Bush Tax Rebate!

[e90im]

.

[dr335is]

We got $1800. I don't get it why are my kids 1/2 worth what I am since we spend most of $$$ on them??? Where is the logic that I get $600, my stay-home mom wife $600, my kids $300??? I can't even buy her school supplies and uniforms (Made in China) for $300...

[lem144]

Apparently it's economies of scale. For just YOU, you need a house. Add a kid and you just need an extra room.

[FirstClass]

Originally Posted by dr325i

We got $1800. I don't get it why are my kids 1/2 worth what I am since we spend most of $$$ on them??? Where is the logic that I get $600, my stay-home mom wife $600, my kids $300??? I can't even buy her school supplies and uniforms (Made in China) for $300...

Indeed, it would make much more sense to just tax you significantly less in the first place.

[lem144]

Originally Posted by FirstClass

Indeed, it would make much more sense to just tax you significantly less in the first place.

Not quite. That's permanent. And we already see what happens when the govt isn't fiscally responsible and can't pay for itself.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by lem144

Not quite. That's permanent. And we already see what happens when the govt isn't fiscally responsible and can't pay for itself.

Of course Congress could avoid doing things such as funding that monstrosity of a farm bill they just passed and limit itself to the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Supraman

I think the checks are bullshit, I am not getting one because I make too much money. Think about it, I pay more taxes and get fucked for working hard.

Don't you understand? That is only fair.

[howardpro]

Be happy you get anything at all......i dont get shit

[lem144]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Of course Congress could avoid doing things such as funding that monstrosity of a farm bill they just passed and limit itself to the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

True, but they want to get re-elected. If they voted against it they would lose their re-election. SO, apparently they are doing what the people want them to do :/

It's how our system works.

[lem144]

Originally Posted by Supraman

I think the checks are bullshit, I am not getting one because I make too much money. Think about it, I pay more taxes and get fucked for working hard.

And middle/lower class people spending rebate checks helps keep the economy afloat. Chances are $600 isn't much to you if you make over $80,000/year or whatever the cap is. The idea is that it gets spent and someone with high income is less likely to just go out and spend it.

Anyway, you've gotten plenty of breaks over the last 7 years with W's temporary tax cuts. It's a good thing they will expire so we can begin paying off the debts the Republicans have racked up (Reagans and the Bushes).

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by lem144

And middle/lower class people spending rebate checks helps keep the economy afloat. Chances are $600 isn't much to you if you make over $80,000/year or whatever the cap is. The idea is that it gets spent and someone with high income is less likely to just go out and spend it.

Anyway, you've gotten plenty of breaks over the last 7 years with W's temporary tax cuts. It's a good thing they will expire so we can begin paying off the debts the Republicans have racked up (Reagans and the Bushes).

It never ceases to amaze me when people characterize keeping more of my money as a break!?

[Mr.Metak2you]

Originally Posted by Supraman

I pay more in taxes than the average income is, because I work hard. Truth is most will just blow their checks anyway to buy beer and tobacco and go to a Nascar race.

You're not alone brother....

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

You're not alone brother....

You need to get married
And if your other half agrees to be the best babysitter in the world, things get better...taxes-wise...

[lem144]

Originally Posted by ganeil

It never ceases to amaze me when people characterize keeping more of my money as a break!?

Well, perhaps you should move to a country that does not provide the services that enable you to make your money. An island somewhere perhaps. I wonder how much of you income is dependent on other people being healthy, having good roads to get to work (perhaps for you), and being well-educated? It seems people who are in the upper-middle, say over 100k but less than 500k seem to think they should live in such a bubble.

I am not poor and I am not rich, but I know my country is better off and could be much better off if my fellow citizens had better access to education, healthcare and had infrastructure that did not crumble into the Mississippi River. And, as a patriotic American, I am willing to pay for it and have my elected representatives act to achieve such goals.

I'd much prefer them spend my money on those things as opposed to giving money away to corporations that hoard cash overseas and for wars that do not need to be fought. As a patriotic American, I am more than willing to pay a little more to fight the war in Afghanistan to insure that the terrorist regime (Taliban and al Qaeda) are minimized. I do not believe our children's children should have to pay these debts. I do not want my generation to be blamed for destroying our country. Iraq does not fall into this category, and they have enough money (oil, $4/gal gas) to re-build their own country. The Afghans do not.

