Would cutting YOUR taxes make you want to spend more?

United States
September 3, 2011 7:54am CST
I listen to a certain business channel all day long in my car, and the only solution I hear from republicans is to cut taxes, and stop sending. However, every single one of them agree that the only way out of our problems right now is if the average consumer spends more (me and you). I am a middle class American who has three children which mean every dime of federal income tax I put into the system I get back. So lower my federal income tax doesn't do a thing for me. So my question is if you were to have YOUR federal income tax lowered would YOU spend more?
11 responses
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
6 Sep 11
When I get a raise, which I really can't remember the last raise I ever got because I work for such a greedy company, I do not increase my house hold expenses. I would assume that I would treat a tax cut the exact same way.
1 person likes this
• United States
6 Sep 11
that is my point
@MntlWard (878)
• United States
4 Sep 11
I agree with the sentiment of your post here, with a minor correction. Cutting taxes isn't the only solution Republicans are proposing. They're all for cutting taxes on the richest 1% of Americans, but lately they've been saying that taxes should be *raised* on the poorest Americans.
1 person likes this
• United States
4 Sep 11
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.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
4 Sep 11
Much like you, I'm one of those people who ends up owing nothing to the federal government since my income is relatively low and I have a child. The state of New Jersey takes a big chunk of it, but again, the refund from the federal government is pretty hefty and I think that last year I actually got back a bit more than I paid in. So, would it make me "want" to spend more? Well I always WANT to spend more. Unlike the government though, I must balance my budget because I can't print money and my wife and I have cut ourselves off from credit cards because credit is part of the problem with this nation. Now, if I had more money in my pocket, whether it be from lower taxes, a pay raise, or whatever, yes, I would spend more and I'd WANT to spend more regardless. Self control and intelligent budgeting is the reason I don't spend more already.
• United States
4 Sep 11
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.
• United States
4 Sep 11
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.
• United States
4 Sep 11
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?
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
4 Sep 11
I am not following your reasoning. Your net income on payment of taxes is zero. So, none of your tax money is going anywhere other than making a round trip to the government and back. Let's say that you are one of the millions of working class that get their taxes taken directly out of their paycheck. The exception to this is the self-employed or independent contractors who save their taxes until tax season. Then technically, lowering taxes would mean that less money would get pulled out of your paycheck. So on each paycheck, you would see a little more money. It would be like getting a little raise. Unless it was a huge amount, the likelihood of you spending that extra money is greater than the likelihood of you saving it. Think about it. If you got an extra $20 bucks in your pocket, it is likely going to get spent on groceries or a new toy for your kids. Your net taxes might still be zero but you would be seeing a slight increase in your take home pay just due to a decrease in the automatic tax deduction.
• United States
4 Sep 11
I also hate to break this to you but the world's economy is consumer-driven.
• United States
4 Sep 11
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
• United States
4 Sep 11
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!!!
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
3 Sep 11
Lowering tax rates would cause me to spend more. I pay in only. I receive nothing back. I'm one of the ones who help fund all of these programs we have without receiving a big check at the end of the year, getting back what I put in or even more. So I get really worked up about a lot of these issues, especially when people who do get every penny back and sometimes more want to stick it to someone else and have them pay more. If I had to pay in less, I would definitely spend more. As it stands, I'm pinching pennies tightly because I don't know what little odd or end is going to change next year. I'm always scared my guy is going to tell me that so and so has increased, this is no longer a write off, you cannot deduct this, so you owe in $5k more this year - sorry. I don't currently make over 250k, but I would really hate to be the bad guy and tax cannon fodder if I did. It kinda makes me want to keep my business dealings on the smaller side, truthfully. I want to stay under the radar and not fall into that dangerous middle category where I'm too big to be ignored but not big enough to be treated favorably. My brothers receive most of what they pay in back since they live check to check. But I still imagine lower taxes would help them in the immediate. A few extra bucks on each week's check is some more gas in the car, a few more healthy grocery options, etc. (On a side note, I think the new slogan for EVERYONE shouldn't involve taxes or spending. It should be: "STOP THE WASTE!" Hell, that's all we need.)
• United States
4 Sep 11
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.
• United States
4 Sep 11
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.
• United States
4 Sep 11
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.
@Fatcat44 (1141)
• United States
4 Sep 11
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. 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. 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. 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.
• United States
4 Sep 11
"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!!!!
• United States
5 Sep 11
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?
@Fatcat44 (1141)
• United States
5 Sep 11
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.
@chiyosan (30184)
• Philippines
4 Sep 11
Cutting down on the tax would be great! I think with that, I would not want to spend more but rather I would want to have the amount added to my savings.
• United States
4 Sep 11
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.
@urbandekay (18278)
3 Sep 11
No, particularly in such times I would be more likely to save the money all the best urban
• United States
3 Sep 11
That is if you would even notice the money.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
4 Sep 11
I would spend more and probably save more. So yeah I would. I mean I am quite a consumer of goods and services. I got it from my parents mostly my dad who worked hard for every dollar he got only to have the government steal a portion of it for income taxes to fund some project somewhere else my Dad. Didn't see it like this as well he is far more left leaning than I am. The only[i][/i][u][/u] way to stimulate the economy and get it moving is to put money into the hands of the people who will spend it on more goods and services or save it. You do realize that if the bailouts went to the people that banks would of gotten their money on the houses which would avoided the near collapse of the banking system in part due to the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve controlling and keeping the interest rate lower than it should of been. Also companies would see a boost in profit for at least a short amount of time but the market would of responded far better as they would be competing for the money and the best companies that offered the best products would win the most and the ones that didn't would be out of the market clearing the market of bad assets some being companies other being companies that make bad products or unneeded products.
• United States
4 Sep 11
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.
@crossbones27 (48336)
• Mojave, California
4 Sep 11
I think some of us just want to work again so we can pay some taxes.
• United States
4 Sep 11
I can understand that.
• United States
3 Sep 11
As a middle class American with three kids you may even be in the group that gets MORE back than you pay. If the Federal government gave you even MORE, wouldn't you spend it? If yes than you've answered your own question. It is not a matter of how the money flows into the hands of those that will spend it, simply the fact that it will be spent. What you don't get back yet is the money that goes to SS and the other deductions before you even see your check. Presumably you will one day benefit from that money but for now it is going to others to spend. We could remove that burden from you and let you spend the money now. Would that interest you? Would it interest you more if you knew for sure you'll never see a payoff from it? Do you think you can spend it more wisely than the seniors and disabled? Or do you think it is better to be socially conscious and provide for the "lost ones"? These are the real questions of redistribution of income. Questioning whether anyone would spend it if they had more of it is the least of our problems.
• United States
3 Sep 11
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?
• United States
3 Sep 11
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.