One thing many of you should be aware of on the BO “Tax Cuts” or “Payroll Tax Cuts” what they really should be referred to. Yes, BO will put an extra $65 a month in your take home pay by collecting less each month. However, that does not mean you will owe less at the end of the year. Those of you who bank on a tax refund because you over pay will get a lower refund at the end of next year. Those of you who typically break even, will likely be writing a check.
Buyer Beware.
-J. 
One more thing to think of… if it is payroll tax that is being lowered, at least you have to have a job to get it. Sending out free money to everyone is plain old wrong in my book any way it is disguised. Jon, when the president speaks of people under $250K getting a tax cut, does that mean you will pay less all year and then get hit when you file ? Not sure on that. 
big G
BO’s tax cuts are proposed, not passed. So the answer is hold your breath. He merely made an executive order to start collecting less tax right now. That is happening now. If the cuts don’t pass or if the cuts are less than what BO has proposed, you will still owe what you owe. Like I said, buyer beware. A smart man would bank the extra money in his check right now. BO may need it back at the end of the year if he can’t get his cuts passed. And even the Dems cringe at a tax cuts for the “working poor”, whatever that is?
-J.
I see. Banking the extra $$$, does that defeat its purpose ? In other words, will putting money in a bank “stimulate” the economy, or would spending it on a vacation at a resort or on another walleye rod or tackle, help the economy more ? If everybody socked it away, would it assure that it would need to be recalled ? I really don’t know how money in the bank, affects the economy. I know what it does for an individual, so that is why I ask.
big G
But Jon if people bank that money that will defeat the purpose of “stimulating” the economy. And I am assuming that the purpose of people getting a little more in their paycheck now is for people to spend a little more now. Americans in the recent past have spent instead of saved. But right now I have my doubts that they will. I’ll pay off more debt. That is about the only stimulating I plan on doing beyond fixed expenses.
dd
I’m simply suggesting to you what the smart, responsible thing to do as an individual. I believe the current administration is not smart and is irresponsible in these actions. Get the tax cuts passed before you implement them. Gee, novel idea.
If the government wants to spend more money, they should collect more. Not borrow it. I do not believe this country can borrow and spend it’s way out of a recession, others do. I believe my opinion will be correct in the long run. But, that just my opinion.
Until BO’s budget and tax law changes are actually law, and fully understand how those changes affect you, your income and your individual tax situation be very careful with this new found income. That’s all I’m saying!
-J.
While I agree with waiting until the cuts are passed, seems we have been “waiting” for something, anything for too long already. (I believe the prior admin was not too smart, I haven’t seen enuff of the new one to form an intelligent decision yet) I pray that it works. If it does not, we all will be hurting and not enjoying our lives as well as we may have planned. I have always planned for some rainy days, but the downpour could be unbearable 
big G
The uncertainty and the waiting IMO is a direct result of the whole bailout business. That was started by the former administration back in October and is continuing into the new administration. Who is getting a bailout? Who isn’t? Which banks are solid? Who knows?
The path we started down is nothing but uncertainty. Like Dave said a few posts back if the failing banks had been allowed to fail and their assets bought up by solid banks we would have hit bottom and started our way back up by now. And banks are failing. Two banks failed last week. The uncertainty comes from not knowing who Gov is gonna bail and who Gov isn’t gonna bail. Do we want Gov picking the winners and losers, or do we want market principles picking who wins and loses? Is Gov gonna bail banks out based on sound economic priciples or is Gov gonna bail out banks based on history of campaign contributions and compliancy? Gosh! That’s a tough one.
dd
dd
The economic concept of “too big to fail” is a valid but controversial concept. You cannot allow large banks to fail. It will cause a panic and collapse the banking industry, just like it did in the 1930s. Yes, there is FDIC, but how quickly would that be bankrupt is a couple large banks go down? Imagine locally if Wells failed. Everybody would freak and start pulling their money out, then US Bank and TCF goes under and the system completely collapses. A “strong” bank will still collapse if there is a run. Yet, having “bailouts” means the bank has no incentive to run the bank “properly”. This concept makes sense for the financial industry, but I don’t understand why the concept is being applied to other business.
The concept to let the market adjust itself and allow bad banks to fail and strong banks buy up assets is the same theory Andrew Mellon had in the 1930s. Mr. Mellon also advocated a balanced budget when the economy collapsed.
I think today most economist feel those are two of the huge reason for the Depression; let the market correct itself and the government retraction. If you don’t learn from your past you are bound to repeat it. I think the government is trying to learn from the past…Maybe 100 years from now when the next economic meltdown happens, economist will feel that step taken during the late 2000s were huge reasons we recovered, or made things worse.
Now, does that mean they are doing it correctly? I have no idea. I think the concept is correct, but the implementation seems a little suspect. Trying to pump money into the economy seems like a good idea, but I don’t see how giving ACORN money is helping anybody but the admin’s personal friends. I agree with Jon that borrowing money to increase spending is not so good. They should collect what they want to spend, yet if the government wants us to spend more, raising our taxes won’t help either. So it is a bit of a conundrum.
I can tell you one thing I am sick of hearing is “in this economy…”
It seems like in this economy when I have to get dog food at Fleet Farm, I shouldn’t have to park at the end of the parking lot! From what I could tell this weekend, in this economy, Best Buy, Target, Gander, and Fleet Farm all seem to be doing pretty good!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
