Benefit from the Stimulus Bill

[Illuminatus Primus]

So this bill is double the size of the combined New Deal and has been suggested by Obama and the head Dems in Congress as just the first of many such spending bills.

I'd just like to add before I have time to respond in detail this reveals the depth of your double-standard and GOP bias. There is no difference in the effect on public finances between a tax cut bill and a spending bill. They are indistinguishable - in fact, much of the total cited under this "spending" bill is tax cuts. Furthermore, the default assumption of the American free market humper is that tax cuts are always more effective than spending. There is much empirical evidence to suggest the reverse.

[Coyote]

Getting mad at them is fine, thinking that the next obvious step is lynching and endorsing mob violence against the blanket group of CEOs and Bankers is another thing entirely. Coyote was endorsing this while completely ignoring the fact that these people are not the sole cause of the current crisis.

I think what the country needs most right now is a Guillotine, but that's just me. And I'm only being somewhat sarcastic. I'm genuinely surprised that there hasn't yet been more threats made against CEOs and fat-cat types (AFAIK there's only been a few 'white powder mailings' that were hoaxes). I suppose everyone is still basking in the rays of confidence that Obama will 'fix' the situation, but as it sinks in that this is going to be a long-term thing, will people who are suffering contain themselves within the bounds of civility?

I'm not saying it should happen, only that it could, and I wonder how civic unrest in general would change the dynamics. A food riot or a house foreclosure standoff... I have a feeling it'll come to that.

I didn't fucking endorse it you lying sack of ass pus, I said I was surprised it hasn't been threatened yet and it would not surprise me if something did happen. I mentioned being "partially sarcastic", even, just to make sure. Go back to Remedial "Speak-n-Spell" if you must.

[Kanastrous]

Well, you and I can be comforted by the fact that our sound financial intelligence gives us a better chance of profitting from the eventual recovery. Silver lining after all.

Uh huh. The engines have flamed out at 1500' AGL, we're pitched down 50 degrees, the ground is looming in the forward windscreen...

...but the FCS laws were just updated and the pilot's had an extra few hours' simulator time.

Wheee.

[KrauserKrauser]

I'd just like to add before I have time to respond in detail this reveals the depth of your double-standard and GOP bias. There is no difference in the effect on public finances between a tax cut bill and a spending bill. They are indistinguishable - in fact, much of the total cited under this "spending" bill is tax cuts. Furthermore, the default assumption of the American free market humper is that tax cuts are always more effective than spending. There is much empirical evidence to suggest the reverse.

Did I say that Tax Cuts were the way to go? Can you take a sec and actually read what I wrote and find where I trotted out the standard GOP mantra of tax cuts? Please find it for me because I sure as hell don't remember saying it.

You're right in that the bill is a plit between tax cuts and spending, about 60/40 spending to tax cuts from various sources, so that puts the spending found in this bill at roughly the same amount as the combined total cost of The New Deal. Barring the fact that the original post's purpose was to show that the promised transparency by the new administration has been thrown out the window with such an important bill and that this will set the precedent of what we might expect from the administration when it comes to "super important" bills in the future and that I was not advocating a different plan, especially the additional tax cuts that you are accusing me of endorsing.

There may be no seperate effect on the budget from tax cuts and spending, but there sure is a hell of a lot of difference between giving out $500 billion in tax cuts and allocating $500 billion in spending, or do you disagree?

I'm all for spending, especially as the previous tax cuts have been shown to be ineffective, and will gladly give me thoughts on the final bill once the Democrats present the bill they promised to make visible 48 hours ago. Honestly though you're probably right in that letting the GOP into the closed door meeting wouldn't have solved any of the problems any better than the exisiting bill does because Washington as whole has shown to be unwilling to make the necessary changes to fix anything.

Maybe it's like Churchill said: "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other pssoibilities."

[Darth Wong]

There may be no seperate effect on the budget from tax cuts and spending, but there sure is a hell of a lot of difference between giving out $500 billion in tax cuts and allocating $500 billion in spending, or do you disagree?

Yeah; you can do a lot more to ensure that the $500 billion in spending goes to sectors that are in need of improvement, whereas $500 billion in tax cuts might all go overseas for all you know, especially if you give most of it to rich people.

