Stupid me

[wnlbutterfly]

We also did the cash for clunkers, but was going to buy anyway, although I would have bought a used car otherwise. My plan is to have this car for the next 20 yrs (Honda), so even though it was NEW and the rebate basically covered the depreciation when we drove it off the lot, I still feel okay with our decision.

The other credits we do qualify for is the Making Work Pay ($800), sales tax on the new car, and the expanded Hope Credit (American Opportunity Credit?). That one was a big help because DD is a JR and would have had to do Lifetime Learning credit which is just a % of the expenses. I had estimated last year and that would have only been around $800, this year we get $2,500 off, and it will still be in effect next year as well.

But I had also estimated most of this and we had changed our withholdings during the year, so our refund will only be around $200 at best.

[Slandgie]

Is that $800 in less tax liability? If so, our refund will be bigger than I thought!

[snafu]

OP, I think it's wonderful that you have managed your financial affairs so well. Would you also complain that you are not eligible for welfare, food stamps, social services etc.

You may not like your government's system but I assure you that you would dislike the system in other countries even more.

[cschin4]

Bepp, you seem to bring politics with you like a bad smell. It's not the government's fault you consider yourself stoopid

He and the rest of us have every right to complain about how the government is spending our tax money and the money it confiscates from us who have earned it.

[elessar78]

The reality of our govt is that it REWARDS dependency and failure. The govt WANTS people to depend on them or their subsistence. It shouldn't be that way but it is. And, until we get out of the mode of reliance on the govt and stop voting for the guy that promises to "give" us something, then expect more of the same. The real challenge is to not succumb to this cynicism and to continue to live a good, decent life of hard work, honesty and thrift.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

Take a step back. "Rewards dependency and failure"? Really. I think that's a misperception of America. I'd hardly call the handouts people get as rewards. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right for people to not work and just rely on the system.

The gov't hands the REAL rewards at the other end of the spectrum. Think auto industry bailouts, wall street bailouts, friendly laws for BIG Business... now that's big money. In essence the same thing as welfare.

I think middle America gets up in arms about the freebies the lower class gets, because there's a "where's my handout?" mentality or the "I wish someone would give me something for staying at home" mentality.

It's not fair, but it is sound governance. What happens when poor people are left to starve on their own devices? Usually revolutions start, people start marching, and politicians heads get put into guillotines. Placate the masses which keeps society stable and allows those that want to go make money to do just that. Stop worrying about what other people are getting for free—consider it the cost of doing business in the world's greatest economy. You don't have the earning potential in any of the other G7 nations (Canada, Japan, Italy, France, UK, and Germany) like we do here.

[cschin4]

Saying some business are "too big to fail" is promoting dependence and failure and rewarding them. They should have not done bailouts and let the businesses fail. Why is some business somehow worthy of more rights to the govt trough than another? A poor business should fail.

[cschin4]

It's not fair, but it is sound governance. What happens when poor people are left to starve on their own devices?

Hunger is actually a very good motivator to get people up off their rear ends and going to work.
Handouts do not work. What does work is for the govt to get out of the way and allow the industry and thrift of the people to take hold so that people can support themselves.

[cschin4]

Placate the masses which keeps society stable and allows those that want to go make money to do just that.

Govt destroys economy. It sticks its nose in and makes regulation after regulation and bloats out bureacracy until it is so destructive that in the end people will starve and nothing will be left but iron fisted govt rule.
You can give all the handouts in the world to Haiti. It isn't going to improve the lot of the people on iota. The only real thing that will improve their lot is to remove the corrupt govt and install a govt that allows the people to utilize their own wealth and resources.
If you have a millionaire, would you enrich everyone if you took his million and gave one million people a $1? They would eat for today but tomorrow back to starvation. If that millionaire builds a plant, employs people, those people employ people and on and on, so wealth is spread. And, yes, there will still be some people who are starving and can't make it but the general population is enriched and better off. Then, charities step in to help those. But, you are not going to eliminate poverty in either case. You can either promote self sufficiency and allow people to take care of themselves or promote govt dependence which is self perpetuating.

[Slandgie]

AMEN, Cschin!

[Beppington]

I'd hardly call the handouts people get as rewards.

I do.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right for people to not work and just rely on the system.

Exactly ... and they get rewarded for doing so.

The gov't hands the REAL rewards at the other end of the spectrum. Think auto industry bailouts, wall street bailouts, friendly laws for BIG Business... now that's big money. In essence the same thing as welfare.

Equally as irritating.

I think middle America gets up in arms about the freebies the lower class gets, because there's a "where's my handout?" mentality or the "I wish someone would give me something for staying at home" mentality.

Yep.

[Beppington]

Saying some business are "too big to fail" is promoting dependence and failure and rewarding them. They should have not done bailouts and let the businesses fail. Why is some business somehow worthy of more rights to the govt trough than another? A poor business should fail.

Agree 100%.

Whether people like the term or not: It's survival of the fittest.

