When is humor no longer funny?

[kandrathe]

:D

Point taken. Well, in many european countries trying to obtain a PhD is normally done by giving you a 4 year contract at a university. So you get a salary that is a bit lower than what you could have gotten at a company, but not very much. Also you get all the other benefits like pension build up, allowance for paying monthly fess to medical insurance etc.

And by the way...department politics in industry are probably worse (especially because as a PhD student you hardly are bothered by these things).
By the way, yesterday I saw by accident a documentary about Arnold Schwarzenegger on TV. Let's just say it didn't increase my appreciation for actors in politics.

The media fascination with the freak show. Some other notable, less flashy ones are Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, Fred Grandy, and Fred Thompson. It's nice to see some non-lawyers become politicians though.

[Jester]

So then are you saying that a flat tax on investment income is fair?

I'm not sure how you would get that out of what I said.

Although, in the libertarian way of thinking, taxes are an almost punitive action. I don't really have issues with taxing conspicuous consumptions, but when you tax "income" and "capital" you are sinking the greedy fangs of government directly into the roots of growth and success. I've made this argument here before, but wealthy people can choose their level of income while its the middle class who cannot and pays the taxes.

If this is true (and the fact that the wealthiest, despite being able to "choose their level of income", pay the lion's share of taxes seems to indicate that it is not), then what needs to happen is that the wealthiest need to be taxed both harder and smarter, and that the middle class needs more tax relief. The Bush tax cuts, despite your claims to the contrary, seem to be aimed first and foremost at "liberating" the very wealthy from giving any more of their historically-unprecedented levels of wealth towards an increasingly bankrupt government's debts and necessary expenses, even leaving aside all the things you disparage so much.

According to David Goldman from the former Bear Stearns, "An investor pays the capital gains tax only when he liquidates his investment. In practice, investors liquidate taxable securities and incur the capital gains tax only if they must do so in order to meet large, non-recurring expenses. Wealthy investors often hold onto assets that have appreciated in value until they die, passing them to their heirs and avoiding the capital gains tax (though not the estate tax) altogether. In contrast, middle-class families who have either invested in securities or built small businesses typically must sell a large portion of their investment at the peak of their savings, in order to pay for a large expense like retirement, a child’s education, or the purchase of a home. At that time, these investors have no choice but to pay tax on their capital gains."

... all of which could be dealt with, in terms of the middle class, by a simple system of exemptions, either by setting up lifetime thresholds below which you do not pay capital gains taxes, or with retirement-and-education oriented investment accounts that are immune from taxation, provided the proceeds are used for their intended purpose. Lowering capital gains taxes (overwhelmingly benefitting the richest, in more-than-proportion to their riches) to eliminate those problems seems to be solving a paper cut with a lobotomy.

I don't have a problem with that. Ronny Reagan didn't get the first wave of voodoo tax reforms passed until midterm, so what we see in 79 is the aftermath of the Carter years. In fact, even through this last Bush term, revenues into the federal coffers have been growing while effective rates continue to fall.

Yes, because your economy has been growing (this last year aside, when tax revenues have stagnated). Tax revenues should always increase, given perfectly ordinary levels of economic growth, even in the face of tax cuts. The question is how much of that growth is due to the tax cuts, and how much of that makes it back into the pockets of the government. The answer to that question is almost certainly "not nearly as much as if they hadn't cut taxes".

However, new spending combined with run amok entitlement programs are rising much faster than revenues ever could. Obama offers no change from the past 30 years where both Republicans and Democrats continue to hyper-inflate the size of government.

New spending including an extraordinarily expensive war that you supported? Government is the only tool available for delivering a major economic stimulus. (You could try your plan for small business loans, but even that would require colossal government spending, at least in the short term.) The alternative to such a stimulus is the risk of a new great depression. Who knows, that may happen anyway. But this is not just some crazy socialist fearmongering. It appears to be the consensus position of pretty much every mainstream economist on the planet, although the devil, as always, is in the details.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If this is true (and the fact that the wealthiest, despite being able to "choose their level of income", pay the lion's share of taxes seems to indicate that it is not), then what needs to happen is that the wealthiest need to be taxed both harder and smarter, and that the middle class needs more tax relief.