Of course, some would argue that you get some of those tax cuts back in increased revenue if the economy grows, but then again, you get some of your spending back that way too.

[KrauserKrauser]

Yeah; you can do a lot more to ensure that the $500 billion in spending goes to sectors that are in need of improvement, whereas $500 billion in tax cuts might all go overseas for all you know, especially if you give most of it to rich people.

Of course, some would argue that you get some of those tax cuts back in increased revenue if the economy grows, but then again, you get some of your spending back that way too.

True enough and it's easier to understand and justify the numbers that Nitram posted for the multipliers in government spending, assuming the money is properly targeted, etc. General tax cuts are bit more of a let the chips fall as they may in the benefits to the economy and it makes sense that there would be cracks for the money to fall through.

I'm surprised the Dems included it on the stimulus bill as $400 per person when broken down to the $20 or so dollars a month is basically taking a watered down version of Bush's stimulus and spreading it out long enough so that there would not be the initial stimulus of cash injected into the economy. I would like to see a justification of spreading out versus the lump sum payment, especially as the intended purpose and justification for rushing the bill out of Congress is that the money is needed OMG RIGHT NOW.

I'm sure I'll forget to do it, but it would be nice if I spent some time over the weekend going over the bill, if the Dems ever get around to showing it to the public as promised 2 days ago, and seeing if they have made significant changes, ie if they took out my free $15k tax credit.

[ray245]

I would like to see a justification of spreading out versus the lump sum payment, especially as the intended purpose and justification for rushing the bill out of Congress is that the money is needed OMG RIGHT NOW.

Consumer confidence. The last thing you want is to ensure that the remaining consumer confidence do not drop any lower.

[KrauserKrauser]

This just in...

Stimulus: How it may affect your wallet

Congress has finalized the economic recovery plan. Here's a look at some of the provisions geared at financial relief for individuals.

Food stamps and hard choices

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Key lawmakers in the Senate and House have reached a compromise on a final economic recovery package.

The new stated topline price tag: $789.5 billion. That's below both the $820 billion House-passed version and the $838 billion Senate-passed version.

The compromises that the House, Senate and White House made have changed the scope of a number of provisions, including those affecting individuals directly. In some cases, they either reduced or expanded a benefit relative to what appeared in the Senate or House versions of the bill.

Here's a look at some of the provisions that will have a direct effect on individuals in their paychecks, on their tax returns, and with regard to their unemployment benefits and health insurance if they've lost a job.

The information below is based on materials put out by the key committees in the House and Senate as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Making Work Pay Credit: The bill provides a $400 credit per worker and a $800 credit per dual-earner couple. The full credit would be paid to people making $75,000 or less ($150,000 per dual-earner couple). A partial credit would be paid to those making above those amounts but no more than $100,000 ($200,000 for couples).

The credit would also be refundable, which means that even very low-income families who don't make enough to owe income tax would be able to claim it.

For most working individuals, the credit will be paid over time at roughly $15 per period, assuming 26 pay periods in a year. Estimated cost: $116 billion.

One-time payments to those who don't work: For retirees, disabled individuals and others who don't work, the bill provides a one-time $250 payment. Estimated cost: $14.2 billion.

Break for higher income families: The bill includes a one-year provision to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT was intended primarily for high-income taxpayers but has in recent years threatened to engulf those lower down the income scale. Estimated cost: $70 billion.

Temporary deduction for car buyers: The bill would let those who buy a new car, light vehicle, recreational vehicle or motorcycle in 2009 deduct state and local sales taxes as well as any excise tax charged in the purchase. The deduction would be available to those earning less than $125,000 ($250,000 for joint filers). It will be an above-the-line deduction, meaning even taxpayers who don't itemize may take it in addition to the standard deduction. Estimated cost: $1.7 billion.

Temporary credit for home buyers: The bill increases the size of an existing temporary and refundable first-time home buyer credit to $8,000, up from $7,500. It also removes the requirement under current law that the credit be paid back if the buyer stays in the home for at least three years. And it would extend the credit's expiration date to Dec. 1, 2009, from July 1. Those eligible for this credit must have purchased a home after Jan. 1, 2009, and before Dec. 1, 2009.

The full credit is available to those making $75,000 or less ($150,000 for joint filers). Estimated cost: $6.6 billion.

New temporary college credit: The bill introduces the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which would be in effect for 2009 and 2010. It expands the existing Hope Scholarship tax credit and would be worth as much as $2,500 for higher education expenses, up from $1,800 currently.

The full credit would be available to those making less than $80,000 ($160,000 for joint filers). Those making between those amounts and $90,000 ($180,000 for joint filers) would get a partial credit. And the break would also be partially refundable, meaning lower income families with little or no tax liability could now claim some of the credit. Estimated cost: $13.9 billion.

Temporary Pell Grant increase: The bill increases the maximum Pell Grant by $500 to $5,350 in 2009 and $5,550 in 2010. Estimated cost: $15.6 billion.

Temporary expansion of child tax credit: The bill increases eligibility for the child tax credit by lowering the income threshold that must be met for the credit to be refundable. The threshold would be lowered to $3,000 for this year and next. That will allow lower income families to claim more of the credit than under current law. Estimated cost: $14.8 billion.

Temporary increase in earned income tax credit: The credit will be temporarily increased to 45% from 40% of qualifying earnings for low-income families with three or more children. It also includes a marriage penalty relief provision for couples who qualify for at least a portion of the credit. Estimated cost: $4.6 billion.

Direct lifeline benefits
Health insurance help for the jobless: The bill includes provisions to help eligible jobless workers pay for health insurance under Cobra. Cobra coverage allows newly unemployed workers to keep health insurance provided by their former employers for a period of time.

For workers who have been laid off between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009, the government will subsidize 65% of their premiums under Cobra for up to 9 months.

Those people laid off between Sept. 1, 2008, and the day the stimulus law goes into effect, and who did not sign up for Cobra, will get an additional 60 days to do so and receive the subsidy.

The subsidy will be limited to those whose income for the year is $125,000 or less ($250,000 for couples filing jointly). Estimated cost: $24.7 billion.

Another provision provides states funding to help pay for expanded Medicaid rolls for workers who've lost their jobs and can't afford health care on their own or can't get Cobra coverage because their former employer doesn't offer a health care plan. Estimated cost: $87 billion.

Unemployment benefits: The bill provides jobless workers with an additional 20 weeks in unemployment benefits, and 13 weeks on top of that if they live in what's deemed a high unemployment state, of which there are now about 30. Estimated cost: $27 billion.

In addition, the weekly unemployment benefit will temporarily increase by $25 on top of the roughly $300 jobless workers currently receive. Estimated cost: $8.8 billion.

Plus, the first $2,400 of benefits in 2009 would be exempt from federal income taxes. Estimated cost: $4.7 billion.

Food stamp payments: The bill includes a provision would increase food stamp payments by 13.6%, so a family of four would see an additional $80 on top of the $588 per month they receive currently. Estimated cost: $19.9 billion.

The bill also provides assistance to help local groups providing food and shelter, elderly nutrition services such as Meals on Wheels, and a program to help food banks re-stock their shelves. Estimated cost: $350 million.

Other help for needy families: The bill provides funding to states to create a contingency fund through 2010 for the welfare program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which provides cash assistance to the needy. Estimated cost: $2.4 billion

Ok, so changes from the previous bill:

$500 tax credit reduced to $400 to be payed out $30 a month - So much for the shot in the arm on this one, why not just front load this to get the most stimulus possible if the money is so urgently needed.

Not working payment went from $300 to $250 but might cover more people. First report singled out Elderly non working and new report states retirees and everyone else that is not working.

They changed the Car tax credit to be more inclusive for new purchases but removed the ability to claim the interest payment on your taxes. Instead they are giving the finger to the state and local governments on sales taxes, hopefully they matched the taken revenue from these states and localities in directed spending as that would just cause even more problems at that level if they did not.

Well everybody it looks like I will be staying in my new house for at least 3 years because that free $8-16 thousand looks like money in my wallet. It doesn't state if the rebate is combineable, I guess it'll be worth it to get a good tax guy this year as there will be alot going on. I had heard that you would be able to claim it on 2008 taxes, but given those dates, that is probably not the case.

The amount of the the college credit did not change, they just expanded the eligibility both upwards and downwards which tacked on $3 billion to the cost.

The Pell grant amount increases were almost doubled.

They really went to town on the Child Tax Credit, dropping the bar all the way to $3000 from the proposed $8100.

No difference on the EITC.

COBRA premiums were increased from 50% match to 65% match.

Not many changes to the unemployment increases.

Looks like they got rid of an incentive for states to provide unemployment insurance coverage for part-time workers and for workers who quit their jobs for compelling family reasons. Interesting.

Food stamps increased went up from 12% to 13.6% increase and the Meals on Wheels funding is new and going to be needed.

Still not the bill to end all problems but some of these will be very useful in the coming times. I'm guessing some of the increases will simply become the standard levels such as the unemployment, food stamps, etc. as these things tend to not decrease once implemented.

[KrauserKrauser]

Consumer confidence. The last thing you want is to ensure that the remaining consumer confidence do not drop any lower.

How is consumer confidence impacted with respect to a lump sum payment of $400 or a monthly payment of $30?

I would think that the $400 up front is going to have more impact than an $30 a month, especially if inflation is going to start rearing its head due to the excessive amount of money coming off the presses recently.

[General Zod]

Consumer confidence. The last thing you want is to ensure that the remaining consumer confidence do not drop any lower.

How is consumer confidence impacted with respect to a lump sum payment of $400 or a monthly payment of $30?

I would think that the $400 up front is going to have more impact than an $30 a month, especially if inflation is going to start rearing its head due to the excessive amount of money coming off the presses recently.

Bush's lump sum payment on last year's bribe stimulus didn't do dick. What makes you think a $400 payment this year will be any different?

[KrauserKrauser]

Bush's lump sum payment on last year's bribe stimulus didn't do dick. What makes you think a $400 payment this year will be any different?

I never said it would be any different.

I was simply questioning the reasoning behind taking that $400 tax credit we know from previous experience is either not enough to get the desired result or is simply ineffective and then spreading the payments out over a year so they can be SUPER DUPER ineffective and late to the party.

[ray245]

Consumer confidence. The last thing you want is to ensure that the remaining consumer confidence do not drop any lower.

How is consumer confidence impacted with respect to a lump sum payment of $400 or a monthly payment of $30?

I would think that the $400 up front is going to have more impact than an $30 a month, especially if inflation is going to start rearing its head due to the excessive amount of money coming off the presses recently.

The more delays we see, the more frightened we get. Most people and business would not see the stimulus as getting a lump sum or a monthly payment of $30. They will see it as there is a stimulus or there is no stimulus.

[KrauserKrauser]

The more delays we see, the more frightened we get. Most people and business would not see the stimulus as getting a lump sum or a monthly payment of $30. They will see it as there is a stimulus or there is no stimulus.

How does that, in any way, relate to my question of what justification Congress could possibly have made to split the lump sum payment into bi-weekly payments ($400 over 26 payments or $30 a month).

You're telling me that people have a herd mentality and are generally financially retarded. This I already knew, do you have an opinion as to the question I proposed?

[ray245]

The more delays we see, the more frightened we get. Most people and business would not see the stimulus as getting a lump sum or a monthly payment of $30. They will see it as there is a stimulus or there is no stimulus.

How does that, in any way, relate to my question of what justification Congress could possibly have made to split the lump sum payment into bi-weekly payments ($400 over 26 payments or $30 a month).

You're telling me that people have a herd mentality and are generally financially retarded. This I already knew, do you have an opinion as to the question I proposed?

Then we have to see if the lump payment to the individual or to the companies is big enough to inspire consumer confidence. Can the effect of large amount of spending in a single month or week be felt on a general level?

There is no quick fix to the economy using a lump sum of money. You have to continue your massive spending over a long period of time, in order to fix the economy.

[LMSx]

I am generally of the opinion of fuck driving the nation deeper into debt just to give a tax refund to people who didn’t pay taxes in the first place.

Link from 2003

With the passage of the Bush tax cut -- and in particular the revelation that a number of taxpayers won't be benefiting from the child tax credit in the bill -- a strange verbal tic seems to have developed among commentators and politicians on the right: They keep saying that millions of Americans pay no taxes.

....

Do these people pay their own bills? Do they balance their own checkbooks or shop for their own groceries? Looking at my expenses for a month, I seem to do far more than pay federal income taxes in order to contribute my share to the government coffers.