[elessar78]

Hunger is actually a very good motivator to get people up off their rear ends and going to work.
Handouts do not work. What does work is for the govt to get out of the way and allow the industry and thrift of the people to take hold so that people can support themselves.

I whole heartedly agree that, probably, 80% of handouts do not work. I'll say that 20% (or at least a certain percentage) of those receiving handouts legitimately need them.

A lot of people are so cynical about government but in the course of two thousand years of human history, arguably the contemporary form of our government (the last 50 or so years) has overseen the greatest, most efficient economy in the history of mankind. It's not perfect and there are inefficiencies, but no better alternatives exist.

Yes, there are people who say that gov't should "get out of the way" but we've already been down that road. Laissez Faire capitalism does not work. Yes, we can be more Darwinian about it and say that those who do not work, do not eat but there's no political will behind it. There has been this sentiment for decades now: Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2,... various Congresses of both liberal and conservative control... and no one has gotten rid or significantly curbed the handouts.

The media covers it because it illicits strong responses. It sells papers/ad space but really if you look back nothing significant has changed for decades.

[elessar78]

Govt destroys economy. It sticks its nose in and makes regulation after regulation and bloats out bureacracy until it is so destructive that in the end people will starve and nothing will be left but iron fisted govt rule.

Really? So greedy speculators had nothing to do with the Great Depression and our current recession? Sincere post 9/11 gov't policy intended to spur the economy wasn't exploited by people to make a quick buck?

You can give all the handouts in the world to Haiti. It isn't going to improve the lot of the people on iota.

Do you really equate charity with handouts?

If you have a millionaire, would you enrich everyone if you took his million and gave one million people a $1?

I think this is how you see America—A place where gov't just takes and takes.

If that millionaire builds a plant, employs people, those people employ people and on and on, so wealth is spread.

This is how I see it—a place that generates opportunity. I don't care about who gets what for doing nothing. I just try to worry about my game. I figure I can't do what I'm doing in any other country in the world and my taxes (however I feel about them) are the cost of doing business in the best economy in the world.

[cschin4]

In the best of all worlds, we allow people the opportunities and the ability to develop and utilize the skills to care for themselves. In doing so, far more people are cared for. For instance, in a family, one spouse may be working but supporting their entire family of wife, children, etc all being fed, housed clothed. If we have govt policies that destroy work, then people cannot take care of their families and more starvation. In our country, one cannot simply go and mine coal or drill for oil or tap into the available reserves we have. I used to live in a an old oil town and everyone had those small wells pumping all day long, now you don't see that. There is so much govt regulation that you cannot do it. So, no jobs, more poverty, less revenue for govt and more starvation. In the best world, there are still people starving, but much less so.
One only need to look at the corruption in third world nations. We do need a govt to keep order but also to recognize the freedoms of its people. Look at Africa and other countries that are absolutely blessed in terms of abundant natural resources but yet because of govt that is corrupt, the people cannot tap into and benefit from that. So, there they sit impoverished and unable to better their own conditions.
In a country that takes excessively from the wage earners and producers, over time the producers will stop producing. This is also the real lesson of Thanksgiving. The Pilgrims attempted to have everything in common. Everyone would share and get the same. What happened? Over time, the hard workers saw that the slackers were getting the same things they were at harvest time, so the workers stopped working. Conditions became so bad that they almost starved to death. So, the Pilgrims then decided to divide up the land into private property and what is yours is yours. So, what was the end result? The end result was abundance and so much so that it could be shared.
The crux of the world is simple. There are only 2 options. Either the govt owns it or you own it. Either you own your property and labor or the govt owns it. If the govt owns it, then I am not going to bust my tail to provide for the govt. I will bust my tail for my own family but not to provide for the govt. Over time, neither will anyone else. You either allow the rights of property and individual or you become a ward of the state in which industry, thrift and hard work becomes marginalized and the end result is always a downward spiral as dependence increases and human dignity and pride is squashed.

[elessar78]

Just to clarify, I'm not attacking you or your ideas in any way. I like discussions like this. I like the insights you bring the table.

In my perfect America, people would be taxed at the same rate and the same amount. There'd be some form of welfare for the ones that truly need it, but everyone should be made to work for a living. I think getting a lot of people off of welfare rolls and generating something would unleash the potential of the American economy.

I think it's ludicruous that there are statements like "it can be produced cheaper in _______" when we have a ton of people who choose not to work in this country. This is where your excessive gov't regulation argument comes in. They don't have to be paid a living wage, they can work in lieu of their handouts.

But I just don't know that people will stop innovating and working hard because they become heavily taxed. Again, the other countries in the G7 have higher tax rates than we do, but they still manage to innovate and have productive economies. Granted, not at the level of America but still better than the other 98% of the world.

My view is that the producers will always create because they're still better off than the slackers. My town has a huge welfare problem and my wife works with that population and while they are surviving, it's not necessarily what I would call "living".