Would you then advocate the government seizing assets as well as unfairly siphoning off a persons source of wealth? As an example, Warren Buffet's annual salary from BH is a mere $100k. He chose to earn another mere $46M from his $52B portfolio. If you figure the average growth rate of the $52B at even a lowly 10%(avg yearly growth of BH is more like 20%), then Mr. Buffet selected to earn and pay taxes on 8.8% of the growth of his wealth. He didn't need to earn it.

The Bush tax cuts, despite your claims to the contrary, seem to be aimed first and foremost at "liberating" the very wealthy from giving any more of their historically-unprecedented levels of wealth towards an increasingly bankrupt government's debts and necessary expenses, even leaving aside all the things you disparage so much.

I believe that the price of the meal (i.e. government services) should be the same for everyone who can pay for them. For those who are infirm, (too young, too old, too sick, etc.) exemptions should be made and their burden should be shared equally. A fair system treats everyone equally. As much as we admire Robin Hood, we all know that beyond all the good intentions he was a bandit. What we have done in our government is legitimize banditry. Let's go back to the allegory of the 10 men sharing the $100 meal; Would you ever agree to such an arrangement in splitting the bill? I wouldn't. In reality, when you can't pay you eat less or go without. I have empathy for the poor, just as I have empathy for the victim of robbery (even when it is dressed up by my government and called "taxes"). Other than the last years most unusual and wrong minded cases of excessive corporate welfare, I don't see much use of tax money for helping wealthy people. Maybe in your belief system it is the duty of those with wealth to write a blank check to the government? From 1936 to 1963 the top tax rate was between 80 to 92%. Does that seem fair?

... all of which could be dealt with, in terms of the middle class, by a simple system of exemptions, either by setting up lifetime thresholds below which you do not pay capital gains taxes, or with retirement-and-education oriented investment accounts that are immune from taxation, provided the proceeds are used for their intended purpose. Lowering capital gains taxes (overwhelmingly benefiting the richest, in more-than-proportion to their riches) to eliminate those problems seems to be solving a paper cut with a lobotomy.

I like your notion of exemptions for certain classes of "savings". It would be nice to be able to tuck money away for paying for ones own health care, educating ones children, and ones own retirement (for use after I'm 65 or 70 even). I think the government should encourage personal savings accounts for those who can afford them, and reserve the entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) for those who cannot.

Yes, because your economy has been growing (this last year aside, when tax revenues have stagnated). Tax revenues should always increase, given perfectly ordinary levels of economic growth, even in the face of tax cuts. The question is how much of that growth is due to the tax cuts, and how much of that makes it back into the pockets of the government. The answer to that question is almost certainly "not nearly as much as if they hadn't cut taxes".

Revenue growth is still well above the growth rate of GDP and inflation.(see the other charts from my last post).

New spending including an extraordinarily expensive war that you supported?

Just to be very clear. I was fine (not against, not eager) with kicking Saddam's butt (e.g. regime change) for his crimes and violations of the armistice, against the UN, and against his own people. This was also the position of former President Clinton. I wasn't supportive of attempting to build a democracy in Baghdad, although I can see that in some neocon fable it would be a strategic advantage to have a friendly democracy where Saddam's Iraq used to be. And, then someday, we also know that pigs will fly and shoot JDAM's from their posteriors at insurgent terrorists. The war was over in my mind once Saddam and his ilk were either killed, or captured. It has been the "nation building" that has been costly, and the billions wasted mostly going to friends of the neocons.

Government is the only tool available for delivering a major economic stimulus. (You could try your plan for small business loans, but even that would require colossal government spending, at least in the short term.) The alternative to such a stimulus is the risk of a new great depression. Who knows, that may happen anyway. But this is not just some crazy socialist fear mongering. It appears to be the consensus position of pretty much every mainstream economist on the planet, although the devil, as always, is in the details.

I'm not sure that government is the answer. The Keynesian view is that all depressions and recessions are due to government interventions in the economy. I've also heard that the Great Depression was deeper and longer due to failed government attempts at fixing the problem.

