You are off on a tangent methinks.. part 1tricstmrMarch 11 2009, 20:38:58 UTC
1. I'm happy for you personally that your tax refunds during the Bush years went through the roof.. but I'm surprised that you are happy about it. Somehow, I always assumed that increasing tax credits for kids--which are not offset by tax liabilities--would irritate a conservative like you. I mean, having the government give people money for having kids sounds suspiciously like the phenomenon of "welfare mothers" getting paid to have kids.
As for your tax liabilities going down..Looking here: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ it seems like your child tax credits doubled from about $2k to $4k and your income tax rates probably declined from around 15% to 10%.. Which.. on an income of 40k (I'm guessing) would be another 2k difference.. for a grand total of 6k of a refund.. or around there.. But your child credit was at least 2k before.. so at most, you are talking about a double of your refund.. and around 15% of your income.
In any case.. I'm not one who's actually all that into credits and such.. I think the tax code should be simplified into a simple linear progressive tax with a set minimum around 40-50k and no loopholes or credits whatsoever..
2. If you want decent chart of what the stimulus actually does.. here' one: .
Seems to me like the majority of money is basically going to the right places..
Most importantly, the money in this stimulus package is going towards measures that create jobs rather than just giving people money. Jobs from building infrastructure and green energy--and money to states to keep paying workers. There is some money just being given to people--the 16% going to people "most in need"=unemployment benefits extensions--and the first time homeowners stuff--which it is true that I'll get even if I never really desired it in the first place--but I plan on turning that money around and spending it on the house--by buying supplies from menards and upgrading things on the house--in other words--investing it.
Overall, this package seems geared towards very conservative ideals--building infrastructure investments, helping charity cases, and helping localities keep their own workers going... while also using targeted tax cuts (home thinger) that are likely to be more stimulative than removing the estate tax or decreasing income taxes...
3. I actually agree with you on tax cutting not being so great--and actually so do most progressives. It is the least effective way of creating jobs--and I would hope that you agree that having people work for gov't borrowed money and producing something in some way is better than just having the government borrow money to give away...
As for your tax liabilities going down..Looking here: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ it seems like your child tax credits doubled from about $2k to $4k and your income tax rates probably declined from around 15% to 10%.. Which.. on an income of 40k (I'm guessing) would be another 2k difference.. for a grand total of 6k of a refund.. or around there.. But your child credit was at least 2k before.. so at most, you are talking about a double of your refund.. and around 15% of your income.
In any case.. I'm not one who's actually all that into credits and such.. I think the tax code should be simplified into a simple linear progressive tax with a set minimum around 40-50k and no loopholes or credits whatsoever..
2. If you want decent chart of what the stimulus actually does.. here' one:
.
the website--which is a liberal one I admit--is this: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/recovery_reinvestment101_update.html
Seems to me like the majority of money is basically going to the right places..
Most importantly, the money in this stimulus package is going towards measures that create jobs rather than just giving people money. Jobs from building infrastructure and green energy--and money to states to keep paying workers. There is some money just being given to people--the 16% going to people "most in need"=unemployment benefits extensions--and the first time homeowners stuff--which it is true that I'll get even if I never really desired it in the first place--but I plan on turning that money around and spending it on the house--by buying supplies from menards and upgrading things on the house--in other words--investing it.
Overall, this package seems geared towards very conservative ideals--building infrastructure investments, helping charity cases, and helping localities keep their own workers going... while also using targeted tax cuts (home thinger) that are likely to be more stimulative than removing the estate tax or decreasing income taxes...
3. I actually agree with you on tax cutting not being so great--and actually so do most progressives. It is the least effective way of creating jobs--and I would hope that you agree that having people work for gov't borrowed money and producing something in some way is better than just having the government borrow money to give away...
Reply
Leave a comment