Congress reaches deal on tax cut.
May 26, 2001 10:42 AM   Subscribe

Congress reaches deal on tax cut. OK folks, remove all jewlery and footwear before stepping into the ring. Libertarians vs. Socialists! GO!
posted by tweebiscuit (30 comments total)

 
GREAT! with all the rising Gas prices,.. I think we'll be about half as good as we were before!
posted by danger at 11:38 AM on May 26, 2001


The great thing is that gasoline prices (and taxes) take a much bigger chunk out of the income of the poor than they do the rich... you know how many miles a guy making $600,000 a year would have to drive for gas taxes to take the same percentage of his income as someone who makes $15,000/year? I don't know either. But it's a lot.

Good thing the Bush tax plan cuts the rates the most for the topmost tax bracket. . . That, coupled with the 10-year process of repealing the estate tax the bill included, should establish an aristocracy here in America that 19th-century Englanders could only dream of.
posted by drywall at 4:06 PM on May 26, 2001


Well, it's a done deal. A couple of things should be mentioned. First, if this is a rebate, shouldn't it be tax-free? Didn't we aready pay taxes on these funds? Otherwise it's only $300 - 30- something percent.

Next question: how should a non-Republican spend the rebate? Perhaps it represents one of the more fair parts of the tax reduction, so the answer is "anyway you want."

Or perhaps, all or some of the $300 should be spent with some enlightenment: give it to a progressive candidate for office? Charity? Metafilter?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:02 PM on May 26, 2001


Well, it's a done deal. A couple of things should be mentioned. First, if this is a rebate, shouldn't it be tax-free? Didn't we aready pay taxes on these funds? Otherwise it's only $300 - 30- something percent.

Next question: how should a non-Republican spend the rebate? Perhaps it represents one of the more fair parts of the tax reduction, so the answer is "anyway you want."

Or perhaps, all or some of the $300 should be spent with some enlightenment: give it to a progressive candidate for office? Charity? Metafilter?


I think everyone who opposed the tax cut should put their money where their mouths are and send it right back to the federal government.

And while you're at it, continue to pay taxes at the old rate. I'm sure the IRS won't complain.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:10 PM on May 26, 2001


ljr: oh. forget it.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:57 PM on May 26, 2001


The first lie from the administration about this tax cut is that it will "give a shot in the arm to the economy." No it won't!(since most of the provisions don't kick in for years) That was never the intent of this administration or the Repubs. in Congress. They just wanted to push it through using whatever excuse they could come up with. Since the (loyal) opposition is not as rabid about cutting taxes as the right-wingers are, there's not much they can do....

Oh, and 2nd lie about this tax cut -- that it will benefit everyone. What they don't say is that "everyone" means everyone who is rich.
posted by Rastafari at 6:10 PM on May 26, 2001


The first lie from the administration about this tax cut is that it will "give a shot in the arm to the economy." No it won't!(since most of the provisions don't kick in for years)

Well, the parts that are implemented immediately will improve the economy now, and the parts that are implemented years down the road will benefit the economy then. I fail to see how this is a negative.

That was never the intent of this administration or the Repubs. in Congress. They just wanted to push it through using whatever excuse they could come up with.

The Congress doesn't need excuses to lower taxes, they need excuses to raise them.

Oh, and 2nd lie about this tax cut -- that it will benefit everyone. What they don't say is that "everyone" means everyone who is rich.

Since everyone's taxes are cut, everyone benefits. That's pretty clear to anyone but a blind partisan.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:43 PM on May 26, 2001


Now that my taxes are going down, I have two choices;

1. Finally hire that damn lawn service to cut my grass, which will give this one-man shop some more business, which might make him hire another guy, and perhaps spend money on another mower, which would mean more income for the guy at the mower shop, as well as more payroll and sales tax to the government. Or:

2. I can burn the money! Mwah! Of course! That's what I'll do! Anything to keep it away from the rest of you!
posted by lileks at 8:29 PM on May 26, 2001


I'm pleased as punch!