I'm sorry, I am not greedy. It's not "me me me", it's US. We are in this together.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by lem144

Well, perhaps you should move to a country that does not provide the services that enable you to make your money. An island somewhere perhaps. I wonder how much of you income is dependent on other people being healthy, having good roads to get to work (perhaps for you), and being well-educated? It seems people who are in the upper-middle, say over 100k but less than 500k seem to think they should live in such a bubble.

I am not poor and I am not rich, but I know my country is better off and could be much better off if my fellow citizens had better access to education, healthcare and had infrastructure that did not crumble into the Mississippi River. And, as a patriotic American, I am willing to pay for it and have my elected representatives act to achieve such goals.

I'd much prefer them spend my money on those things as opposed to giving money away to corporations that hoard cash overseas and for wars that do not need to be fought. As a patriotic American, I am more than willing to pay a little more to fight the war in Afghanistan to insure that the terrorist regime (Taliban and al Qaeda) are minimized. I do not believe our children's children should have to pay these debts. I do not want my generation to be blamed for destroying our country. Iraq does not fall into this category, and they have enough money (oil, $4/gal gas) to re-build their own country. The Afghans do not.

I'm sorry, I am not greedy. It's not "me me me", it's US. We are in this together.

VERY nicely put!

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by lem144

Well, perhaps you should move to a country that does not provide the services that enable you to make your money. An island somewhere perhaps. I wonder how much of you income is dependent on other people being healthy, having good roads to get to work (perhaps for you), and being well-educated? It seems people who are in the upper-middle, say over 100k but less than 500k seem to think they should live in such a bubble.

I am not poor and I am not rich, but I know my country is better off and could be much better off if my fellow citizens had better access to education, healthcare and had infrastructure that did not crumble into the Mississippi River. And, as a patriotic American, I am willing to pay for it and have my elected representatives act to achieve such goals.

I'd much prefer them spend my money on those things as opposed to giving money away to corporations that hoard cash overseas and for wars that do not need to be fought. As a patriotic American, I am more than willing to pay a little more to fight the war in Afghanistan to insure that the terrorist regime (Taliban and al Qaeda) are minimized. I do not believe our children's children should have to pay these debts. I do not want my generation to be blamed for destroying our country. Iraq does not fall into this category, and they have enough money (oil, $4/gal gas) to re-build their own country. The Afghans do not.

I'm sorry, I am not greedy. It's not "me me me", it's US. We are in this together.

I have no problem paying taxes for legitimate government services. I fail to see why I should pay more for the same services as anyone else or anyone else should pay more than I.

The question of what is a legitimate government services is the real issue. The level of government that should provide that service is another question.

Roads and education are generally more effectively provided for at the local level. My rate of federal taxation should not impact those.

Health care is an individual responsibility and should remain so. I lived (barely a few times) with government provided health care in the military and have no desire to return to it.

There is nothing stopping you from sending as much of your money to the government as you wish. Write them a check, they will gladly accept it. Do not however try to not be greedy with mine or anyone else's money.

There is nothing noble or compassionate in helping the needy with money that you have forcibly taken from someone else.

[lem144]

Originally Posted by ganeil

There is nothing noble or compassionate in helping the needy with money that you have forcibly taken from someone else.

Again, we live in a representative democracy, and as a society we believe otherwise. You are free to move to a more libertarian country if you so desire.

On healthcare I disagree...I'd much rather have someone I elect deal with healthcare than some corporation who only answers to shareholders. Do you think your insurance company cares more about you or their profit, unless of course you're the CEO of an insurance company or on the Board, which on this board you just might be? This middlemen which we have here in the U.S. are largely responsible for our sky-high healthcare costs. We need to eliminate the middleman and focus on having doctors and patients make decisions, NOT insurance companies only looking out for themselves.

BTW, the veterans health administration has been argued as the best healthcare organization in the U.S..

