The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Good: Rebates! Under this plan, working and middle class Americans will get the lions share of the rebates. The deal is surprisingly progressive, with people under the minimum tax bracket receiving $300, which increases with income to a high of $600 for most earners. Couples can potentially earn up to $1,200. The scale also tapers off at the top, with high-income earners starting at around $75K beginning to see diminishing rebates. Children will also count towards the rebate, with a potential $300 for each.
The Bad: Support programs get the shaft. Initial drafts on the Democratic side had as part of the package moderate increases for programs such as food stamps, Medicare, and LIHEAP. These increases were left on the dealroom floor, sadly.
The Ugly: Impact will be scattershot at best. The issues with the economy run deeper than just a lack of consumer confidence. While the infusion of money will help somewhat, how much is up in the air, and a matter for concern.
The funny thing about it is that I've seen a lot of people go "hey, new big screen TV!" Guess where most of that money is going to go.
Big box stores and overseas.
I mean, it's awesome that we are all getting some cash back, but I don't think that the $600 is going to get someone out of a shitty mortgage situation for more than a month or encourage anyone to buy a house.
This won't do a hell of a lot, but it's basically a free payment on my student loans. And I might treat myself to a small ($50 range) consumer splurge. So yeah, I guess.
Meh.
I'm a "high-income earner." (Even though for this area I'm solidly middle class.)
When the checks are supposed to go out in June, I'm probably going to owe a tax payment, so I probably won't see any real money, it'll just get deducted from the amount I owe.
I'd rather they used the money to treat the mentally ill or something like that.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
DAmn. Food stamps would have been a shot in the arm.
Is it considered in bad taste to give middle class people food stamps instead of rebates?
A) Food stamps don't exist anymore. They give you a plastic card, like a debit card. Ever go to the supermarket and see the option for "EBT" after "Debit" and "Credit?" That's food stamps.
They're distributed by the county. The administrative costs for sending out checks to every taxpayer are minimal. The adminstrative costs for sending out food stamps (or EBT cards) to people who have never received them before would be significantly more.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Absolutely. It's mental to give $600 to people who may well just stash it in the bank. Poor people spend everything they get, if you want to boost consumer spending, you give money to the poor, that's just common sense. Plus the middle classes are more likely to spend it on foreign holidays or imported electrical goods, which helps nobody in the USA.
Poor people would buy more and better food, and maybe go to a local bar, restaurant, take-out or watch a movie, basically EXACTLY what you need if you want to bump the domestic economy.
Absolutely. It's mental to give $600 to people who may well just stash it in the bank. Poor people spend everything they get, if you want to boost consumer spending, you give money to the poor, that's just common sense. Plus the middle classes are more likely to spend it on foreign holidays or imported electrical goods, which helps nobody in the USA.
Poor people would buy more and better food, and maybe go to a local bar, restaurant, take-out or watch a movie, basically EXACTLY what you need if you want to bump the domestic economy.
Well, ideally, you want to give the money to the people who are most likely to use it as expendable income or re-invest in the economy. In a rational context, anyone who would have benefited from food stamps in this deal doesn't need $600 worth of expendible income, they need $600 of housing rent or medical insurance or something vital to themselves or their families. I hate to see that part of the deal being scrapped.
It's the Katrina/FEMA theory. Don't give lots of free money to people who don't know how to spend it properly.
Guess I'll be picking up a 360 and maybe even splurge a little and use some of my own cash for Rock Band while I'm at it. I really should use it to clear out the $100 or so that's on my overdraft protection and then put the rest in savings but clearly it's my duty as an upstanding citizen to put the money back into the economy.
Or at least that's the justification I'll use in my mind to finally pick up one of the next gen consoles :P
HappylilElf on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
They should fucking invert that, so the lowest earners get the biggest rebates, since they'll be the ones buying the most goods with it.
You mean the people who pay the least amount of taxes or even don't pay income tax at all?