My savings on taxes, which were destined for the Federal government, will now be headed for my increased California gas and electricity bills!

Yep - I'm energizing the economy with every bit of tax savings! I'm so glad we have so many folks from the Energy business in the Federal Government!
posted by artlung at 8:52 PM on May 26, 2001


I'm pleased as punch!

My savings on taxes, which were destined for the Federal government, will now be headed for my increased California gas and electricity bills!

Yep - I'm energizing the economy with every bit of tax savings! I'm so glad we have so many folks from the Energy business in the Federal Government!


Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy to keep Big Oil rich. I'm glad you figured that one out.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:20 PM on May 26, 2001


Yeah, Artlung, how can you possibly think politicians would have anything but your betterment and well being in mind when passing policy? Man, you probably think they lie, too.
posted by Doug at 12:26 AM on May 27, 2001


Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy to keep Big Oil rich. I'm glad you figured that one out.

"I want to remind the members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, all of us are concerned about high energy prices and prices at the gas pump being too high: Let's get the tax relief done and do it quickly." -- President Bush on May 11

The president himself said he wants to cut taxes so we can pay higher energy costs. It was one of his biggest blunders, at least until Jim Jeffords woke up one morning and realized he was one of the last Republicans living in Vermont.
posted by rcade at 6:22 AM on May 27, 2001


The great thing is that gasoline prices (and taxes) take a much bigger chunk out of the income of the poor than they do the rich.

Are there statistics that show this? I'm curious because this could go either way. Even a small increase in price represents a larger percentage of a poor person's income than a rich person's. However, isn't it true that people with more money tend to have more, egregiously fuel-inefficient cars, such as sports cars and SUVs?

...he was one of the last Republicans living in Vermont.

Not to mention one of the last living Rockefeller Republicans.
posted by Eamon at 6:58 AM on May 27, 2001


The alternative is no tax cut and higher gas prices, so that there is no relief at all. Not that I oppose high gas prices, I just prefer the product be available at market prices, and not artificially high to shape people's behavior.
posted by thirteen at 8:01 AM on May 27, 2001


can anyone explain this whole alternative minimum tax thing? i read this article in today's post about it, but since i'm not an accountant i'll be damned if i can figure out what it all means.
posted by saralovering at 8:20 AM on May 27, 2001


Well, the parts that are implemented immediately will improve the economy now, and the parts that are implemented years down the road will benefit the economy then. I fail to see how this is a negative.

Please refer me to one piece of historical evidence showing improvement of the american economy coming as a direct result of a tac cut (or cuts). Just one. I'm begging you.

Anyway... to answer Eamon's question, I'll quote from the Energy Information Administration: "The fuel economy of vehicles in residential households showed little variation by household characteristics. Households without children did show an improvement in the fuel economy of their vehicles when the oldest adult was under 35 years of age, as compared with households in which the oldest adult was 60 years old or more (Figure 4.4). Household income appears to have had even less effect on the fuel economy of vehicles in the household than did household composition."

For more on this, click here.

Also, to stray from gas expendutures to household heating costs (which one would think would rise proportionally with income given richer folk have bigger houses, check this out: "In FY 1998, the average household had energy expenditures of $1,280 and had a mean individual energy burden of 6.3 percent of income. Low income households had energy expenditures of $1,082, about 15 percent lower than for all households. The energy burden for low income households was 12.5 percent, almost twice the energy burden of all households." (this quote is from here.

Yes, I bring facts to the table, not just generalizations.
posted by drywall at 11:16 AM on May 27, 2001


The president himself said he wants to cut taxes so we can pay higher energy costs. It was one of his biggest blunders, at least until Jim Jeffords woke up one morning and realized he was one of the last Republicans living in Vermont.

