This had been done before, back in 1975 Ford sent rebate checks to taxpayers in the sums of $100-$200
The Reagan tax cut stimulated economic expansion and an increase in jobs.
The same can be said for Kennedy's tax cut.
Dateline 2001, President Bush plans to send tax rebate checks to Americans to reflect what they will be saving on their taxes in the coming years and to counter the taxes on their current years returns whicxh wont be affected by the cut.
2 different articles
TAX CUT/REBATE 2001
TAX CUT/REBATE 2001
Did you get a check?
If you feel like it, mentione what you did with it (dont have be too specific)
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
This had been done before, back in 1975 Ford sent rebate checks to taxpayers in the sums of $100-$200
The Reagan tax cut stimulated economic expansion and an increase in jobs.
The same can be said for Kennedy's tax cut.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The research I've read said the effects of the Bush tax refund have been pretty much felt, and it didn't boost the economy like the Bush Administration expected. This is remarkable when you see that Bush has pumped enormous amounts of money into the economy through both tax cuts and unrestrained government spending.Originally posted by cincygreg:
This had been done before, back in 1975 Ford sent rebate checks to taxpayers in the sums of $100-$200
The Reagan tax cut stimulated economic expansion and an increase in jobs.
The same can be said for Kennedy's tax cut.
From here on out, the remaining cuts will focus mostly on the wealthy, not people in your economic demongraphic.
It will still be felt on all economic levels, maybe on a larger scale in the top %1, because they allready pay a larger percentage of their income into the tax base but...
Dont try to act like that average American gets nothing out of it because that isn't correct.
I believe we need more "have somes" than "have nots" too but we also need to have some "haves".
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 11, 2004 11:31 AM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>
Uh, Reason. The only dishes I wash are the ones that I eat off at home. (not to sound snobby or anything, but just keeping that straight)
How can it be so upsetting that the percentage for the wealthiest Americans is still 25% higher than the lowest income Americans?
If the brackets now range from 10% at the bottom of the wage scale to 35% for the highest then it seems to me that though the top percent got a bigger cut, the bottom percent still got a cut and you cant cut it down to nothing.
I'm not arguing the point that the top percent got the most out of the cut, but you cant cut the bottom percent much further.
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Says who?you cant cut it down to nothing.
A person working full time making $35,000 needs that "little" tax cut more than the multimillionare making hundreds of thousands of dollars on his dividends.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">greg. It won't "maybe" be felt on a larger scale for the top 1% demographic. I will be felt on a larger scale for the top 1% demographic.Originally posted by cincygreg:
It will still be felt on all economic levels, maybe on a larger scale in the top %1, because they allready pay a larger percentage of their income into the tax base but...
Dont try to act like that average American gets nothing out of it because that isn't correct.
I believe we need more "have somes" than "have nots" too but we also need to have some "haves".
<font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ October 11, 2004 11:31 AM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font></font>
That's not a hypothetical. That's how it was set up.
I never said the average American doesn't get anything out of it. What I said was the average American has already gotten their cut, and that the remaining cuts are geared for those at the top.
I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this, but under the Bush administration, the middle class shares a larger portion of the tax burden than they did before Bush.
Need I remind everyone, I'm all for tax cuts. But I'm for doing them correctly. Before we slash tax rates on dividends, I think the average American would benefit much, much more if they'd eliminate or lower the taxes on our salaries first.
Taxing work is a disincentive to work. Instead corporate CEO's with huge ass stock options get massive tax cuts.
Is that right?
greg, do you think a corporate executive who got sweetheart option deals and millions of dollars of low-tax dividends should get a break before you, who spends 40 hours a week washing dishes?
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 11, 2004 12:33 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>
Someone who makes $200,000.00 a year pays in taxes (before deductions of course) twice the entire salary of someone who makes $35,000.00 a year.
You are looking at this a little bit backwards Reason.
I beleive that Americans should keep more of their own money, especially those who make less and in fact they do on a percentage scale.
I see what you are saying, but this tax cut is going to be good in the long run for everyone.
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
I gambled with mine and doubled it at Argosy. [img]cool.gif[/img]
Oddly enough, I actually remember us discussing these rebate checks in here and each of us kinda did the "happy dance" when we recieved them. LOL!
I'mm not exactly sure what I did with mine, but I do know that I put it to good use. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks