Would cutting YOUR taxes make you want to spend more?

that is my point

Which makes no sense at all because republicans haven't realized that if all of the wealthiest Americans got together and spent every dime they had, they couldn't do anything to help the economy. It takes the poor, and middle class Americans to make rich Americans more money. Look at health care cost, and energy cost, those are both examples of added expenses on poor and middle class Americans that have hurt the economy. Adding on to this will only hurt the economy.

If you lower the cost of energy, you pay less and have more to spend. If you lower the cost of health care, you pay less and have more to spend. So if you pay less taxes to the federal government, wouldn't you still pay less and have more money to spend? Seriously, the same mathematical principles apply with taxes as do they do to energy costs, health care costs, or any other costs including taxes.

Sierras, in my case (like many in the "middle class") NO, it would just mean that I would have more money every month, but less at the end of the year. So it would actually be a push for me personally. I am sure you remember Bush tried this after 9/11, when he sent out all of those checks, and it did spur the economy, but only for two months because people realized that they had to pay the money back at the end of the year.

Taskr, cutting your taxes wouldn't do anything for you, or me. And, the richest Americans that would feel these cuts already are pay less than 12 years ago, and they aren't spending now, and it wouldn't put a dent into our economy if they did. What we need to do is lower the cost for energy, and find a way to lower health care so consumers can have money to spend. How much do you spend on energy every month? How much do you spend on health care? If you had both of those expenses cut by 20% would that give you more to spend?

I also hate to break this to you but the world's economy is consumer-driven.

If your net taxes are zero, then lowering the tax rate would still give you a raise. You would pay less in automatic deductions which means you would claim less money and get less money back. While this amount changes, your overall net in taxes does not. Technically, it will still be zero. That is of course barring any major changes in the deductibles that you personally claim. Watch the fuzzy math. It is the same trap that politicians frequently fall into. Look at your overall income instead of just the tax part. You would still have more in your pocket. Yes, your tax refund would be smaller but you would be carrying around more of your paycheck every week. The last time we raised taxes, during the Clinton-era I believe, was during a time of economic growth. You had two really big booms going on, the dot com business which crashed in 2000 and the housing growth. These not-so-little impacts on the economy frequently get ignored in the FACTS. Comparing the last time that taxes were raised until now is comparing apples to oranges. The economic conditions have changed greatly since then. Actually, your fact is wrong because it is an oversimplification and ignores the fundamental state of the economy at the time of the tax raise. It is only a fractional piece of a fact. You also have ignored the fact that tax raises take time to implement. The full effects of tax raises aren't really felt until at least one full year or more later. But if you want a real handle on how the tax rate effects businesses, I suggest you read the GE public statement on the Federal Income tax. It is a pdf file. Go to the subsection "Income tax" on page 35 and start reading. It will give you some insight. http://www.ge.com/ar2010/pdf/GE_AR10_Financials.pdf

Sierras, if I pay less taxes every month than I get a smaller tax return at the end of the year. So it really is the same thing. So yes I would have $20 extra dollars now, but I wont' have that later, so it is a push. My point is that taxes have gone down for the last 10 years, and the economy has done the same thing. The last time we raised taxes we created 20 million jobs, we have a net lose of jobs since we put a ban on raising taxes. That is a FACT!!!

Maters, Obama lowered your SS rate, did you notice that? I sure didn't, it was only a few dollars a pay, and I would of rather put that money back into the government. I understand why you want to stay under the radar, but eventually you are either going to have to grow or go. I deal with many companies like yours, and they reach a time when you have to make that decision. I understand there is waste, there will ALWAYS be waste, the key is to make it as little as possible, and increase the revenue so that waste doesn't hurt the country like it is now.

Mater, it is amazing what lower unemployment can do to the confidence people have in the government. The funny part is how we all know that government can't create jobs (nor should it), but we all blame government when unemployment is high.

Make it as little as possible first, then raise revenue. Confidence is very slim. Government needs to do a lot to restore that. Shrinking significantly would be a great start.