Actually, what he said was that the tax cut would make the burden of the higher energy costs less by providing more money in the pockets of the people that would have to pay them. The energy costs are high regardless, so it perfectly sensible to try to do something that would make paying them easier.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:22 PM on May 27, 2001


Please refer me to one piece of historical evidence showing improvement of the american economy coming as a direct result of a tac cut (or cuts). Just one. I'm begging you.

Well, I don't know what a tac cut is, but if you mean a tax cuts, both JFK's cutting of taxes and Reagan's were very strong factors in turning around recession economies.

If you really believe that reducing the tax burden won't benefit the economy through improved availablity of consumer spending and capital investment, you really need to go read a basic economics book.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:26 PM on May 27, 2001


When your buddies artifically manipulate the prices in a market and you divert federal funds to them (filtered through the taxpayer) - that's money laundering.
posted by owillis at 1:51 PM on May 27, 2001


When your buddies artifically manipulate the prices in a market and you divert federal funds to them (filtered through the taxpayer) - that's money laundering.

Your description of the energy situation bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever, my friend. Do you also believe that Elvis is still alive?
posted by ljromanoff at 2:55 PM on May 27, 2001


I am beginning to think that you are a bit of a troll ljromanoff, only because you have presented zero factual information, instead opting to supply us with numerous snide comments which have done nothing to sway my thinking towards your side. I am in fact less inclined to believe in the merits of your arguments due to your snide and condescending attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you. Furthermore, I have no doubt that any attempt at rational discussion with you would be futile. Your persistent snottiness has rendered any knowledge of the situation you may or may not possess completely irrelevant.
posted by donkeymon at 3:56 PM on May 27, 2001


I am in fact less inclined to believe in the merits of your arguments due to your snide and condescending attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you.

As you're a Nader supporter, you're not inclined to believe the merits of my arguments regardless of how polite I may be. But, in any event, those on your side of the philosophical fence are just as "snide" and "condescending" as I am, and most of the time worse (check the last Limbaugh related thread for a recent example) but they get a pass as they seem to be in the numberical majority on MeFi.

Besides, how can I be anything but condesending to someone who thinks both the energy crisis and the tax cut are some kind of Bush diabolical scheme. Please show me "factual information" behind that claim.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:53 PM on May 27, 2001


While it is true that the views of my Green Party brethren have not been put to the test with any great vigor on this site, it is due in large part to the glib responses of those such as yourself who are in the position to provide cogent counter-arguments. I have made no comments regarding Rush Limbaugh, the energy crisis, the tax cut, or any "Bush diabolical scheme," nor do I intend to, especially considering your assumptions regarding my inclinations. Or perhaps you have deduced that I am not easily swayed by specious and derogatory arguments.
posted by donkeymon at 5:36 PM on May 27, 2001


Well, I don't know what a tac cut is, but if you mean a tax cuts

Romanoff, Mr. language maven. . .I suppose you have nothing to say of Bushistic oral typos, I'm surmising just 'cause you like him, voted for him and 'cause you think he's the overall bees knees. And whn yuor in debte you tihnk it's perfeclty okey to cal smonoe out on typing sanfus taht we al make. Neato as always romanoff. Also, I don't know what a "numberical majority" is either as you so eloquently put it.

Onto the subject:

I don't know how I feel about getting money back this year. I paid $400 last month in income tacks and now it looks like I'll be breaking even. If I get back the $300 or so, I could definitely use it. But I got to thinking when the story broke: Where will that money ultimately go for a majority of Americans? Right back into the profits of corporations who already don't pay their fair share. Most will buy stereos and video cards and maybe that new fangled X-box or some such. Who needs these things? Really nobody. But we want these things so we'll buy them. When all's said and done however, the tax dollars already procured from the lower and middle class workers could have been better invested back into them by improving schools, community centers, parks, libraries etcetera etc. Instead the quick $300 or so we'll get back is gonna mostly go to some impulse buy. . .I fear. But, "So what?" the conservatives will say, "Americans know best how to spend their money not the government." Indeed that is true, Bush2 has no idea how the society he's been cloistered from all his life should spend their money. He "gives it back" to the people knowing it goes straight to the pockets of his coffers.