From my old economics textbook, "In particular, government efforts to manipulate the interest rate causes a boom and bust cycle because people over-invest ("malinvestment") when interest rates are low and when interest rates are raised to stave off the inevitable inflation, a bust is caused due to the mismatching of consumer and business goods." I would add that perhaps this depression was initiated by governments poor performance with the pseudo government agencies Fannie and Freddie. And, as Mr. Buffet would say, those financial weapons of mass destruction, derivatives and namely guaranteed investment contracts.

[Jester]

Obviously, your and my view of what taxes are, what government is for, and who Robin Hood is are not going to be reconciled anytime soon.

However, on some factual points, you are almost certainly wrong. Tax receipts (inflation adjusted) according to the Heritage graph, have grown by almost nothing since their peak in 2000, and yet real GDP has grown by nearly 20%. How can that be consistent with the claim that tax revenue has outpaced GDP growth?

-Jester

Afterthought: Which econ textbook is that? Someone on the internet is apparently plagiarizing them.

[kandrathe]

Obviously, your and my view of what taxes are, what government is for, and who Robin Hood is are not going to be reconciled anytime soon.

Granted.

However, on some factual points, you are almost certainly wrong. Tax receipts (inflation adjusted) according to the Heritage graph, have grown by almost nothing since their peak in 2000, and yet real GDP has grown by nearly 20%. How can that be consistent with the claim that tax revenue has outpaced GDP growth?

The rate related to GDP has remained flat at about 9%. I meant that the amounts of taxes levied have increased due to economic expansion, while the tax rates across the board have been lowered. With a constant time frame of say the 50 years from 1965 to 2005, the federal taxes levied have gone from 620 Billion to 2300 Billion, which is about 370%. The GDP(adjusted for inflation) in 1965 was about $3214 Billion, and in 2005 it was about $10878 Billion which is about a 338% rise. This means that the cost of government (when you include debt) has grown over the past 50 year faster than that same 370%, which translates to on average 6% to 10% per year depending on which numbers you use. There is then a 32% (over 50 years) faster growth in revenue than GDP. Another question then is to where has all this extra money gone? Poverty remains pretty constant over the past 50 years (source), and inflation has been well below the growth rate of government.

Afterthought: Which econ textbook is that?

The textbook was "America's Great Depression" by Rothbard. I have and would also recommend "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman and "Human Action" by Ludvig Von Mises.

[Jester]

The rate related to GDP has remained flat at about 9%. I meant that the amounts of taxes levied have increased due to economic expansion, while the tax rates across the board have been lowered. With a constant time frame of say the 50 years from 1965 to 2005, the federal taxes levied have gone from 620 Billion to 2300 Billion, which is about 370%. The GDP(adjusted for inflation) in 1965 was about $3214 Billion, and in 2005 it was about $10878 Billion which is about a 338% rise. This means that the cost of government (when you include debt) has grown over the past 50 year faster than that same 370%, which translates to on average 6% to 10% per year depending on which numbers you use. There is then a 32% (over 50 years) faster growth in revenue than GDP.

Perhaps in the super-long view, tax revenue has increased faster than GDP growth. I would expect that to be the case, since, as America pulls further and further from the subsistence level, the surplus wealth that can be taxed away without breaking the backbone of the economy grows larger and larger. The growth is in any case not terribly great, especially considering how grotesquely the debt has grown.

However, we have now moved from the effect of the Bush tax cuts to tracking GDP over 50 years. Is there any evidence that what Bush has done has increased revenue? I don't think there is, at least not in what I've seen. Quite the contrary.

Another question then is to where has all this extra money gone? Poverty remains pretty constant over the past 50 years (source), and inflation has been well below the growth rate of government.

Assets? Welfare improvements? Improved lifespan? The average American is better off in many ways that are not directly reflected in GDP in 2005 than 1965.

The textbook was "America's Great Depression" by Rothbard. I have and would also recommend "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman and "Human Action" by Ludvig Von Mises.

