citizens to fund "social" programs.

[Rapunzel]

Re: politics

Kris, your candor in admitting your support of a socialist form of government is refreshing but it leaves me wondering why you live in a democratic country then? Why not move to the Netherlands or another nation steeped in socialism? The bottom line is that socialism in the form of the federal government taxing citizens for social programs is un-Constitutional. And, in the United States since the Constitution is the cornerstone of our government social programs on the federal level are antithetical to US democracy.

You're quote: "I have a lot of problems with the way our govt spends the tax money that it gets..." says worlds. The fact is when the federal government taxes you, you no longer control where that money goes. You are, in essense, giving the federal government permission to do what it desires with those funds. You say in one breath that you support the federal government taking your money and doing what it desires with it (ie the socialism statement) and in the next you contradict that statement. There is the argument that you exert a degree of control over where your funds go once the IRS acquires them by voting for your representatives in federal government who, in turn, vote for where those funds will be distributed. However, it is common knowledge that currently the politician with the most financial backers is the one who generally wins. So, your money ultimately does not go where you want it to go necessarily - your money is subject to the whims of politicians wooed by special interest groups, professional lobbyists, and corporate interests. So, the answer is to not allow those groups a voice in politics (un-Constitutional to say the least - see the first ammendment) and thus wallow deeper into socialism OR do away with the mess by allowing US citizens control over their money outside of the federal government's Constitutionally-mandated taxable causes.

No apoligies needed. If you are a socialist then so be it. However, you might be disgruntled to find out that your views, although appropriate in the vast majority of the world where the state is considered the "mother" of the people, they are unConstitutional. After the failure of socialism worldwide it is so suprising to me that so many in the US see socialist policies as the solution to problems!