On education: Our nation is failing to produce students who are capable of competing on the world stage. It is in the best interest of our nation to improve the education system as a whole. No Child Left Behind has its merits, but the Federal government needs to fully fund it. We complain about companies sending jobs overseas, yet we don't produce qualified students. We complain about giving Visas to foreign workers to come here and work when we should be asking why our children can't get those jobs! Instead, we have wingnuts clamor for $12/hr auto jobs, but not clamoring to improve education so Americans can get the $30-40/hr tech jobs. We obviously need the former, but we desperately need the latter as well or future companies will not be American, but rather Indian and Chinese.

On infrastructure: The interstate system is one example where the Federal government was necessary to coordinate a national system. Now that system is crumbling and states have trouble maintaining it. At the same time, we've outgrown it. National commerce depends on cross-border (states) movement of goods in an efficient manner. This cannot be entirely left up to individual states, many are just too small to deal with it. The FAA cannot be left up to individual states. Port security cannot be left up to individual states. We're not talking your local street, but it seems thats all you care about.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by lem144

Again, we live in a representative democracy, and as a society we believe otherwise. You are free to move to a more libertarian country if you so desire.

There is a great argument... If you don't like it, move.

Let me ask you a question, at what point does an immoral act become morally acceptable? Is it when 50% + 1 decide it is?

Say there is an out of work single mother in my neighborhood and an evil Haliburton executive as well. We both agree that it would be a noble and compassionate act for the executive to help the mom out. It would be fine if I rang his door bell and asked him to help. It would not be morally acceptable though to put a gun to his head and force to help, would it? How about if a majority of the people on the block agree that he should help? When does the act of compelling someone to do something that he has not agreed to do become acceptable?

On healthcare I disagree...I'd much rather have someone I elect deal with healthcare than some corporation who only answers to shareholders. Do you think your insurance company cares more about you or their profit, unless of course you're the CEO of an insurance company or on the Board, which on this board you just might be? This middlemen which we have here in the U.S. are largely responsible for our sky-high healthcare costs. We need to eliminate the middleman and focus on having doctors and patients make decisions, NOT insurance companies only looking out for themselves.

I would rather have an agreed upon contractual relationship that is enforceable than left to the whim of the current legislators. If my insurance company denies me coverage for a medical procedure that they are contractually required to cover, I have recourse through the courts. Ask someone on Medicare what happens when they deny coverage.

I also have the option of changing insurance carriers if I am unhappy with their service. No such option under a national plan.

If my insurance company denies me coverage for a procedure that is not covered under my plan, I have the option of paying for it myself, don't I. What happens with national health care? Do I need to do what Canadians and Brits do and leave the country to get the care I believe I need? Of course since they come here, I'm not sure where I would be able to go.

BTW, the veterans health administration has been argued as the best healthcare organization in the U.S..

By who?

On education: Our nation is failing to produce students who are capable of competing on the world stage. It is in the best interest of our nation to improve the education system as a whole. No Child Left Behind has its merits, but the Federal government needs to fully fund it. We complain about companies sending jobs overseas, yet we don't produce qualified students. We complain about giving Visas to foreign workers to come here and work when we should be asking why our children can't get those jobs! Instead, we have wingnuts clamor for $12/hr auto jobs, but not clamoring to improve education so Americans can get the $30-40/hr tech jobs. We obviously need the former, but we desperately need the latter as well or future companies will not be American, but rather Indian and Chinese.

I don't complain about companies sending jobs overseas or granting visas to foreign workers. I am a big believer in the free movement of goods and services to include labor.

I am responsible for my children's education and I am best equipped to see that they are properly educated. No amount of federal money is going to turn rotten parents into good parents or bad teachers into effective ones. The current government monopoly on primary education is the biggest impediment to improving it. We have a world class university system because we allow competition. Our primary and secondary education suffers because of the lack of the same.

On infrastructure: The interstate system is one example where the Federal government was necessary to coordinate a national system. Now that system is crumbling and states have trouble maintaining it. At the same time, we've outgrown it. National commerce depends on cross-border (states) movement of goods in an efficient manner. This cannot be entirely left up to individual states, many are just too small to deal with it. The FAA cannot be left up to individual states. Port security cannot be left up to individual states. We're not talking your local street, but it seems thats all you care about.

Why do the states have trouble maintaining it? They collect taxes as effectively as the feds. Every state in the union has a department of transportation specifically tasked with the job. Are they simply incapable because they do not get orders from Washington?