Thought so. Not to disparage the work of what are all excellent economists with interesting ideas, but there does seem to be a rather Austrian tilt to all this, which is not exactly representative of economics as a whole, especially where the Great Depression is concerned.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Perhaps in the super-long view, tax revenue has increased faster than GDP growth. I would expect that to be the case, since, as America pulls further and further from the subsistence level, the surplus wealth that can be taxed away without breaking the backbone of the economy grows larger and larger. The growth is in any case not terribly great, especially considering how grotesquely the debt has grown. However, we have now moved from the effect of the Bush tax cuts to tracking GDP over 50 years. Is there any evidence that what Bush has done has increased revenue? I don't think there is, at least not in what I've seen. Quite the contrary.

The better question is when has Congress ever elected to pay back the debt? If they trimmed the federal government back to utilitarian levels, they would have plenty of revenue to pay back the borrowing. But, the system is not designed to do the "hard" things, rather it caters to the politically expedient. If a politician doesn't promise and deliver government hand outs to the electorate, then at the next election we will see them replaced with someone who will. I think lowering revenue is a first step to get Congress to live within their means.

Assets? Welfare improvements? Improved lifespan? The average American is better off in many ways that are not directly reflected in GDP in 2005 than 1965.

People in the US pay about 30% of their gross income to governments at all levels. I would say the government has become a heavy burden on the citizen. The government collects as much in taxes now as was the GDP in 1965. Here is my analysis of the problem. The US government made the excuse to dig it's hands into the citizens pocket during WWI and WWII, and it has never been withdrawn. That key moment to demobilize the US from the war was during the 1950's. Rather, the government needed to run around and find new "Wars" on which to spend our money. Whether it be the war on the spread of communism, war on aids, war on drugs, war on poverty, war on illiteracy, or war in Iraq. However noble we might think these causes to be, the "Robin Hoods" of congress reach into our pockets to take our money to spend on whatever "good causes" they feel are justified. The US collects about $3 trillion dollars in revenue, and has a population of about 306,134,000. If just the federal tax revenues were divided equally across the population, it would amount to $8,858.95 a year for each man, woman and child, or $28,441.38 per household. Let's try to compare to a similar European nation like Germany with an almost balanced budget of $13,425,240,000 US dollars (0.44% of the US budget) and a population of about 82,062,200 people(about 1/4 of the US). In another perspective the US collects about 224 times the amount of tax revenue (at just the federal level) for just 4 times the size of the population.

[eppie]

The better question is when has Congress ever elected to pay back the debt? If they trimmed the federal government back to utilitarian levels, they would have plenty of revenue to pay back the borrowing. But, the system is not designed to do the "hard" things, rather it caters to the politically expedient. If a politician doesn't promise and deliver government hand outs to the electorate, then at the next election we will see them replaced with someone who will. I think lowering revenue is a first step to get Congress to live within their means.People in the US pay about 30% of their gross income to governments at all levels. I would say the government has become a heavy burden on the citizen. The government collects as much in taxes now as was the GDP in 1965. Here is my analysis of the problem. The US government made the excuse to dig it's hands into the citizens pocket during WWI and WWII, and it has never been withdrawn. That key moment to demobilize the US from the war was during the 1950's. Rather, the government needed to run around and find new "Wars" on which to spend our money. Whether it be the war on the spread of communism, war on aids, war on drugs, war on poverty, war on illiteracy, or war in Iraq. However noble we might think these causes to be, the "Robin Hoods" of congress reach into our pockets to take our money to spend on whatever "good causes" they feel are justified. The US collects about $3 trillion dollars in revenue, and has a population of about 306,134,000. If just the federal tax revenues were divided equally across the population, it would amount to $8,858.95 a year for each man, woman and child, or $28,441.38 per household. Let's try to compare to a similar European nation like Germany with an almost balanced budget of $13,425,240,000 US dollars (0.44% of the US budget) and a population of about 82,062,200 people(about 1/4 of the US). In another perspective the US collects about 224 times the amount of tax revenue (at just the federal level) for just 4 times the size of the population.

I am no expert on these matters but what do you mean with a 13 bilion dollar budget (germany). Are these collected taxes? If so that value seem to me dangerously low.

