| Author |
Message |
    
#9Dream
Citizen
Username: 9dream
Post Number: 516
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 11:44 am: |     |
Bush doesn't think the refund checks will stimulate the economy -- not the way you're thinking anyway. The REAL Republican plan is to create a deficit that will force Congress to cut spending on social programs. Why doesn't Bush just propose these cuts outright? Because it would be political suicide for him to propose them, or for Congress to pass them. Reminds me of that line from Dog Day Afternoon:
PACINO: Kiss me.
COP: What?
PACINO: Kiss me. When I'm being f****d I like to get kissed a lot. |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 48
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 12:32 pm: | |
If that is the case, which I too suspect it is, another important question is why would it be political suicide?
The answer: Because too many people in our society have come to think that the federal government (or government in general) should take care of their every need. |
#9Dream
Citizen
Username: 9dream
Post Number: 518
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 12:59 pm: | |
There may be some truth in that, but there are also many of us who favor continuation of social programs that we do not personally benefit from. |
malone
Citizen
Username: Malone
Post Number: 243
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 1:23 pm: | |
If Davenport is worried about getting money his kids will have to pay back, why doesn't he just give it to them? They can invest it and then have much more than $800 when it comes time to pay it back.
Oh wait! That's that nasty capitalism at work again! Darn it!
And he calls Bush a Bozo?
Sheeesh. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 2:45 pm: | |
Excuse me, but since when does the government take care of every need? |
John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 5:58 pm: | |
Sorry for the delay in responding. No I have no plans at the moment to run for the school board, though I do have lots to say about the budget, needed reforms to the LA curriculum, and other school issues. I'm very much hoping that several good citizens better informed than I will be willing to run (and I'm encouraging some). Still, I don't entirely rule out running, either. [like anyone cares anyway...]
Now to the main question about that check. Of course I was expecting the usual challenge: 'well return it then!' (to paraphrase Sbenois). I have in fact cashed it, and put some in the children's savings, while using the rest to pay my property taxes like everyone else.
To Sbenois and others who raised this, I consider it a fair question (but thanks to my defenders!). Let me respectfully explain why I do not regard cashing this check as in any way hypocritical, and why I completely reject the suggestion that anyone opposing these tax cuts should simply return their check to the federal government (as opposed, say, to donating it to CARE or some similarly worthy charity).
I've discussed this some time ago on another post, but it bears repeating: There is an essential distinction between judgments about law we make as citizens interested in the common good (the justness of democratic government presupposes that we are interested in the common good, by the way), and legally permissible decisions we make within the framework of our laws to advance our own interests or pursue other causes of personal importance to us. Each citizen has every right to make decisions that are strategically advantegous for his or her personal goals within the framework created by our legal institutions -- though of course some of these goals may be ethically more admirable than others. But the same person who rightly uses a given statute S to his/her advantage may as citizen oppose this very statute, and advocate its reform. There is no inconsistecy or hypocrisy in their doing so, because they may be willing to forgo the advantage afforded to them by S only if all other citizens also forgo this advantage. Opposing S as a citizen deliberating about the common good commits them to no more than this. Of course, if I believe gas-guzzling SUVs should be banned, I may also voluntarily choose to purchase a minivan with a higher gas mileage. But in principle, there would be no moral inconsistency in my deciding to drive a big SUV as long as they remain legal, while believing they should be made illegal for everyone. (On this case, see Mark Sagoff's famous paper, "At the Shrine of our Lady of Fatima."). The point is this: there would be no inconsistency in my being willing to make the relevant sacrifice only if others will as well.
Disarmament is a good analogy here: side A says to side B 'I'll give up my weapons if you give yours.' Now suppose side B responds: 'Oh yeah? well if you think these weapons are wrong, then why don't you unilaterally disarm first'? In this context, we surely all see how ridiculous side B's little sophism is? But it is the same sophistry that urged members of congress who favor a ban on soft money for all candidates to give up reliance on soft money themselves before everyone has to live by this rule. Let's B's sophism in this case *The Unilateral Disarmament fallacy.* Sbenois is comming this fallacy in suggesting that opposition to Bush's tax cuts would commit me, on pain of inconsistency, to refusing to take my share of these cuts.
As the SUV example suggests, sometimes one might demonstrate superrogatory excellence by voluntarily giving up a privilege allowed by the law in order to make a 'statement' in favor of changing this law, even though there would be nothing wrong or inconsistent with not making such a unilateral sacrifice, and waiting until the law was changed for everyone. But in the case of taxes paid to the public chest, I think it is hardly ever morally better, let alone required, for one to make such a unilateral sacrifice. For taxes are the paradigm case of a sacrifice we ought to make only if all others are bound to make the same sacrifice, or live by the same rule. In this case, voluntarily paying more taxes than others in the same bracket are required to, is simply being a dupe and undermining the idea that taxes are part of the social contract.
Clearly, returning the check or tearing it up would in this instance just be a way of voluntarily paying more taxes than the law now requires. In fact, it would simply mean a higher federal return next spring. But of course I could calculate the part of that return that is due to Bush's heinous tax cuts and voluntarily take a smaller return. Yet this would not be right, because it would in effect be rewarding those people who favored the cut by paying for their unjust gains. That is the last thing I would ever do.
Now suppose millions of Americans opposed to the tax cuts decided to do this. Perhaps then the 'message of protest' created by such a campaign would be worth the sacrifice, purely as a means to an end. But there would be nothing intrinsically valuable about returning the check, apart from this expressive result. As things stand, of course, my returning the check stands no chance of having such an effect.
