Say, wasn’t the Bush tax cut justified, at least in part, as a way to stimulate the economy?
Last I checked, the Dow was still hovering around 7900, and unemployment was still rising. So what happened, supply-siders?
(Is it unpatriotic of me to bring this up? I’d hate to distract the Republicans while they’re chasing down evil-doers this election season.)
Tax cut?
Oh yeah, that tax cut.
Peace,
mangeorge
Say what you want about the 2001 tax refund, but its biggest beneficiaries were **low-**income individuals. An extra $300 in the pocket of a poor person is far more useful than an extra $300 in the pocket of a rich person.
Regardless of whom it benefitted, it hurt the budget. And it seems not to have done anything to stimulate the economy.
Since I got laid off 2 days ago from my job of 12 years, and now I have to find a job in the worst market in 15 years, I’d like to shove that refund up Bush’s crude-oil lubricated ass. Has he done one damn thing to try and improve the economy since that tax cut, which clearly did little or nothing?
Also, doesn’t he see how he’s making the identical mistake his father did, going after Iraq while doing nothing obvious to help the collapsing economy? How could he be making such an obvious political blunder? Why aren’t his advisors, well, advising him?
Hey, at least you got the freakin’ tax cut. I got a letter saying “Haw-HAW!!” (or words to that effect)
while I can see your point re: similarities (“economy is going bad, war w/Bagdad”), I disagree that this action is an ‘obvious political blunder’.
The country was nearly totally united after 9/11, and feelings of patriotism are running rather high these days still. Yet, the War On Terror [sup]tm[/sup], while it had some immediate flashy beginnings, has somewhat stalled (OBL still at large, we’ve got all those guys down at Gitmo, and we’ve still not figured out what we’re going to do w/them, etc etc.), this is a way to specifically ID a known “badguy” who lives in palaces vs. caves, with a regular, identifiable armed force, regular, identifiable borders, etc - in other words, everything that the WOT doesn’t have.
You realize, of course, that you will be labeled a “Liberal,” (shudder), “Anti-American,” “Anti-God” and a “Tax and Spend Democrat” by those of less than a high school education. I’m sure that’s a risk you’re willing to take.
Touche’ and the tax cut. Failing economy? War with Iraq? Its 1991 all over again. Jesus, I hope that doesn’t mean New Kids On The Block are comin’ back too!
The government was taking in more money than it was spending (thanks to the Klinton tax hike). It is absurd that this was happening, and the right thing to do was to give me back some of my money. I don’t really mean to get nasty, but some of you hamburger flippers on the SDMB have no idea what it’s like to really pay taxes!
My wife and I took our $600 and bought a new dog and some supplies. The breeder made money, the pet store made money, the vet made money. None of those would have made that extra money had we not bought that dog, and we would not have gone out and bought him without getting that tax rebate. So, our rebate did spur the economy, a little.
The reason some of you didn’t get a rebate is because you don’t pay in the kind of taxes I do! And as my dependants grow up and move away, my tax bill is going to get worse!
Any tax increase or cut usually needs 2-4 fiscal years to affect any economy. So you cannot blame the Bush cuts/rebates on this economy, which, by the way, isn’t really so bad when you compare it to 1978/1979 (I was there! It sucked!).
way to go pk, let’s continue the ever so mature response of misspelling a name, and malign our opponents by assuming that only a ‘burger flipper’ (who probably pays a larger proportion of his income to taxes than you, when you consider the various levels of taxation), would be opposed to Mr. Bush’s policies.
You can say that it did not help, but how on Earth can you possibly believe that it has hurt the economy? How would the government keeping that money have created any new jobs, new businesses, or any improvement in the economy whatsoever?
oh come on, Maud you’ve seen all the news reports about the government having budget woes, haven’t you? I could have sworn it was reported.
So?
Last I checked my paycheck does not come from the feds (a large chunk of it does go to them though) and the DOW does not reflect government shortfalls.
So, if your personal paycheck isnt’ affected, then it’s Chicken little time?
Governmental budget woes are (IB) a prime indicator of “Not all is good w/the economy”. YOu wanted to know how the tax refund ‘hurt’ the economy, well, since the tax refund lessened the amount of ‘income’ the government had, the government managed to go from having a budget surplus to needing massive cuts in the budgets from the year already half gone in order to balance it.
Again, so what?
The government is not the engine that drives the economy. The government (despite how much they want and try to) does not run the economy.
Just because the tax cut may have hurt the government, this does not mean that it hurt the economy. If you affect the indicator, this does not effect or control what is supposed to be indicated.
Scenario A: The government spends $600 on a widget.
Scenario B: The government rebates $600 to Joe Taxpayer, and Joe Taxpayer spends $600 on a wadget. (Or maybe he doesn’t spend it at all. Maybe he stuffs it in a mattress.)
How does scenario B provide more stimulus to the economy than scenario A?
spoke-, this is an answer to your question, in a way. Tax rates on business have a big effect. Try this example.
You would like to start a business, but your investors require a 13% return on equity. You plan your prices, costs, sales, profits, equity, etc, and conclude that the best you can do to to produce a return on equity of 16% before taxes. If taxes are 35%, your ROE will be a bit under 11% after taxes. That’s not enough, so you won’t start the business.
OTOH, if your tax rate were only 18%, then your after tax ROE would be 13%, so you would start a new company.
Does anybody here actually think that the tax cut was supposed to solve everything?
It surely did stimulate the economy, as did the rate cuts that the Fed instituted, yet we’re still in recession. Oh well, we’re still in recession should we just move the Fed Funds rate up to 8%?
It wasn’t a magic bullet. It wasn’t represented as such.
Both however had the effect of propping up the consumer in one of the worst environments possible, and the fact that the consumer and retail sales have been decent in spite of our environment would suggest that the tactic worked.
You can view a chart on consumer confidence here.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/06/25/news/economy/economy/index.htm
If you wish to bitch about it generally, that’s fine, but it surely had a beneficial economic effect.
If I were a Bush supporter, I’d be embarassed to talk about that rebate. Am I the only one who remembers the hoopla that preceded it? I don’t think so.
I don’t know anyone who really benefitted from their $300. Sure, I spent mine on stuff. Can’t remember what, but it must have been good stuff. pkbites got a really cool dog, but I could have gotten a equally cool (IMO) dog for a lot less money from the Humane Society.
But thats beside the point. We were promised Tangible National Benefit from the rebate, And I just can’t see it. Please, someone point it out for me.
Peace,
mangeorge