The economic stimulous pkg proposals from the both parties

Lash, The Bush government is talking about two percent of our social security taxes; not enough to do anything for older workers.

fishin, I don't see the inconsistency. Maybe some others can point out the inconsistency to me?

timber, It depends on your income level. According to my paystubs, when I worked, the FIT was the biggest deduction from my pay check.

c.i.

as in most all things politik tis the perception of the deed and not the deed itself that matters, if this Bush agenda is perceived as helping the economy all will be well, if not ------

timber, My wife still works, and here's the breakdown of her deductions from her last pay check: FICA 9.6%, FIT 11.9%, CA dis 1.1%, and CA state 5.0%. c.i.

c.i. said:

Lash, The Bush government is talking about two percent of our social security taxes; not enough to do anything for older workers.

c.i.: I don't understand your reference about 2% of SS taxes.
You are mistaken that Bush's proposed tax dividend cut doesn't help older workers. It helps them pad their retirement with stock investments, without having to pay part of it out to the gov't, when they withdraw.
How is that not help?

Also, Bush initiates the end of the marriage penalty tax: this helps all married Americans.
He increases the child tax credit: This helps all Americans with children. The group that needs the MOST help. How would you criticise these Bush initiatives?

Lash, The current FICA tax is 6.2%. Depending on how you interpret the 2 percent, it can be 2% of the 6.2% or 2% of gross income. Just for arguments sake, let's say you earn $45,000 per year. 2% is $900 that a $45,000 income earner can put away for their retirement. $900 times 20 years equals $18,000 if their investment stays even. If they put that money into Certificates of Deposits, now earning about 3 percent, their retirement stash will be worth less than $700,000. In twenty years $700,000 will not be sufficient to live in the manner to which you expect to live. For example, 20 years ago, our household income was $50,000. Before I retired four years ago, our household income was $100,000. I can tell you that that $700,000 will be worth about $350,000 in today's dollars - not enough to support two people in retirement. c.i.

BTW, historically speaking, the social security fund earned an average of 2 percent per year during its existence. c.i.

Hmmmm.
Keep the 700K, give away the 700K?
Keep the 700K, give away the 700K?

I think I'll keep it.
But any Democrats, who think this helpful tax break is a travesty, can send me theirs.

C'mon!

Give me the $24,000!

Lash, Give away the $700,000? Where'd you get that from? c.i.

You don't just slap a Band-Aid on a compound fracture. The Dem approach is a Band-Aid, the Republicans offer corrective surgery, as I see it. We can be sure of much controversy, and any Senate-Passed Bill will no doubt add its own compromises to those this measure will earn before it leaves The House. The plan is still quite tweakable, it is here now, and we need something now. Should this be defeated, it will be a while, if ever, a Democratic Counter Proposal can make its way to The President's Desk.
This becomes an issue of obstruction, not effective counter proposal, as I see it.

That's just me. I'm interested to see what Main Street has to say about it. The pollsters, commentators and analysts will be busy the next few days. We shall see.



timber

Bush wants me to have it. You are saying Bush shouldn't give it to me.
Even the Democrats now support Bush giving it to me.
C.i., why don't you want me to have my 700K?

P.S. I'm sort of being silly. I agree 100% with timber's assessment of the dueling stimulus packages.
What I would like to know, and haven't been able to find is...: What is the percentage of a tax break that Bush designated for 'wealthy' Americans? I have a vague 3% memory. Does anybody know the breakdown for the richies?

Lash, if you have 700K coming, that would put you somewhere in the $28,000,000 a year Income Tax range. I would certainly consider that to be very, very, very greedy. But, I guessed you earned it, and that is the Conservative bar!

BillW--It is not entirely impossible that I am the victim of fuzzy math.
I was half-kidding c.i. (just edited a post before seeing yours.)

Did he say that a yearly savings of $900. would lead to an accrued retirement account of 700K if you plopped the kitty into CDs.? This is where I got my numbers, but I was in a hurry to finish the post and pick up my daughter from school.

Children in place, I can now return more thoughtfully.
And, admittedly, math hurts my head.

c.i. - You don't see the inconsistancy? The Decomcrats plan, which you contend is better in one post, provides the bulk of the money to the states (as opposed to individuals) and has the $300/$600 rebate.

Those are the very items that you stated in the other quoted post would neither stimulate the ecomnomy nor "do anything for a $10 trillion dollar economy".

How can the Democrat's plan be better if it, as you stated, won't do anything to benefit the economy? Seems to be a bit of a contridiction in comments to me...

ci:

"the manner in which you expect to live"!


The question is "How do you expect to live"?

Let's say you earn $75,000 per year, but live on only $20,000/year.
With an accumulation of $700,000 and a retirement lenght of 20 years, that amounts to $35,000/year.

You'll then be home safe!

The tastes you have at age 70 years shouldn't be what they were at 25 years!

Whether it's the government funded social security or the 2% 'private' investment plan part of social security, it's still "your" money. c.i.

I'm not getting $700,000.

If you put $900 into a 3%CD and let it grow for 20 years, you'll $1626.

Now, if you put $900 into a 3% CD each year, for a total savings time of 20 year ( the last $900 stays in 1 year), the amount accumulated is about $25,000.

New Haven, Most financial advisors recommend that you have about 75% of your pre-retirement income during retirement. Your $35,000 only amounts to 47%, and that doesn't consider the higher cost of living when you retire. If that's good enough for you, it's certainly good enough for me. c.i.

Mailing a few hundred dollars to folks whose income situation involves isignificant personal income tax liability will sell some TV's, a bit of liquor, some used cars, and perhaps contribute to child-support arrears or catch up on the rent. The very folks to whom the Democrat's proposal appeals most are those most urgently in need of the opportunities provided by consistent, long-term encouragement of Business and Investment. To the folk perceived by some as receiving too much benefit, by reason of greater income, theindividual fiscal impact will be negligible. To The Economy at large, however, billions of dollars will buy goods, be saved, or be invested, growing The Economy. The bulk of the individual taxpayer benefit to be realized from the Democrat's plan will be spent, essentially just circulating within the economy and creating no growth. Few cheap, quick fixes ever work.

The Democrat's proposed funding of States, as opposed to providing direct and ongoing stimulus to The Economy, is an example of Government seeking to drink more deeply of The Public Chalice, in my opinion, and of unpardonable cynicism.

Regrettably, I also see the Democrats reaffirming an obstructionist agenda. I see many of their arguments as objection, not objective refutation. Much needed reform can be accomplished through bi-partisan cooperation and compromise.
I expect the Democrat's plot a different course.



timber

The way I saw the two propositions were as follows: GOP = Exempt dividend income from income tax. Unfortunately only the wealthy will benefit, because taxable shares are owned primarily by the officers and directors of corporations, not the average joe on the street. How does "that" translate into an econonic stimulus now? Democrats: $300/$600 refund immediately to tax payers. Not going to do much for a ten trillion dollar economy - as I said before. If they also intend to give a huge chunk of money to the state government, that'll help with inflation, but not with stimulating our economy. The government produces nothing for sale. They just add cost to everything we buy. The only stimulus package that will work is to cut taxes for everybody by ten percent - effective January 1, 2003. If they did that, the stimulus will be so strong, we'd have to batten down the hatches, and increase interest rates again. c.i.