I see giving tax rebates to the people who don't even pay taxes as a pretty huge concession. I don't know what the portion of the population that reflects is though. I'll probably use half to pay of bills and splurge half of mine.
Absolutely. It's mental to give $600 to people who may well just stash it in the bank. Poor people spend everything they get, if you want to boost consumer spending, you give money to the poor, that's just common sense. Plus the middle classes are more likely to spend it on foreign holidays or imported electrical goods, which helps nobody in the USA.
Poor people would buy more and better food, and maybe go to a local bar, restaurant, take-out or watch a movie, basically EXACTLY what you need if you want to bump the domestic economy.
You realize that once the bank has your money, it doesn't just sit there, right? They invest it and make money on it. Putting money in a bank could be better for the economy than buying a TV or whatever, since the banks are the ones really hurting.
Hmmm, not really sure what to do with this money whenever it comes. I really need to get my car fixed, so maybe that. If I could, though, I'd take mine and my wife's and put it in savings or a CD, or maybe even some stock. Just buying frivolous shit isn't going to help my household, but putting it away in investments so I don't just blow it on goods with depreciating value will.
Absolutely. It's mental to give $600 to people who may well just stash it in the bank. Poor people spend everything they get, if you want to boost consumer spending, you give money to the poor, that's just common sense. Plus the middle classes are more likely to spend it on foreign holidays or imported electrical goods, which helps nobody in the USA.
Poor people would buy more and better food, and maybe go to a local bar, restaurant, take-out or watch a movie, basically EXACTLY what you need if you want to bump the domestic economy.
You realize that once the bank has your money, it doesn't just sit there, right? They invest it and make money on it. Putting money in a bank could be better for the economy than buying a TV or whatever, since the banks are the ones really hurting.
If the economy was ticking along normally this would be a valid point (it is in general, but this is a one off). The main (or one of the main) reasons people are freaked out about the economy is that banks AREN'T moving their money around, they're sitting on cash reserves. With so much uncertainty in the air banks have become extremely tight with their credit.
Hmmm, not really sure what to do with this money whenever it comes. I really need to get my car fixed, so maybe that. If I could, though, I'd take mine and my wife's and put it in savings or a CD, or maybe even some stock. Just buying frivolous shit isn't going to help my household, but putting it away in investments so I don't just blow it on goods with depreciating value will.
Actually, if things really do go into the shitter over the next 6 - 12 months, buying stocks could be a good idea. A sharp fall in the market will tend to irrationally pull down even solid stocks, and you can pick up really solid stocks at pretty deep discounts, giving you both the return they'd normally provide and an extra whatever-the-market-fell% return.
werehippy on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
edited January 2008
I guess I'm getting less that $600 because of the $75k cutoff but it sounds like I'm still getting something. Frankie was complaining that they should use the money for something involving fixing the government or infrastructure instead of just cutting a bunch of checks, but admitted that she'd probably end up blowing it on something she doesn't really need.
This whole plan seems really shortsighted and stupid. The country would be better off if the government made an attempt at reducing the national debt instead of increasing it by another $150B. It looks like we're probably getting $1500 back, which will be going straight into the bank. At least we can be fiscally responsible even if the government can't.
admitted that she'd probably end up blowing it on something she doesn't really need.
Isn't that kind of the point, though?
I guess so. Most of her money seems to go for, like, yarn or shit from Etsy (which I guess is probably a best-case sort of deal for economic stimulus since it goes wholesale into the pockets of impoverished hippies who will spend the money on Fair Trade granola or locally grown alfalfa sprouts or some shit) or else gadgets and gizmos from Apple or video games (both of which would probably trickle some money into corporate coffers and not do much in terms of economic stimulus).
Mine would go into my bank account. I looked into transferring some cash from my checking to savings account at my credit union and was told that the interest rate on savings was 00.6%. That's a 1-year yield of sixty cents on a hundred dollars. Wheee
Posts
I mean, it's awesome that we are all getting some cash back, but I don't think that the $600 is going to get someone out of a shitty mortgage situation for more than a month or encourage anyone to buy a house.