Yet we haven't the extra cash lying around to fund national health care? What a line of bullshit.
posted by crasspastor at 10:51 PM on May 27, 2001


I'm putting my rebate into my retirement savings. I do agree with Crasspastor that the majority of the American public are short sighted morons.
posted by thirteen at 11:06 PM on May 27, 2001


While it is true that the views of my Green Party brethren have not been put to the test with any great vigor on this site, it is due in large part to the glib responses of those such as yourself who are in the position to provide cogent counter-arguments.

I find that there are plenty of vigorous counter-arguments to the Green Party-esque positions on MeFi, although they tend to be drowned out by mindless Bush bashing.

I have made no comments regarding Rush Limbaugh, the energy crisis, the tax cut, or any "Bush diabolical scheme,"

And I think you'll find that I never stated that you did.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:42 AM on May 28, 2001


Romanoff, Mr. language maven. . .I suppose you have nothing to say of Bushistic oral typos, I'm surmising just 'cause you like him, voted for him and 'cause you think he's the overall bees knees.

I have this to say: 1.) I usually think Bush's garbled language is pretty funny. 2.) I never met him and he has not been in the public eye long enough for me to have any strong personal feeling about the man one way or the other. 3.) No, I didn't vote for him, or any other Republican last year, for that matter. 4.) Don't think he's the bee's knees either, but he's preferable to Al Gore.

Also, I don't know what a "numberical majority" is either as you so eloquently put it.

OK, you got me on that one. Fair enough.

Where will that money ultimately go for a majority of Americans? Right back into the profits of corporations

Where that money goes is the business of those who possess the money, not you. If you don't want your share going to corporations, don't give it to them.

Most will buy stereos and video cards and maybe that new fangled X-box or some such. Who needs these things?

I happen to enjoy the freedom to purchase what I like with my earnings. It troubles me how many things I'm already legally prevented from buying with the funds earned from my labor. If you don't value any of the things listed above, don't buy them, but it's not any of your concern if others do.

When all's said and done however, the tax dollars already procured from the lower and middle class workers

Most taxes are paid by the wealthy, not the lower and middle class.

could have been better invested back into them by improving schools, community centers, parks, libraries etcetera etc.

That's a matter of opinion. My $300 is better spent by me on items that I need rather than something I will never use, such as a community center in a city I have never and will never live in.

He "gives it back" to the people knowing it goes straight to the pockets of his coffers.

Please explain how exactly. The only money Bush gets from any private ventures is from those who choose to give it to him, unlike the money acquired by the government though taxation.

Yet we haven't the extra cash lying around to fund national health care? What a line of bullshit.

Whether we do or not, the American public does not want socialized medicine. A quick look back in time to 1993 and 1994 should prove that.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:53 AM on May 28, 2001


When your buddies artifically manipulate the prices in a market and you divert federal funds to them (filtered through the taxpayer) - that's money laundering.

Seemingly ignorant of the irony, owillis has just described almost every federally-funded program on the books.
posted by mikewas at 11:37 PM on June 1, 2001


Yes, I'm against federal boondoggles that send money to private industry (including crap like farm aid). I want the money used to educate, provide health care, build/fix roads and help people out through rough spots.

As opposed to going to Edison/Mobil/Halliburton.
posted by owillis at 2:53 PM on June 2, 2001


Yes, I'm against federal boondoggles that send money to private industry (including crap like farm aid). I want the money used to educate, provide health care, build/fix roads and help people out through rough spots.

Too bad the government is so horrible at doing all the above.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:23 PM on June 2, 2001


« Older "...the sad truth is there really are no great ...  |  A Tokyo breakfast like none yo... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments