June 21, 2001

12:49 AM

The only thing TaxRebatePledge.org is asking you to do is pledge that when you receive your tax rebate check, you will donate that money to an existing organization that is engaged in the fight against Bush and his agenda.
posted by palegirl (50 comments total)

NPR recently did a report: now that there's money coming back into the pockets of citizens from Uncle Sam, some states which have state income taxes are insisting these rebate checks have state taxes taken out; which just goes to show Shrub doesn't think things through when he does them.

The only real way to give people tax relief is to stop taking taxes from them in the first place.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:56 AM on June 21, 2001

What's MENSA gonna do with my 300 bucks?
posted by dong_resin at 1:02 AM on June 21, 2001

The cash is better off in the hands of Lefties than put back into the black hold of the U.S. government.
posted by shackbar at 1:34 AM on June 21, 2001

Yeah. Whatever.
posted by davidmsc at 2:07 AM on June 21, 2001

Damn...4 post and ljromanoff's not here yet......I'm dissappointed
posted by ttrendel at 2:51 AM on June 21, 2001

or aaron or dreama for that matter. maybe it's too early.
posted by dogmatic at 3:27 AM on June 21, 2001

Give it to the lefties? Why not keep it for yourself? Lefties, righties, all a complete bunch of assholes.
Nothing is worse, in my opinion, than politicians except for blind devotion to a political party.

As for Taxrebatepledge.org, I would sooner donate my rebate to a cause to get rid of them and their stupid idea.
posted by a3matrix at 4:08 AM on June 21, 2001

And then there are those of us who aren't getting a rebate, so it is entirely moot.
posted by Ezrael at 4:16 AM on June 21, 2001

While you're at it, give an extra $300! That'll prove your smarter than Dubya!
posted by Mick at 5:28 AM on June 21, 2001

I'd like to use the money to push my own agenda thankyouverymuch...
posted by fooljay at 5:35 AM on June 21, 2001

I'd rather not get taxed by people who aren't representing me.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:51 AM on June 21, 2001

The best part of the rebate is the letter the IRS is sending because of it:

"We are pleased to inform you that the United States Congress passed -- and President George W. Bush signed into law -- the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which provides long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay income taxes ..."

What next -- printing money with "IN GOP WE TRUST" on it?
posted by rcade at 6:32 AM on June 21, 2001

some states which have state income taxes are insisting these rebate checks have state taxes taken out...
The only real way to give people tax relief is to stop taking taxes from them in the first place.

Well, Zach, the rebate is paying back some of your federal income taxes. The states which are pushing for state tax liability on the refund are doing so because they deduct federal income taxes from your net income when calculating your state income tax liability. If you pay less federal tax, you have more net income on which to pay state tax.

It sucks, believe me (I live in Missouri, one of the states in question), but I don't see how it's unfair or how it could conceiveably be Bush's fault. If he had just lowered the tax rate and let everyone get a big refund at the end of the year, residents in those same states would pay state income tax on those refunds. The only difference here is that we're getting the refunds sooner.
posted by daveadams at 6:55 AM on June 21, 2001

What next -- printing money with "IN GOP WE TRUST" on it?

What would you have had the letter say? "The current president, who will remain unnamed, signed the bill into law." Or maybe, "Zippity BOP!"?
posted by daveadams at 6:59 AM on June 21, 2001

Damn...4 post and ljromanoff's not here yet......I'm dissappointed
posted by ttrendel at 2:51 AM PST on June 21

Dude, some of us are asleep at 5:50 in the morning, OK?

In any event, I find this organization highly amusing. Apparently they are blissfully unaware that by choosing as individuals what is best to do with their income, rather than letting the government choose, they are buying into the philosophical underpinnings of Bush's tax cut themselves.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:01 AM on June 21, 2001

$300 -

$120 - Bill Clinton whore money
$150 - Barbara Streisand
$ 30 - misc.

Bill "Well, alright, but it costs like 120 bucks an hour these day and I can't go without getting any for like a whole, entire day"
posted by tiaka at 7:11 AM on June 21, 2001

It gets better rcade, NPR stated yesterday morning that the distribution of that letter will cost $20 million. And to daveadams' point, the point is that the letter is completely unneccesary. Sounds the Shrub has a better idea of how to spend my money after all.
posted by machaus at 7:17 AM on June 21, 2001

Wouldn't it be nice to opt to get the "letter" by email? We could save money, and bog down the IRS computers at the same time. A double win!
posted by dwivian at 7:32 AM on June 21, 2001

I'm buying me beer and porn with my money.
posted by crackheadmatt at 7:59 AM on June 21, 2001

NPR stated yesterday morning that the distribution of that letter will cost $20 million.

True enough. 60-80 million letters at bulk rate works out to about that. Can you imagine how much it costs to distribute all the tax forms?