[uabimmer]

i got $358 when i thought i was getting $600 .... oh well i guess

[hands on]

Originally Posted by dr325i

We got $1800. I don't get it why are my kids 1/2 worth what I am since we spend most of $$$ on them??? Where is the logic that I get $600, my stay-home mom wife $600, my kids $300??? I can't even buy her school supplies and uniforms (Made in China) for $300...

this guy's complaining about $1800, dude just shut up and cash your check

[lem144]

Originally Posted by ganeil

There is a great argument... If you don't like it, move.

Let me ask you a question, at what point does an immoral act become morally acceptable? Is it when 50% + 1 decide it is?

Say there is an out of work single mother in my neighborhood and an evil Haliburton executive as well. We both agree that it would be a noble and compassionate act for the executive to help the mom out. It would be fine if I rang his door bell and asked him to help. It would not be morally acceptable though to put a gun to his head and force to help, would it? How about if a majority of the people on the block agree that he should help? When does the act of compelling someone to do something that he has not agreed to do become acceptable?



I would rather have an agreed upon contractual relationship that is enforceable than left to the whim of the current legislators. If my insurance company denies me coverage for a medical procedure that they are contractually required to cover, I have recourse through the courts. Ask someone on Medicare what happens when they deny coverage.

I also have the option of changing insurance carriers if I am unhappy with their service. No such option under a national plan.

If my insurance company denies me coverage for a procedure that is not covered under my plan, I have the option of paying for it myself, don't I. What happens with national health care? Do I need to do what Canadians and Brits do and leave the country to get the care I believe I need? Of course since they come here, I'm not sure where I would be able to go.



By who?



I don't complain about companies sending jobs overseas or granting visas to foreign workers. I am a big believer in the free movement of goods and services to include labor.

I am responsible for my children's education and I am best equipped to see that they are properly educated. No amount of federal money is going to turn rotten parents into good parents or bad teachers into effective ones. The current government monopoly on primary education is the biggest impediment to improving it. We have a world class university system because we allow competition. Our primary and secondary education suffers because of the lack of the same.



Why do the states have trouble maintaining it? They collect taxes as effectively as the feds. Every state in the union has a department of transportation specifically tasked with the job. Are they simply incapable because they do not get orders from Washington?

Insurance: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/op...04krugman.html
And I don't even like the guy, but he is right.

Transportation: They don't have the money.

Our University's are filled with foreign students. We don't produce enough students who meet high standards.

It's funny you bring up the 50%+1 argument. The right-wing likes to use it to deny people civil liberties (gay rights, abortion), but then don't like when they don't agree with the policy (taxes). They're a bunch of hypocrites.

It's ok, we don't agree. Somehow, I am willing to be a little worse off so that a dozen more people are a little better off. You don't like that very much, and that's your shortcoming, not mine.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by lem144

Insurance: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/op...04krugman.html
And I don't even like the guy, but he is right.

Quality health care will always be expensive. It takes a lot of time, energy, and money to train a doctor or develop a new medical technology or drug. As long as you expect modern, state of the art medical care, someone will have to pay for it. I would rather the decision as to the level of health care my family and I receive be in my hands as much as possible. I chose the coverage and procedures I am willing to pay for.

Transportation: They don't have the money.

Why not? They have the tax base.

Our University's are filled with foreign students. We don't produce enough students who meet high standards.

So you admit we have a world class university system that attracts those from overseas but you are unwilling to apply that model to the primary and secondary systems? How does that make sense?

It's funny you bring up the 50%+1 argument. The right-wing likes to use it to deny people civil liberties (gay rights, abortion), but then don't like when they don't agree with the policy (taxes). They're a bunch of hypocrites.

Exactly which civil liberties do the "right wing" want to deny to gays? I would argue that the issue in abortion is protecting the most fundamental civil right, that of life.

It's ok, we don't agree. Somehow, I am willing to be a little worse off so that a dozen more people are a little better off. You don't like that very much, and that's your shortcoming, not mine.

I am also willing to be a little worse off so that others can be better off. That would be why I contribute to various charities. The difference is I am uncomfortable with making that decision for others while you have no problem with it.