In summary, the mailing of this $800 check was unjust, but it is not unjust to cash it. In fact, it would be foolish and probably even morally wrong not to. This is because our public relation to the government/people as a whole is much different than our private relations to other citizens as individuals. In the latter contexts, one ought never to profit from ill-gotten gain. Not so when the gain results from a law one opposes, and would advocate changing for everyone. I would gladly repay my $800 today, if I could change the law to recall it for everyone. And the same goes for the Saver rebate check coming from New Jersey. The state should take a year's break from sending these checks to anyone right now. But when it comes, I'll sure as heck cash it, and continue working to change the law so that I and everyone else have to pay it back!
Finally, I'm sure many people will continue to disagree, but at least I've shown that my position is consistent, and I hope it has been interesting. You can still have fun at my expense online, but you can't take a tax cut at my expense without my taking one too. |
overtaxdalready
Citizen
Username: Overtaxdalready
Post Number: 164
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 6:05 pm: | |
A short summary..it's much easier to take the "do nothing" step of making an announcement on a message board protesting the receipt of a tax refund check than it is to actually do something concrete about it, like tear it up or send it back. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1600
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 6:10 pm: | |
O'Taxed,
No worries. We'll all be sending the money back to the Feds sooner or later to paydown the national debt. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10140
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 7:30 pm: | |
Sounds like a lot of words to basically say you're keeping the money. Please enjoy it.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 8:03 pm: | |
Not really Sbenois. Suppose you thought that slavery was a completely horrid institution. Suppose it was also the case that, in order to maintain the prosperity you needed to effectively fight the institution of slavery, you had to own slaves. What would you do?
However, I must admit that J.D. managed to say in several paragraphs that which could have been said in one. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10141
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 9:23 pm: | |
Load up the truck and move to Beverly (Hills that is)
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 10:52 pm: | |
Y'know, the big problem with the latest tax law isn't the check - that was something that went to practically everyone (well, unless you didn't make enough money). The bigger problem is the way the tax rates were restructured. If the goal was to make more money available to people to spend, most of it was sent to people who aren't going to need to spend it.
Overtaxed: The "concrete step" is not to tear up the check. The "concrete step" is to join in to help keep the instigator of this plan from being elected president in 2004. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10144
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 11:06 pm: | |
Dearest Nohero,
I would suggest that you get yourself a copy of the tax law pertaining specifically to child credits before you claim that these checks went to everyone unless you didn't make enough money. You are 100% wrong. These checks had clear phaseout caps.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 11:12 pm: | |
That's why I said practically everyone. The tax rate reductions did not have "phaseout caps".
And sorry for the excessive use of italics ... |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10145
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 11:34 pm: | |
Well one certainly would not infer that from what you wrote, would they?
For those of you who don't know what we're talking about here, those $400 checks start to get phased out if you're married and your agi is above $110k. Or if you're single it's at 75k.
So don't start counting your money yet. And don't start believing that these checks are going to Bush's "rich" friends. They simply are not.
In addition, high earners are subject to the AMT which is NOT indexed for inflation and thus offsets a portion of the newly lowered rates. While the recent tax changes offer some AMT relief for the next two years, this tax very often is incremental to the calculated tax (and lowered rates) you object to.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 1, 2003 - 6:02 pm: | |
The checks for the child tax credit may phase out at higher incomes, but the bulk of the tax cuts ultimately goes to people with high incomes, and high wealth (especially in the repeal of the estate taxes). And this is indeed the reason why it is so unjust in a time of ballooning deficits AND expanding relative inequality in wealth and income between the top 2% and the poor. And expect more AMT tax breaks for earners above $200K in the future. However, I'm not only for taking back the tax giveaways to the top 1-2%. I think everyone needs to make a proportional sacrifice when our deficit is reaching 1/2 billion in a single fiscal year! That is a staggering amount, almost incomprehensible. To go on this way is nothing short of political insanity.
Sorry if my earlier explanation sounded academic or wordy, but I wanted to show that the point is general (exposing a major fallacy that shows up again and again in many different contexts). I think that was worth a little exposition. If you want a short summary, the point is this: I would sacrifice for the common good as long as graduated tax increases are applied to everyone. I would not make a voluntary donation without assured compliance by others. Simple enough? |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 12:12 am: | |
As someone who won't receive a check and probably will benefit from these tax cuts, I think they are wrong and also part of a bigger plan to cut funding to programs that benefit us all. I am more than happy to pay taxes that will be used to improve our currently deplorable healthcare system and better educate all classes of people.
When the current administration starts cutting funds to the EPA, who will ensure our water and air are safe? Maybe the EPA will just be privatized and the market will decide. But what happens when meeting safety regulation hurts profits |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1081
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 8:21 am: | |
That's the whole reason we have an EPA in the first place. |
naborly
Citizen
Username: Naborly
Post Number: 230
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 10:21 am: | |
Bush is trying to BUY the American public -- it's a bribe.
Cash the check but do not allow yourself to be bought. |
Rex Rocker
Citizen
Username: Rex_rocker
Post Number: 11
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 10:54 am: | |
tax cuts are good for the economy. |
montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 15
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 12:19 pm: | |
Sorry Rex, no humor allowed in this thread. It's dangerous for people who might fall off their chairs in hysterical fits of laughter. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 10:34 pm: | |
It's the Laffer Curve, not the Laffer Line. At some point, you start to go down the other side. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page