[Delc]

Wikipedia lists EU488 thousand million for Germany's taxes (which from the way it reads includes local, and state taxes). So depending on how that gets split up, 12billion for the federal portion could be correct.

[Jester]

And once again, we are now drifting away from the Bush tax cuts, what they did, and whether they helped or hurt the middle class more than the rich, into a general discussion of taxes.

However, Eppie is right. Your number for the German budget is crazy; you're off by almost two orders of magnitude. While the numbers are not directly comparable for exchange rate reasons, the German tax income figure is more like 650 Billion to 800 Billion dollars. That dramatically changes the view of the tax burden, to say the least.

-Jester

[Jester]

Wikipedia lists EU488 thousand million for Germany's taxes (which from the way it reads includes local, and state taxes). So depending on how that gets split up, 12billion for the federal portion could be correct.

I don't have any statistics on that one, but I really, really doubt the federal government in Germany spends only a percent and a half of total state revenues. If so, they have a "federal" government utterly unlike the US', and therefore makes for a meaningless comparison. But again, I doubt it.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

And once again, we are now drifting away from the Bush tax cuts, what they did, and whether they helped or hurt the middle class more than the rich, into a general discussion of taxes.

However, Eppie is right. Your number for the German budget is crazy; you're off by almost two orders of magnitude. While the numbers are not directly comparable for exchange rate reasons, the German tax income figure is more like 650 Billion to 800 Billion dollars. That dramatically changes the view of the tax burden, to say the least.

-Jester

I found another source which shows $333.33644 billion US for 2005. Which is still 1/9 the US budget.

[Jester]

I found another source which shows $333.33644 billion US for 2005. Which is still 1/9 the US budget.

Got a link? Every number I've seen for German government revenue has been in at least the ballpark of 480 billion Euros, which, depending on the exchange rate, is somewhere between 600 and 800 billion US.

If Wikipedia is to be believed on the issue, even my numbers are low: revenue was 1.277 trillion US in 2006. (Of course, revenue is not all taxed, but I don't think the German government has a revenue stream that exceeds taxation, so it can't realistically be more than double the tax revenue number.)

How about here for a comparative look at taxes vs. GDP? It seems to indicate what I've read everywhere else, that the US is pretty much has the lowest tax-to-GDP ratio of any developed nation, which is in complete contradiction to the argument you're making about Germany, whose ratio is almost 10% of GDP higher.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Got a link? Every number I've seen for German government revenue has been in at least the ballpark of 480 billion Euros, which, depending on the exchange rate, is somewhere between 600 and 800 billion US.

If Wikipedia is to be believed on the issue, even my numbers are low: revenue was 1.277 trillion US in 2006. (Of course, revenue is not all taxed, but I don't think the German government has a revenue stream that exceeds taxation, so it can't realistically be more than double the tax revenue number.)

How about here for a comparative look at taxes vs. GDP? It seems to indicate what I've read everywhere else, that the US is pretty much has the lowest tax-to-GDP ratio of any developed nation, which is in complete contradiction to the argument you're making about Germany, whose ratio is almost 10% of GDP higher.

-Jester

My point was not taxes vs GDP. The point is... How much does a government need to take per capita from its people to provide services? Just because a particular society is more productive should not automatically mean that the "surplus" is available for ones government to sop up like a greedy hog. We can separate a few things for comparison; a) government, b) social programs for citizens c) social programs for non-citizens, and d) defense. I need to run and get the kids, but I'll add more about this later.

And, as it relates to Bush's tax cuts. In 2000, when Bush took office the Revenue as a portion of GDP was pressing to a historical highpoint past 20%, after the tax cuts it plummeted down to near 10% then bounced back up to near 15% again. I'm sure it's dropping again. Historically, in the US the tax rate as a portion of GDP has oscillated around the 15% mark. I think in retrospect, it would have been better to find an offset in the budget or (heaven forbid) raise a tax to pay for the increases due to the Iraq war.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Got a link? Every number I've seen for German government revenue has been in at least the ballpark of 480 billion Euros, which, depending on the exchange rate, is somewhere between 600 and 800 billion US.

