The compromise stimulus - or - Temporary Assistance for Richer Families

[hfojvt]

The table in this CBPP report shows it fairly well, although they could have used a column for $75,000 and another for $150,000.

http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-08tax.htm

The original Bush proposal was simply a one-time tax cut, like all of his tax cuts, targetted at the wealthy. The compromise gave something to poorer people, but it is still a proposal that benefits the rich, or richer, more than it does the poor.

From the table, some comparisons of benefits

single @ $10,000 - $300
single @ $75,000 - $600
parent + child @ $25,000 - $600
parent + child @ $75,000 - $900
couple + 2 children @ $30,000 - $1200
couple + 2 children @ $150,000 - $1800

The more you make, the larger your rebate. However, I am not sure when the second $300 kicks in. For an individual, they would owe $300 in taxes at an income of $11,750 (minus their EITC).

As for stimulus effects:

"The rebate included in the deal announced yesterday could nevertheless be better targeted. Working-poor families with incomes too low to owe income tax would receive smaller rebates than families at higher income levels. Yet it is funds provided to low- and moderate-income families that do the most to stimulate the economy (as well as to alleviate hardship).

The stimulus deal also missed the opportunity to reach some of the millions of households who will be left out of any tax rebate that is based on income tax returns. About 22 million mostly low-income households (including most low-income seniors) do not file income tax returns. Millions of these households — including many poor seniors and poor families with children — could have been reached through measures such as a temporary increase in food stamp benefits. That provision was dropped from the final package even though respected analysts rate it as one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus that Congress can provide.

The deal also failed to include an extension of unemployment benefits or any fiscal relief for states, many of which are already facing deficits as tax revenues fall due to the weakening economy. An extension of unemployment benefits would be highly effective stimulus because it would put money in the hands of workers who have lost their jobs and thus are trying to cope with a significant reduction in their income, while providing targeted relief to states whose economies are souring would help them avert program cuts and tax increases that would further weaken their economies and the national economy."

David Brooks on PBS thinks "a good compromise leaves everybody mad" but this looks to me like we met Republicans more than halfway. In my eyes, we met them more than 80% of the way.

[mother earth]

1. This is a slap in the face to Americans of all economic classes.

Bush's fix is corporate welfare, an economy that has been mucked up and this is our shut up and smile it off money. They can keep it.

[hfojvt]

3. Since they are not gonna keep it

I figure I will donate most or all of it to Progressive Democrats of America. It's clear that we need not just a Democratic Congress, but a Progressive Democratic Congress.

[Horse with no Name]

2. It would seem less like welfare

IF the ones who needed it MOST got the MOST...instead of the ones who need it least getting more--like always.
Business as usual in America. Disgusting as usual.