It seems reasonable to me that the government would send out a letter ahead of time informing you to expect a check. Not everyone watches the news.
posted by daveadams at 8:45 AM on June 21, 2001

Do you really want the IRS to be in the business of giving politicians credit and assessing blame in its mailings to taxpayers? The letter could have been written in a hundred different ways that didn't attempt to promote the president.
posted by rcade at 8:56 AM on June 21, 2001

Lefties, righties, all a complete bunch of assholes.
Nothing is worse, in my opinion, than politicians except for blind devotion to a political party.

Except maybe blanket statements made by trolls?
posted by jpoulos at 9:09 AM on June 21, 2001

Do you really want the IRS to be in the business of giving politicians credit and assessing blame in its mailings to taxpayers? The letter could have been written in a hundred different ways that didn't attempt to promote the president.

Can you point out to me what blame is assessed in that letter? And it's hardly giving credit to point out the fact that the president signed the bill.

Every Democrat in Congress who still enjoys franking privileges and is complaining about this is a hypocrite.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:30 AM on June 21, 2001

[Shrub doesn't think things through when he does them]

The rebate in supposed to be an economic stimulus and was proposed by the Democrats. So if you're suggesting Bush was wrong to agree with them we're on the same side.

Perhaps real tax reform would be to get rid of the gigantic code with it's loopholes for people who can afford tax-professionals and make it simpler.
posted by revbrian at 9:51 AM on June 21, 2001

The only thing TaxRebatePledge.org is asking you to do is pledge that when you receive your tax rebate check, you will donate that money to an existing organization that is engaged in the fight against Bush and his agenda.

Gee, is that all? Is there anything else I could do? I mean, I'm used to turning my nose up at $300. In fact, I do it all the time. Would it be okay if I pledged more than that?

Fuck this. And I'm a leftie most of the time. I'm spending the money out of sheer crankiness and a desire to ignore this sort of tiresome knee-jerk partisanship that everybody likes to decry yet everyone seems to line up on.

And I'll say it again: I hate Bush. But this just seems to foster dissent for dissent's sake.
posted by Skot at 9:52 AM on June 21, 2001

[What next -- printing money with "IN GOP WE TRUST" on it?]

Well, that *IS* how our system of government works. Congress passes a bill and if the president signs it then it becomes law.

Given the state of our educational system I doubt if 50% of americans know this. Think of it as education spending.
posted by revbrian at 9:54 AM on June 21, 2001

Aaron, for God's sake . . . you're a thoughtful and intelligent fellow. But could you please climb down off your cross?

Where were you "laughingly dismissed"? Nowhere. The "joke," if any, was that this is a clearly left-slanted thread--donate your tax refund to anti-Bush groups--and that you and ljr and Dreama would very obviously have strong opinions against it. It was an affectionate tweak at worst.

You must chill.
posted by Skot at 10:10 AM on June 21, 2001

I have an alternative campaign - it is grassroots, and just starting today, so you'all can get in on the groundfloor. I call it, "He is the President, get over it, buy yourselves an ice cream" campaign. The idea is, he will be president another 3.5 years, he isn't going to be rousted out of office no matter what people say, so take your $300, use it to fund library books for the poorest school library in your city, and hold back $7.50 to get yourself, and the nicest person you personally know an ice cream sundae.

My initiative is guaranteed to insure that you sleep well at night, knowing that your money has gone to directly help someone in need, rather than to fund expensive trips, dinners, and hotels for political lobbyists. And the ice cream is a happy bonus!
posted by kristin at 10:28 AM on June 21, 2001

We were immediately placed, straw man-style, into a specific argument which we "obviously" would make.

Yes, well, this is what happens. Maybe it's not fair, but at least when it's unfair, it's universal. It's going to be common when different camps become polarized in frequent discussions.

you people still get violently angry whenever anyone dares to point out how lockstep and homogeneous the Metafilter POV has become.

See? It can happen to the best of us.
posted by Skot at 10:33 AM on June 21, 2001

If you really want to throw a wrench in the works, put your rebate in a savings account.

>:)
posted by frykitty at 11:08 AM on June 21, 2001

Personally, I think that if lefties were really wanting to make a statement about what they think is the ill-advised nature of this tax cut, they would take their return checks, turn around and send them right back to the IRS with a note that says "Please keep it. You can spend it better than I can.

Isn't that what taxation is all about?

Me, I'm thinking of putting mine to use helping to make the deposit on a new car.
posted by jammer at 11:14 AM on June 21, 2001

In an attempt to inject a little fun into this thread, I'm personally quite upset because it turns out that they're sending rebate checks to people based on the last two digits of their social security numbers. Now, that's fair and all, but it turns out that my social security number is in the first group to be mailed, in July. Woo hoo, I say, until I find out that my wife (who does the taxes, bless her soul) filled out the tax form with her social security number listed first. Her SSN is in the last group to be mailed checks, in October.

Feel free to laugh at my expense.
posted by daveadams at 11:19 AM on June 21, 2001

the Sierra Club is merely working for the environment, not
working to destroy certain politicians.