I'm a "high-income earner." (Even though for this area I'm solidly middle class.)
When the checks are supposed to go out in June, I'm probably going to owe a tax payment, so I probably won't see any real money, it'll just get deducted from the amount I owe.
I'd rather they used the money to treat the mentally ill or something like that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Looks like I'm getting one textbook for a summer course.
I assume not, because the last time the administration gave us a summer tax rebate, it wasn't taxable income.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm not positive, but I'm FAIRLY sure that tax returns aren't counted as income at all.
Is it considered in bad taste to give middle class people food stamps instead of rebates?
A) Food stamps don't exist anymore. They give you a plastic card, like a debit card. Ever go to the supermarket and see the option for "EBT" after "Debit" and "Credit?" That's food stamps.
They're distributed by the county. The administrative costs for sending out checks to every taxpayer are minimal. The adminstrative costs for sending out food stamps (or EBT cards) to people who have never received them before would be significantly more.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
(Not really. Only if they release a 16GB version...)
Poor people would buy more and better food, and maybe go to a local bar, restaurant, take-out or watch a movie, basically EXACTLY what you need if you want to bump the domestic economy.
Well, ideally, you want to give the money to the people who are most likely to use it as expendable income or re-invest in the economy. In a rational context, anyone who would have benefited from food stamps in this deal doesn't need $600 worth of expendible income, they need $600 of housing rent or medical insurance or something vital to themselves or their families. I hate to see that part of the deal being scrapped.
It's the Katrina/FEMA theory. Don't give lots of free money to people who don't know how to spend it properly.
Guess I'll be picking up a 360 and maybe even splurge a little and use some of my own cash for Rock Band while I'm at it. I really should use it to clear out the $100 or so that's on my overdraft protection and then put the rest in savings but clearly it's my duty as an upstanding citizen to put the money back into the economy.
Or at least that's the justification I'll use in my mind to finally pick up one of the next gen consoles :P
Yeah, because you know who needs your cash? Bill Gates.
;-)
Actually that is where my money will most likely go, but that has more to do with the fact that I'm getting married there than the gambling aspects.
Magic Online - Bertro
more specifically, all on black.
B.net: Kusanku
http://cgi.ebay.com/The-American-Economy_W0QQitemZ350004541112QQihZ022QQcategoryZ378QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQtrksidZp1638.m118.l1247QQcmdZViewItem
Exactly where it's going, too!
Go to Main St and buy stuff. That is if it still exists in your town.
Of course, my $1800 will just go towards paying half of my outrageous property tax bill for next year.
Republicans see this more as tax relief I'd bet.
It's a joke.
Please don't post a .pdf detailing Microsoft's profit margins and the distribution thereof.
I used the winking emoticon, didn't I?
Is there some protocol I'm failing to grasp?
You mean the people who pay the least amount of taxes or even don't pay income tax at all?
I see giving tax rebates to the people who don't even pay taxes as a pretty huge concession. I don't know what the portion of the population that reflects is though. I'll probably use half to pay of bills and splurge half of mine.
You realize that once the bank has your money, it doesn't just sit there, right? They invest it and make money on it. Putting money in a bank could be better for the economy than buying a TV or whatever, since the banks are the ones really hurting.
If the economy was ticking along normally this would be a valid point (it is in general, but this is a one off). The main (or one of the main) reasons people are freaked out about the economy is that banks AREN'T moving their money around, they're sitting on cash reserves. With so much uncertainty in the air banks have become extremely tight with their credit.
Actually, if things really do go into the shitter over the next 6 - 12 months, buying stocks could be a good idea. A sharp fall in the market will tend to irrationally pull down even solid stocks, and you can pick up really solid stocks at pretty deep discounts, giving you both the return they'd normally provide and an extra whatever-the-market-fell% return.
Mine would go into my bank account. I looked into transferring some cash from my checking to savings account at my credit union and was told that the interest rate on savings was 00.6%. That's a 1-year yield of sixty cents on a hundred dollars. Wheee