Tax Rebate deal reached

so wonder if it will be like:
1) couple number one makes 149,999 per year with 2 kids: they get $1200
2) Couple number 2 makes 150,001 per year with 2 kids: they get $0
 
Chapdog said:
so wonder if it will be like:
1) couple number one makes 149,999 per year with 2 kids: they get $1200
2) Couple number 2 makes 150,001 per year with 2 kids: they get $0
Click to expand...


You have to draw the line somewhere Chap. Again, the purpose of the check is economic stimulus. It's unlikely that either of the couples you mention will run right out spending the check anyway. Neither one of them should get it.
 
Onceler said:
I don't have a big issue with that.

Groups in the income levels below that are more likely to spend it when they get it, which is the purpose. While I agree that $150K isn't wealthy, it's a level that most people have a decent discretionary budget anyway...
Click to expand...

The purpose is stupid. Consumer spending is not the problem.
 
RStringfield said:
The purpose is stupid. Consumer spending is not the problem.
Click to expand...

Consumers are starting to tighten their belts, and that WILL affect the economy.

I agree somewhat that it's stupid, but I also think it's worth a shot. I don't think there is too much that the gov't can do to affect certain aspects of the economy, anyway, but the basic idea that a rebate check targetted at a group that doesn't have a lot of discretionary income & that is likely to spend what they get is something that is probably worth trying.

It also sends a message to investors, and will likely be a small boost to confidence.
 
If you want a bailout, which shouldn't happen, at least give it to the banks that hold bad Mortgage debt.
 
Dungheap said:
You have to draw the line somewhere Chap. Again, the purpose of the check is economic stimulus. It's unlikely that either of the couples you mention will run right out spending the check anyway. Neither one of them should get it.
Click to expand...

how do u figure. everyone i talked to in my office about this last week all make over the 150k and they were talking about using it for downpayment on car, vacations, new tv, etc.
 
Obfuscate said:
If you want a bailout, which shouldn't happen, at least give it to the banks that hold bad Mortgage debt.
Click to expand...


Why reward bad behavior? Privatize the profit, socialize the risk? No thanks.

And this isn't a bail out to taxpayers so I don't see the relevance.
 
I didn't say they should, just saying this "stimilus" is no such thing and is a political ploy, The economy is in bad shape due to Mortgage debt, giving people money just creates federal debt and makes the dollar weaker. You want to help reduce spending.
 
Obfuscate said:
I didn't say they should, just saying this "stimilus" is no such thing and is a political ploy, The economy is in bad shape due to Mortgage debt, giving people money just creates federal debt and makes the dollar weaker. You want to help reduce spending.
Click to expand...

i wouldnt call this giving people money. this is a rebate of what we gave the government.

And we should get a rebate based on faulty service rendered. 2007 we gave 2.6T(estimate) to the fed government.. for what?

thats far to much money.
 
Onceler said:
Consumers are starting to tighten their belts, and that WILL affect the economy.

I agree somewhat that it's stupid, but I also think it's worth a shot. I don't think there is too much that the gov't can do to affect certain aspects of the economy, anyway, but the basic idea that a rebate check targetted at a group that doesn't have a lot of discretionary income & that is likely to spend what they get is something that is probably worth trying.

It also sends a message to investors, and will likely be a small boost to confidence.
Click to expand...

It's voodoo bullshit. It will not increase net spending and that's not the problem anyway.
 
Chapdog said:
i wouldnt call this giving people money. this is a rebate of what we gave the government.

And we should get a rebate based on faulty service rendered. 2007 we gave 2.6T(estimate) to the fed government.. for what?

thats far to much money.
Click to expand...


Shorter Chap: Fuck stimulus. I want a check.
 
Obfuscate said:
Yeah, they need to cut spending I agree. But since they don't it's just creating more debt.
Click to expand...

so until they cut spending and start being responsible.. i don't think there product they are selling is worth the price i pay in taxes. so i am against it. I dont willingly pay for shitty service. Unfortunately the retail store i live in (us government) puts gun to my head and steals my money.
 
Chapdog said:
i was going to use it on a vacation house on the cape.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that this is true for the coasts. I’m not certain about other parts of the country, but I think that people on our areas are spending every cent they make and then some, regardless of income. I know people making 400k and they are spending every penny, no kidding. I mean, it’s sick. It’s all about having a bigger home, and more luxuries cars, and 1,200 dollar a night suites on vacations. So pretty much all of these guys are going to blow 1,200 bucks as soon as they get it, just on different things. They’re going to buy a bigger and newer tv for one thing. It’s money, it must be spent. There is always something bigger out there. You have to have it.

I think the cap is unnecessary if a bump in consumer spending is the goal…but DH is right too, they were going to draw the line somewhere. In order to be feasible, they had to.
 
Chapdog said:
i wouldnt call this giving people money. this is a rebate of what we gave the government.

And we should get a rebate based on faulty service rendered. 2007 we gave 2.6T(estimate) to the fed government.. for what?

thats far to much money.
Click to expand...

We deserve a rebate. We are not getting one. We are getting a shell game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top