My pay stubs keep listing this thing called "FICA" that pays for Social Security and Medicare. My monthly utility bills, be they gas, electric or phone, have various payments to the federal government included. When I go to fill up my gas tank, I seem to be paying what a sign on the pump refers to as "taxes." If I go out to eat, at the bottom of the check is something marked "taxes." When I buy a new CD, I seem to pay taxes again. A six-pack of beer costs me in both federal and state taxes, and if I ever wanted to start smoking, a carton of cigarettes adds another tax. If I'm paying these taxes, I'll bet the so-called "lucky duckies" -- as The Wall Street Journal last fall labeled poor Americans who pay little or no income taxes -- are paying them as well.

In fact, the lucky duckies are paying a higher percentage of their income in regressive taxes than the members of The Wall Street Journal editorial board are. FICA, of course, is infamously regressive, as the rate drops from 7.65 percent to 1.45 percent on income above $87,000 a year. Sales taxes don't change based on the payer's income, and neither do alcohol taxes, gasoline taxes or most state income taxes. Actually, once all taxes are taken into consideration, those Americans whose incomes are in the bottom 20 percent pay a larger portion of their earnings in taxes than the average American -- and only the top 20 percent pays more.

So is this lie about people who pay no taxes being repeated over and over by every single person on the right? Actually, no: Some of them tell a slightly more honest version of the story. Instead of claiming that the federal income tax is the only tax, they ignore state taxes but say that the federal income tax is the only federal tax. But that still presents two problems: First, there are other federal taxes, and second, state taxes have just as much impact on the average family's spending decisions as federal taxes.

The Wall Street Journal, for example, claimed this week that the tax bill "exempts another three million-plus low-income workers from any federal tax liability whatsoever." Perhaps, but apparently these 3 million people aren't paying FICA. They also don't drive cars, smoke, drink or use the phone. That's not 3 million people. That's Eric Robert Rudolph.

Even sillier is the idea that citizens who pay numerous taxes but don't pay federal income taxes should be grateful to those who do pay income taxes. Ari Fleischer proposed this at a May 29 press briefing, noting, "People who have had their entire income tax burden forgiven -- I think they're very appreciative of the fact that they pay no income taxes in America and still benefit from a national defense, which is paid from income taxes; they still benefit from school programs that are paid at the federal level income taxes."

Some would respond that Social Security taxes aren't supposed to go into the general revenue pool but instead are part of a separate "trust fund." But that doesn't apply to any other federal tax. Those pennies that get added onto our gasoline purchases pay for the same military as the income taxes we pay each April 15. So do alcohol taxes and phone surcharges. If the poor should be grateful that the rich pay income taxes, the rich should be grateful that the poor drink Budweiser.

Even if there were no federal taxes other than the income tax, that wouldn't mean that those who did not pay it would be without tax burden. Many who are fond of moving programs down to the state level seem to forget how those state and local programs are funded: with state and local taxes. And the funny thing is, state taxes seem to be going up around the country -- even in states with Republican governors.

Last year's annual Fiscal Policy Report Card from the anti-tax Cato Institute gave the average Republican governor a C-, not much better than the D+ earned by the average Democrat. Gov. Don Sundquist (R-Tenn.) is seen as the greatest heretic, having actually proposed an income tax in a state that has never had one, but he's not the only Republican being forced to consider tax increases in the wake of financial emergency. For example, Gov. George Ryan (R-Ill.) increased taxes in his state by more than $600 million, and Gov. Bob Taft (R-Ohio) raised them by more than $700 million. And it is a Republican, Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, who is leading the movement to extend state sales taxes to online shopping.

So as federal taxes go down, state taxes go up -- and the regressive nature of state taxes means that the tax burden is shifted more and more onto those with lower incomes. When average Americans figure their household budgets, therefore, it doesn't change anything if they're sending less tax money to Washington but more to Nashville or Denver. And if the purpose of the child tax credit is to lessen the burden on families raising children, do families that only fund the government through sales taxes and utility taxes need that help any less than families that make enough money to pay federal income taxes?

What's most disheartening is that this lie isn't necessary in order to explain the supposed goals of conservatism. The fact that the average American, rich or poor, pays roughly the same percentage of his or her income in taxes does not contradict the belief that the government spends too much, or that taxes in general are too high. So an obsession with this idea that the poor "don't pay taxes" seems to indicate that for many conservatives, shifting the tax burden to lower-income Americans ranks higher on the list of priorities than, say, reducing the size of government. Guess who's practicing class warfare now?