If Wikipedia is to be believed on the issue, even my numbers are low: revenue was 1.277 trillion US in 2006.

For what it's worth, according to this official source from our government itself (sorry, only available in German I'm afraid), the tax income for Germany in 2007 was 538.2 billion Euros (approx. 700 billion US$ at the moment).

According to this official source, total revenue (taxes + everything else) in 2007 was 1026.8 billion Euros (~1350 billion US$).

-Kylearan

[Vandiablo]

Funny thing --

I'm feeling a lot better... since about noon today.

In fact, it might be the best I've felt in years.

[Hammerskjold]

Funny thing --

I'm feeling a lot better... since about noon today.

In fact, it might be the best I've felt in years.

I know what you're saying.

The Lurker Lounge cafeteria lunch special today is bacon cheeseburger, with Freedom Fries.
For only $3.49!

That's what you meant right?

[Vandiablo]

There's so much to respond to in this post, and so little time. As always, I'm so glad Jester is here-- Jester's presence allows me to actually spend time with my kids. You see, I only post from home, so any time spent here either takes away from family time or sleep time. And once a great Jester/kandrathe debate (a J/k??) starts, others should stand clear. I must admit I haven't read the entire tax policy debate in this thread, so if I'm repeating something, sorry.

My trickle-down comment was really out-of-place, this was an anti-Bush thread and I stuck anti-Reagan on it. My apologies.

So, I'll assume Jester covered most of the tax policy stuff, so I'll just make two points...

Obama's last speech was fear mongering at its worst.

"Only government can break the cycle that are crippling our economy -- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit."

I see. Only government can solve this problem.

You react similarly to the way I feel when I often hear, "Only God can fix blah blah" or "Only people of faith can blah blah blah". I guess it's usually in the form of "you can only clean yourself up by giving yourself to " whatever deity-of-the-day is.

But never mind that, that's another discussion which I'll probably get into down the road <strike>to hell</strike> some day soon.

You expect to hear someday soon:

Government knows best how to spend your money to save the economy.

I know you believe the opposite from previous posts of yours. And yet:

Here is hesitantly my answer Van. Spend the money on business development loans which will be used for creating or expanding small businesses employing less than 200 people. Here is the catch, the amount given will be determined by the number of people added to the businesses payroll and paid back over 10 years with very low interest. We might also encourage innovation in some way. I don't see that giving $1000 of tax payer collected money and then redistributed back to consumers to spend on a new washing machine will go very far in rebuilding confidence in the economy. But, put people to work where they have disposable income, and they will pretty much spend it.

First of all: You bastard! We had to buy a new washing machine! . . about a month ago. And since we are SITH, expenses of that sort are a hardship.

More on the point: So, normally you say that people know better how to spend their own money than the govt does. So if the $1000 was originally MY money -- and indeed it was, since these are tax rebates or reductions, not gifts to the needy -- how can you say the govt can spend it better? Why are you abandoning your principles?

The bottom line: The engine of the economy is not government, it is business. If you want to accelerate the economy, you need to invest in business. I don't like the idea of government taking money from people, and then giving it away again for other people to spend it as they see fit. ... Not hand outs ...

Again, if I understand correctly, these aren't handouts. It's to taxpayers, not to all citizens. It's not to "other people" -- it's back to the people who paid it. Am I wrong? (Occhi is here, so I must be wrong...)

-V

[kandrathe]

You react similarly to the way I feel when I often hear, "Only God can fix blah blah" or "Only people of faith can blah blah blah". I guess it's usually in the form of "you can only clean yourself up by giving yourself to " whatever deity-of-the-day is.

But never mind that, that's another discussion which I'll probably get into down the road <strike>to hell</strike> some day soon.

We agree on this point. Self determination is good. The theological answer is that God can do anything. He may not want to do your bidding however.

You expect to hear someday soon... I know you believe the opposite from previous posts of yours.

I do. That was a bit of sarcasm. I don't think the government can spend us out if this mess.

First of all: You bastard! We had to buy a new washing machine! . . about a month ago. And since we are SITH, expenses of that sort are a hardship.