If a politician continually blocks environmental legislation or sponsors pro-polluter legislation, the correct action for the Sierra Club is to defeat that politician in their next re-election, not merely to run ads saying how great trees are. So it is with these groups and Bush.
posted by brucec at 11:19 AM on June 21, 2001

"Please keep it. You can spend it better than I can." Isn't that what taxation is all about?

Actually I think the theory is that funnelling the money through one institution achieves the economies of scale to do things with our money that we could not do alone or in small groups, such as: building highways, operating a military, executing terrorists, et cetera.
posted by daveadams at 11:21 AM on June 21, 2001

I'm thinking of putting mine to use helping to make the deposit on a new car.

May I suggest using it towards the purchase a year-long bus pass? :)
posted by daveadams at 11:23 AM on June 21, 2001

"I'm personally quite upset because it turns out that they're
sending rebate checks to people based on the last two digits of their social security numbers"

Just imagine if you were one of the poorest people, among those most likely to spend, who won't be getting any check at all.

Yeah, yeah, I know the line "they didn't pay in, so there not getting..." They paid payroll taxes.
posted by brucec at 11:23 AM on June 21, 2001

daveadams, you may suggest it, but I won't listen. As much as I'd love to have a decent bus system in Austin, I just love driving. Besides, road trips are distinctly less fun on a Greyhound. :)
posted by jammer at 11:27 AM on June 21, 2001

"Actually I think the theory is that funnelling the money through one institution achieves the economies of
scale to do things with our money that we could not do alone or in small groups, such as: building highways,
operating a military, executing terrorists, et cetera."

Damn, and I was just gonna go take my money and as AN EMPOWERED INDIVIDUAL go raise an army of my own, Personally go after ford and Firestone for their lousy tires, build a couple highways, negotiate what workplace hazzards I will face directly with my employer, personally inspect health standards at area food places, personally make sure no companies are polluting, take care of the seniors in my community, fund education out of my own pocket, do a little research so in the future we might find a cure for cancer. Yeah, and as a hobby, I was thinking of building a rocketship and going up into space to do experiments...Shoot, I ran out of money.
posted by brucec at 11:33 AM on June 21, 2001

1) That's not George W. Bush's fault. 2) It's still an irrelevant argument, since this is an INCOME TAX REBATE. It is not physically possible for them to get a rebate on something they didn't pay into in the first place

Well, it's kind of irrelevant, but not really. The point about payroll taxes is that despite the semantics of "income" versus "payroll" taxes, the fact is that even the poorest of the poor pay payroll taxes and if we're really interested in their welfare and in giving back to "all taxpayers" (rather than all income-tax payers), then they should get a rebate and/or a reduction in their payroll tax, too.

And since George W. Bush has not pushed for such a change, it could be construed as being his fault. He had a lot of power and momentum going into this term, he could have used it better.
posted by daveadams at 12:12 PM on June 21, 2001

aaron, its only an income tax rebate because Bush says it is.

It is physically possible, its not politically possible.
posted by brucec at 12:34 PM on June 21, 2001

aaron, its only an income tax rebate because Bush says it is.

Huh? It's an income tax rebate because IT'S A REBATE OF YOUR INCOME TAX. For crying out loud.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:10 PM on June 21, 2001

IRS.gov: "Holy Jeepers"

Anything going through the IRS.gov communications ringer is bound to come out sounding bizarre from any point on the political spectrum.
posted by rschram at 1:19 PM on June 21, 2001

they should get a rebate and/or a reduction in their payroll tax, too.


So are you also saying you're in favor of reducing medicare/welfare benefits? Hey, I'm all in favor of abolishing payroll taxes but I don't think any politician would get elected with that as part of their campaign.
posted by gyc at 3:06 PM on June 21, 2001

Mine goes straight to the NRA.
posted by greeneggsandham at 4:29 PM on June 21, 2001

Heh, that was my other thought, greeneggsandham. Maybe put it to the purchase of a new handgun, probably either a Sig P220 or a Springfield 1911 Mil-Spec.
posted by jammer at 4:40 PM on June 21, 2001

So are you also saying you're in favor of reducing medicare/welfare benefits? Hey, I'm all in favor of abolishing payroll taxes but I don't think any politician would get elected with that as part of their campaign

Well, here's how I look at it: I'd rather drop payroll taxes altogether along with social security and medicare, but that is totally impractical and is emphatically not-going-to-happen.

But what I don't understand is this: why do we have a regressive payroll tax? Why not a progressive one, like the income tax? Instead of assessing everyone a set percentage for all income up to $75,000 (or whatever it is now) why don't we just mirror the income tax system and say, the first $10000 is free and then on the next $25000 you pay 3% and on the next $25000 you pay 8% and on the rest you pay 15% or whatever.

It makes no sense to me to have the poorest citizens burdened with essentially a 15% payroll tax while we carp about how lucky they are not to pay any income tax! Maybe they don't pay "income" tax, but they pay tax on their income.

I think a politician could run on that and succeed.
posted by daveadams at 8:28 PM on June 21, 2001