"I think everyone missed the point of lowering taxes. Our corporations are gettting beaten up and are not able to compete with overseas. With a 40% tax on all profits, they, to make a profit have to pass that amount on to the consumer, so the cost of their product is higher." LMFAO!!!!! "Our corporations are getting beaten up"? Are you insane, or just ignorant? US corporations are sitting on over $2 TRILLION dollars in profits over the last three years. If you call this "beaten up" then I would hate to see what you consider doing good. US corporations aren't paying 40% in taxes, look at GE who made billions in profits and actually got billions back because of write offs. "With the fact that the taxes they get pay get passed on to the consumer, taxes on corporations do not make sense, because the consumer end up paying the cost anyway." We could just stop taxing them, and see the number of corporations in the US go up as everyone who can afford to incorporate will do so just to avoid taxes. "So as corporation can start getting a return on their money, they will expand and produce more jobs. This is only where the tax reduction will actually work. We need to take care of our business that produce jobs and support them. We are actually doing the opposite. We tax the business and job producers so they end up losing money. We buy the competitors products from overseas at a lower price, because we all want to save a dime when we go shopping." The only reason corporations will start hiring again is if we force them to by buying more. Why would you hire more people if your demand hasn't gone up, and but your productivity has? You would have to give corporations HUGE tax breaks, of which most corporations already take advantage of, which would just be buying jobs. Part of the reason products from China are so cheap is because the government subsides them. The other is the fact that China has devalued it currency, and no one will call them on it. "It is not the individual taxes that is going to save us, put is the tax breaks that help us save our job producing companies." Again, USE YOUR BRAIN. If demand doesn't increase for your products than why hire more people? The hope that your hiring will be followed by others hiring? Try getting that idea past Wall Street!!!!

Fat, GE made money in the US, but they are working off credits from the GE Capital which lost money the last three years. GE has spend tens of millions dictating tax policy, and subsides especially when it comes to green energy. They are building turbines in China now so they can hide that money from US taxes. Like I have said before, our government should ban companies from importing products that are used on government subsidized projects. China doesn't need anymore help from us!! $2 TRILLION is a record for US corporations, and they are only making about 1% return on that because they AREN'T reinvesting it. I would love to see what you are investing in that is making you 5 - 8% today. If corporations hire when they are making money, than why aren't they hiring? Because they don't have a need to. You can make all the excuses you want, but if productivity if high, than why hire? Why hire someone when you don't have to? Show me what this president has done to get in the way of Business? I hear this all of the time, yet when we get to the facts, they seam to disappear. We have corporations that are buying tax cuts every day in Washington. Has that helped us?

You had better wake up and face what is actually going on. GE lost money in the USA, and only made money in foreign markets. By our tax laws, from what i understand, earnings made in the USA are taxable in the US. The foreign earnings are taxable in that country. 2 trillion dollars in 3 years, is only 667 billion a year. If you take the return on investment, it probably in the 1-2% return. I know my investment I want to make money on. I do not put money in my 401k in hope to lose money, I want to make money. Generally 5-8% return is nice, if not I will move my money someplace else. So the same with most companies. They do not invest in the company to lose money. They have the responsibility to make money, so that they can pay their employees and their stock holders. And for many companies, the stock holder are common people like you and me. Corporation hire when they make money. This the capital way. If they are making money in a business, and they can expand and take market share from another business, they expand and hire. This is called competition. However, with the games our Presidint and the former congress have played in the past, threatening more taxes on the rich and corporation, they have been sitting back and waiting on what is going to come out of congress. They are weary of investing. Congress and the President needs to get out of the way and let the business system work. From the last tax-cut rebate incentive we got in the Spring of 2009, they say most of the rebate was spent on items made over seas. This did not help us at all. So if they cut taxes on the common person, a lot of the money not even make it to our businesses.

See this is the problem, saving usually would be fine, but the problem is that banks are not lending so your money put into savings would usually be used by the bank to lend out to other people, but today that doesn't happen. So giving you a tax break doesn't help the country, it only helps your personal savings.

That is if you would even notice the money.

Dark, I agree that the only way to help the country is to get more money to the little people, but we haven't come together to hire lobbyist to fight for ourselves. I agree that the bailout would have been better off given to the people, but we all knew that wasn't going to happen. There is to much money and power in Washington to make sure that would NEVER happen. Should have, but didn't.

I can understand that.

Balth, I usually only get back what I payed into it. I understand that SS and most importantly HEALTH CARE take up a lot of money in my check. But, you can't just cut off funding of Social Security, so I am not sure how you are going to solve that issue. I always wonder why it is called redistribution of wealth to give tax dollars to poor people, and disabled people, but when we do it to corporations, it is called "good business"? Can ANYONE explain that to me?

It's always a game of what "is" is to argue anything business and taxes, but most people I know call corporate welfare exactly what it is - corporate welfare.