Cry me a river

[the_idle_threat]

Excerpted from JSO. (Full article here: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=713961)

"I feel middle class. I wouldn't say I was affluent," said Eric Olsen, a human resources professional whose wife stays home with their four children, all under 11. His adjusted gross income was about $143,000 in 2006, much of it from investments. The rebate plan passed by the House would start to phase out checks when a family's adjusted gross income hits $150,000.

The Felerski family had about the same income last year. He is a self-employed manufacturers' representative and she is a medical technician. They have two young children.

"I don't feel we are rich by any means," Matthew Felerski said. "I consider us to be middle income, just working-class people."

Cry me a river, folks. Tell me about how "middle class" you feel when you take home, after taxes, four or five times as much as most of my neighbors here in Milwaukee. On a single income, no less, in the first case.

Suck it up. Maybe you would be happier if your family income was closer to Wisconsin's median---about $60K according to the article. Then you wouldn't have to pay all those awful taxes. Doesn't matter how much people have ... there's always reason to complain about not havng enough.

And the funny thing is, these folks will still fall into the group that gets the tax "rebate," according to the article, and both families admit that they don't plan to spend the money.

[GrnBay007]

both families admit that they don't plan to spend the money.

I see the majority of the tax rebate money being thrown into the economy by the people that probably should be spending the money somewhere else.

I will put mine toward my daughter's braces. Some will say that is putting money into the economy but fact is it would have been paid anyway....just a break for me. My above statement is directed toward people that have debt, yet will go out and spend the money foolishly.

[Jimx29]

what's most annoying is the way it's being hailed as a "tax rebate", when if fact it's not even close to that. It's gift that will end up being taxed.....

[the_idle_threat]

But the gov't wants people to spend the money "foolishly." This is why it's more accurately a remittance rather than a rebate: they want it spent on consumer goods rather than dropped into a savings or investment account or used to pay off debts, so they're giving it to people who are most likely---by need or simply by habit---to go out and blow it, and therefore stimulate consumer spending.

[GrnBay007]

But the gov't wants people to spend the money "foolishly." This is why it's more accurately a remittance rather than a rebate: they want it spent on consumer goods rather than dropped into a savings or investment account or used to pay off debts, so they're giving it to people who are most likely---by need or simply by habit---to go out and blow it, and therefore stimulate consumer spending.

Yes, and that's the sad part. It's like they are taking advantage of the people with no self control...that really should be putting the money toward good use.

[the_idle_threat]

But the gov't wants people to spend the money "foolishly." This is why it's more accurately a remittance rather than a rebate: they want it spent on consumer goods rather than dropped into a savings or investment account or used to pay off debts, so they're giving it to people who are most likely---by need or simply by habit---to go out and blow it, and therefore stimulate consumer spending.

Yes, and that's the sad part. It's like they are taking advantage of the people with no self control...that really should be putting the money toward good use.

I guess I have to disagree with this, because I can't reconcile the ideas of being given free money and being taken advantage of. Many of the recipients of this remittance are receiving a tax "rebate" in addition to a full refund of all taxes withheld during the year, if any were withheld at all. From their POV, it's a gift---same thing as being handed 600 bucks by someone on the street.

If anyone could claim to be taken advantage of, it's the folks who make so much money that they pay the government to give this "rebate" to others who don't pay taxes, while getting no rebate themselves. And although that is true, my point above is that these folks should take a step back and look at the big picture before bitching about what turns out to be such a minor wrong in their world.

[GrnBay007]

But the gov't wants people to spend the money "foolishly." This is why it's more accurately a remittance rather than a rebate: they want it spent on consumer goods rather than dropped into a savings or investment account or used to pay off debts, so they're giving it to people who are most likely---by need or simply by habit---to go out and blow it, and therefore stimulate consumer spending.

Yes, and that's the sad part. It's like they are taking advantage of the people with no self control...that really should be putting the money toward good use.

I guess I have to disagree with this, because I can't reconcile the ideas of being given free money and being taken advantage of. Many of the recipients of this remittance are receiving a tax "rebate" in addition to a full refund of all taxes withheld during the year, if any were withheld at all. From their POV, it's a gift---same thing as being handed 600 bucks by someone on the street.

If anyone could claim to be taken advantage of, it's the folks who make so much money that they pay the government to give this "rebate" to others who don't pay taxes, while getting no rebate themselves. And although that is true, my point above is that these folks should take a step back and look at the big picture before bitching about what turns out to be such a minor wrong in their world.

