yep. I claim zero dependants and have 1 of my employers hold out extra so I don't get hit paying. I overpaid about $1200. The problem with govt and money is that they think they own all the money and they just let you keep what you take home.
have been out of pocket the past few days guys.....not ignoring your posts. will hopefully have some time to catch up later this afternoon....
Clearly the bailout was too small: http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/ I'm praying that the moment we all realize the folly of bailing out terrible companies, no matter their size, is upon us. I fear that we will double down on dumb.
I think you are the one who hasn't paid enough attention to history. Tax cuts have only been short term remedies throughout history and, there is, in fact good evidence that tax cuts have a desired short term effect but long term they lead to booms and busts. Take for example Herbert Hoover: the top marginal tax rate after World War I was 73%. Hoover, in a series of tax cuts, lowered the top marginal rate to 25% by 1925. This was followed by a few boom years and then, as we all know, the crash of 1929. Next, Ronald Reagan: the top marginal tax rate was 70% when he took office. Reagan lowered that to 50% in 1982 and then down to 38.5% a few years later. We all know that there were a few boom years during Reagan but then everyone remembers Black Monday in 1987 when the savings & loan crisis happened. Lastly, GWB lowers marginal tax rates from 40% under Clinton to 35% and, further, lowers the capital gains tax to 15%, the lowest rate since 1920, from 30%. We saw a few boom years that centered around real estate and then bust in 2008-09. Further, there is no correlation between tax increases and negative economic information. Republicans like to call tax increases job killers but there is absolutely no historical evidence of that. During the 60's the top marginal tax rate was 90% with a capital gains tax of around 25% and we averaged 3.71% for gdp growth during that era. Compare that to the GWB era when the average gdp growth rate was 1.7%. Most conservative thinking about tax cuts could be compared to a theological perspective of economics. If the pastor tells his congregation that the world will end next Saturday night, and it doesn't happen, what does the congregation do when they wake up Sunday morning? They go to church to hear the Pastor tell them why it didn't end, rather than concluding that the Pastor is a phony. This is very similar to how the Repubicans have framed their arguments on taxes: there is little empirical evidence to support the fact that tax cuts lead to sustained economic growth. Economists use the word, "Multiplier," to describe how far a certain amount of spending will go in stimulating the economy. In other words, when you spend money, how many times does that money change hands and how many jobs does it impact. So if I spend a hundred bucks at a local pizza joint then the owner of the pizza place uses that same money to pay for a new sign and then the guy who owns the sign company uses that money to pay his supplier, his employees and puts the rest in his pocket. The supplier uses that money to buy more materials, etc. You get the picture. In this case, the money was multiplied many times over and was put to use by several different businesses. On the opposite end of that spectrum if I take that same hundred bucks and use it to buy a ticket to France aboard Air France then that money is considered "leakage" from it's local economy. No one in your city, state or country is going to benefit from that spending as much as they would if the money is spent locally. Not to say it might not help a few stewardesses here in the US but in the long run it doesn't have the same impact. You are probably wondering what all of this means. Well, here it is: when tax cuts are enacted they are almost always slanted toward the rich. In fact, no major tax cut has ever favored the middle class or lower class. The flaw in Tax Cut thinking comes here. If you want your tax cut dollars to have the biggest effect you would be better to give those tax cuts to lower and middle income families who will spend that money on local goods and services and allow the money to "multiply" in the economy. When the tax cuts go to wealthy people they tend to either save the money or invest it somewhere that it will be safe. We are living in times that completely validate this argument as the wealthy are currently holding from 20-32 trillion dollars in off shore accounts right now as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts. These tax cut dollars have not "multiplied," they have "leaked." In turn, this has created the greatest income disparity since the years leading up to the Great Depression and has our economy mired in a funk.
