birdcam!

Ben Wilson

Ben Wilson

ben wilson This is the blog of a one Ben Wilson, a Louisville, Kentucky native who enjoys baseball, beer, music, bikes, things that fly and good food. By day he pushes pixels and makes the Internet happen for a local advertising agency. His wife, Kelly is an Ironman, and his baby Amelia is the cutest thing ever.

So, I’m reading this article over at CNN, entitled “$1.35 trillion dollar tax cut signed into law“. It mentions the rebate program, which will start July 20th — “Singles will get $300, single parents will receive $500 and married couples will see a $600 rebate.”

Now, any American who has taken Economics, or at least blown their entire paycheck and/or Christmas bonus in one booze-fueled fandango near the end of the month KNOWS that the “marginal propensity to save” in the United States is SHOCKINGLY low. Somewhere around 5%, as compared to somewhere around 25% in Japan (as best I can remember). Way to go Bush!
{more}

Let me explain here. How did most of the richest folks in the United States become rich? Hitting the lottery? No. The way you “make money” isn’t necessarily important. I could make fat sacks of cash money, but those fat sacks wouldn’t do me a damned bit of good if I kept spending it all. Which brings me to the point — rich people SAVE money. Thats why they are RICH. If they didn’t SAVE money, then they would be POOR. Bush’s primary impetus behind the $300 rebates was to “stimulate the economy”. To the richer portion of those rebatees, they will merely toss that $300 on their already fat pile of money, meanwhile, the POOR SAPS like you and I will most likely either use it in the aforementioned fashion, or pay down our debts. It will most likely not go towards the “general economy”, and that is my primary concern. So, giving $300 to every single taxpayer (who filed this year) is going to do a fat lot of fucking good, if you ask me!

In fact, I’m probably either going to:

A) Donate it to a good cause, which may or may not be the “Get Ben Drunk on Expensive Imported Irish Tasty Beer’

B) Soil it, and return it to the White House
C) Pay down my debt.
D) Go completely against everything I stated above and buy a new TV, VCR, or a small immigrant house-boy, who will live in the closet.

All of this rebate nonsense just seems like very short-sighted policy on behalf of the Bush administration. Which apparently is a theme in the Oval Office. We’ll infuse the American public with $300 rebates, which will provide minutes of fun to the populous, which will pay for about 1 tank-full of gas for our SUVs, which by the way are the reason why we need MORE OIL. To hell with this conservation (read: SAVING). But that, my friends, is a whole other story.

filed under General and then tagged as
Jun 7 2001 ~ 9:55 am ~ Comments (8) ~

8 Comments

  1. That was a remarkably insightful and intelligent story.

    Comment by Anonymous — June 7, 2001 @ 8:26 am
  2. Really if you think about it, it doesn’t mesh together real well. I say at the beginning that the marginal propensity to say in the US is 5%, but then i say that most folks will save the money, thus defeating Bush. Oh well. It’s shortsighted any way you look at it.

    Comment by Anonymous — June 7, 2001 @ 9:11 pm
  3. If you’ll notice, that $300 is a MAXIMUM amount. What you really get is 5% of your total tax liability for 2000, which for us poor schmucks is actually rather less than $300. So the truly poor don’t even get beer money.

    Comment by Anonymous — June 8, 2001 @ 6:59 pm
  4. Giving money back to people is a good idea. Ignoring all arguments about underfunded programs or about how this cut helps rich people more, the general concept of a tax cut is reasonable.

    The budget is balanced. There is this surplus that they all talk about, so why not give some back? Sure, the entire surplus wouldn’t cover the cost of social security for our parents, but did you really think it was going to be there for us anyhow?

    I say, if the decision comes down to lower taxes or more government spending, I’ll take the lower taxes any day. And it certaily appears that those were the only two choices being considered by Congress.

    Comment by Anonymous — June 12, 2001 @ 9:14 am
  5. I’m not talking about the tax cuts. I’m talking about the $300 instant refund thing going on — w hat a crock of poo! That $300 could pay for more, better teachers.

    Comment by Anonymous — June 12, 2001 @ 1:47 pm
  6. I know a bribe when I see it. Bush is essentially paying us off so that when the budget cutbacks start to hit, he’ll be able to cite the money he gave us back in the summer. Shit, he’s practically saying “I’ll give you three hundred bucks to be my friend.”

    So, although I voted for Bush (and I still don’t regret it) I don’t care for much of what he’s done in office. One of the things I do agree with is the tax cut. I think this “instant rebate” stuff is demagoguing at its best, but I agree with the rest of it.

    I’m not upset about getting a check in the mail, but it’s not going to make it any more likely that I’ll vote for Bush next time around.

    Comment by Anonymous — June 13, 2001 @ 3:50 am
  7. ’cause he’s cute when he talks politics

    Comment by Anonymous — June 17, 2001 @ 7:11 pm
  8. ’cause he thinks i’m cute.

    Comment by Anonymous — June 17, 2001 @ 8:08 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

¨
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License. | thelocust dot org
all content © 2000-2013 ben wilson under the creative commons licensexhtmlcss