I agree with your overall opinion. What I am talking about are the people that owe money, possibly on welfare but worked enough hours throughout the year to qualify, basically people that take advantage of the "system" that rather then do something responsible with the money they will go out and blow it on Nike baby shoes or designer clothes for themselves when they would never purchase those things if they had to earn the money for it themselves. Not that spending the money on those things is bad if you don't owe elsewhere.....but so much of this tax rebate that actually does get thrown back into the economy will probably be from those that really should be putting the money elsewhere. I think the Government realizes that.

[Kiwon]

Recipients could act like the Katrina folks did and use the funds for jewelry, liquor, breast enlargements, and for lap dances.

That would stimulate..........uh, the economy.

[the_idle_threat]

You see, that's what the government wants. Consumer spending.

[pacfan]

But the gov't wants people to spend the money "foolishly." This is why it's more accurately a remittance rather than a rebate: they want it spent on consumer goods rather than dropped into a savings or investment account or used to pay off debts, so they're giving it to people who are most likely---by need or simply by habit---to go out and blow it, and therefore stimulate consumer spending.

Yes, and that's the sad part. It's like they are taking advantage of the people with no self control...that really should be putting the money toward good use.

I guess I have to disagree with this, because I can't reconcile the ideas of being given free money and being taken advantage of. Many of the recipients of this remittance are receiving a tax "rebate" in addition to a full refund of all taxes withheld during the year, if any were withheld at all. From their POV, it's a gift---same thing as being handed 600 bucks by someone on the street.

If anyone could claim to be taken advantage of, it's the folks who make so much money that they pay the government to give this "rebate" to others who don't pay taxes, while getting no rebate themselves. And although that is true, my point above is that these folks should take a step back and look at the big picture before bitching about what turns out to be such a minor wrong in their world.

I agree with your overall opinion. What I am talking about are the people that owe money, possibly on welfare but worked enough hours throughout the year to qualify, basically people that take advantage of the "system" that rather then do something responsible with the money they will go out and blow it on Nike baby shoes or designer clothes for themselves when they would never purchase those things if they had to earn the money for it themselves. Not that spending the money on those things is bad if you don't owe elsewhere.....but so much of this tax rebate that actually does get thrown back into the economy will probably be from those that really should be putting the money elsewhere. I think the Government realizes that.

I think this than safely desricbe the sub-prime mortgage crisis as well. People spending outside their means can't be limited to poor people. The "middle-class" folks, who "earn their money", borrow/spend more than they can afford. Foreclosures are a contributor to the possible recession.

I agree, if you can't afford it, then don't spend it.

[Fosco33]

I've always had a problem with taxes. The actual expenditures of taxes (social services, etc) seem to be used MORE by people who pay LESS into the system. I'm at an age where I don't expect to see a dime from the gov't for Medicare or SS - but I pay plenty into these systems yearly. I'll never use Medi-Cal - but I pay into that system. Since I work in lots of states around the county - I pay into taxes for the 'community benefit' - even though I don't live there!

As a salaried employee, I work tons of hours - I earn my paychecks. In fact there were years where I could have made more working an hourly retail job instead! But instead - I went (and paid) for a university education, took a job that was thankless for years until I moved up the ranks and made a living. But in CA, my 'WI adjusted' salary is right at the average. So tell me why I should pay more for people who use more, work less and I'll go along with it...

Fiscal responsibility is everyone's job - not just the gov't.

I want a fair use system - taxation based on utilization! And I want my money for my family first - then yours. That's why we're in a capitalist republic. And my opinion is just as valid as yours - and the people who you ask, 'cry me a river' have that same right, as well.

[Scott Campbell]

[hoosier]

Fiscal responsibility is everyone's job - not just the gov't.

I want a fair use system - taxation based on utilization! And I want my money for my family first - then yours. That's why we're in a capitalist republic. And my opinion is just as valid as yours - and the people who you ask, 'cry me a river' have that same right, as well.

Just curious...would "fair use" hold for ALL of the goods and services subsidized by the federal government, including transportation (roads, highways, air), telecommunications, corporations (Walmart, corporate farms, etc.), and so on, or would it just apply to the stuff used disproporationately by the poor?

[Fosco33]

Fiscal responsibility is everyone's job - not just the gov't.

I want a fair use system - taxation based on utilization! And I want my money for my family first - then yours. That's why we're in a capitalist republic. And my opinion is just as valid as yours - and the people who you ask, 'cry me a river' have that same right, as well.

Just curious...would "fair use" hold for ALL of the goods and services subsidized by the federal government, including transportation (roads, highways, air), telecommunications, corporations (Walmart, corporate farms, etc.), and so on, or would it just apply to the stuff used disproporationately by the poor?

All

[Scott Campbell]

I'm with Fosco33. Our current tax structure rewards laziness and underachievement. It's not a good situation - even for those milking the system.