Sorry about your washing machine. I too have extraordinary expenses (repairing my bathroom tile that started to peal away from the wall) I'm deferring until I can afford it. We did need to replace a car a few months ago, which hurt.

More on the point: So, normally you say that people know better how to spend their own money than the govt does. So if the $1000 was originally MY money -- and indeed it was, since these are tax rebates or reductions, not gifts to the needy -- how can you say the govt can spend it better? Why are you abandoning your principles?

I'm not abandoning my principles. If it were merely a tax refund of taxes you paid, then I would half heartedly support it. I say half heartedly, because the government did not reduce spending to give the money. Instead, it all is going to debt. Debts, in contrast to how Washington DC uses them, actually do need to be repaid someday.

Again, if I understand correctly, these aren't handouts. It's to taxpayers, not to all citizens. It's not to "other people" -- it's back to the people who paid it. Am I wrong? (Occhi is here, so I must be wrong...)

Who gets the rebate? That is more complicated, but I doubt anyone will like the formula. I lifted this from someone else's careful analysis.

The system works in two stages. First, you figure out just how much you can get back. Then, you calculate the benefit reductions based on salary.

First, let’s see what singles could get back.

Earnings / Rebate
$3,000 or less / A big fat zero.
$3,000 or more, paid no taxes / $300.
$3,000 or more, paid taxes / $600.
Have children? / $300 per child

Now, the reductions.
It’s fairly simple math. Once you earn over $75,000, your check is reduced by 5% per $1000 above the $75k threshold. After $87k, you get nothing. Here are some rough examples.

Single person earning $50k a year with 2 children = $1200
Single person earning $80k a year with 1 child = $675 ($900 - $225)
Single person earning $90k a year with no children = $0

Couples get the same treatment, only everything is doubled to take into account the two people in the household:

Earnings / Rebate
$3,000 or less / A big fat zero.
$3,000 or more, paid no taxes / $600.
$3,000 or more, paid taxes / $1200.
Have children? / $300 per child

And the reductions.
Once again, simple math. Once couples earn over $150k, the check is reduced by 5% per $1000 above the $150k threshold. After $174k, you get nothing.

I found these further examples, all based on the 2007 filing period.

A couple with no children, with adjusted gross income of $100,000:
$1,200 couples rebate. A $1,200 rebate.

A couple with income of $145,000, with three children:
$1,200 for the couple, plus $300 for each child. A $2,100 rebate.

A couple with income of $160,000 with two children:
$1,200 for the couple plus $300 per child — BUT would go down by 50 percent (5% for every $1000 over the $150 threshold). A $900 rebate.

A couple with income of $200,000 and four children:
Disqualified, income exceeded $174,000. No rebate.

There are other aspects to the bill that I’m not covering here, including mortgage relief. But there is another important message here. The government wants you to SPEND THIS REBATE.

So, the bottom line is that you can pay zero taxes and get a rebate, but if you earn too much and pay in too much tax you will get nothing back you rich bastard. If you would like to think of it as a tax rebate, that is well and good. Except, all those who paid taxes do not get a rebate, and most of those who (file an income tax form but,) did not pay taxes do get a rebate. And, again, the money went straight from China's surplus bank account to the US Feds, to your bank account, to the Washing Machine store, and probably right back to China where the washing machine was made. Now the tax payers of the US will pay debt service on it for a couple decades.

[Vandiablo]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm done now.

But look at this funny thing! The first line and a half of the supplied quote of your post reads:

We agree on this point. Self determination is good. The theological answer is that God can do anything. He may not want to do your bidding however.I do.

Isn't that great??? Wonderful!!

What bidding shall I have you do first?? hmm... hmm...

Oh, I know! Set up a telepathic signal system so that you can do my bidding that much faster!

Woops, hold on... reading two lines of your quote we get:

We agree on this point. Self determination is good. The theological answer is that God can do anything. He may not want to do your bidding however.I do. That was a bit of sarcasm.

Darn! Fooled again! Darn sarcasm! Darn it to heck! And here I've always wanted an artistic bronzesmith to do my bidding, argh...

-V