[Kanastrous]

I am generally of the opinion of fuck driving the nation deeper into debt just to give a tax refund to people who didn’t pay taxes in the first place.

Link from 2003

It's still unfair for people who pay all of those various taxes (including income tax) to have to watch money coming out of the common till to provide a refund to people who pay all of those various taxes (excluding income tax).

[General Zod]

I am generally of the opinion of fuck driving the nation deeper into debt just to give a tax refund to people who didn’t pay taxes in the first place.

Link from 2003

It's still unfair for people who pay all of those various taxes (including income tax) to have to watch money coming out of the common till to provide a refund to people who pay all of those various taxes (excluding income tax).

Why? The only difference is they may not contribute as big of a percentage. By your logic it's unfair for people earning minimum wage to gain a refund because people in the middle class pay more.

[Kanastrous]

Seems like there's a difference between taxes lopped directly out of your earned income, and taxes that everyone pays regardless of income, as a part of living in the country and going about one's business.

On the off chance you haven't noticed, I don't know a lot about the country's tax structure so I'm open to being educated on the subject.

[KrauserKrauser]

I, for one, did not know that FICA was regressive in it's nature. I know that the article referred to the gas tax, etc as regressive but I term those more of a tax per use item and not dependent on income.

Is FICA actually regressive in that it will take a higher percentage of your paycheck with a lower income or am I mistaken?

[Questor]

Is FICA actually regressive in that it will take a higher percentage of your paycheck with a lower income or am I mistaken?

It's 6.2% of your gross wages, up to a wage cap of $106,800. The cap is what makes it regressive. because the percentage drops as people make above that cap.

[LMSx]

I am generally of the opinion of fuck driving the nation deeper into debt just to give a tax refund to people who didn’t pay taxes in the first place.

Link from 2003

It's still unfair for people who pay all of those various taxes (including income tax) to have to watch money coming out of the common till to provide a refund to people who pay all of those various taxes (excluding income tax).

I don't see why this argument wouldn't apply to, say, the gas tax: someone who drives a car and pays the gas tax sees their money pay for mass transit, lowering costs for the guy who bikes and uses the bus. The difference here is straight cash vs. getting a product the cash pays for, but the end result is still a benefit to someone from certain taxes they don't pay. Considering the disproportionate impact static taxes have on the poor (I assume the data from 2003 is still reasonable true and Bush's second term didn't miraculously fix it), this sort of amelioration seems very necessary.

[Kanastrous]

I see a difference - maybe an illusory one - between recirculating tax monies into systems of broad public utility, and just cutting checks and handing them directly to people whose income tax contribution was zero.

[LMSx]

I see a difference - maybe an illusory one - between recirculating tax monies into systems of broad public utility, and just cutting checks and handing them directly to people whose income tax contribution was zero.

And these same people who pay little or no income tax pay a higher % of income in overall taxes. People who don't pay income tax can still be deserving of tax relief. If you accept that premise, then this act of Congress is just a patch that's quicker then adding income-dependent loopholes to innumerable different taxes.

[Kanastrous]

I see a difference - maybe an illusory one - between recirculating tax monies into systems of broad public utility, and just cutting checks and handing them directly to people whose income tax contribution was zero.

And these same people who pay little or no income tax pay a higher % of income in overall taxes. People who don't pay income tax can still be deserving of tax relief. If you accept that premise, then this act of Congress is just a patch that's quicker then adding income-dependent loopholes to innumerable different taxes.

I don't accept the premise, I guess. The degree to which you get something back ought to be predicated upon the degree to which you put something in, not the specific proportion of your income represented by what you put in.

If we're interested in tax relief for people who already pay no income tax, perhaps we can accomplish that by lowering the taxes to which they are already subjected - which has the appeal of being fairer, to the rest of us who pay those taxes, too.

[General Zod]

I don't accept the premise, I guess. The degree to which you get something back ought to be predicated upon the degree to which you put something in, not the specific proportion of your income represented by what you put in.

If we're interested in tax relief for people who already pay no income tax, perhaps we can accomplish that by lowering the taxes to which they are already subjected - which has the appeal of being fairer, to the rest of us who pay those taxes, too.

That seems incredibly selfish and short sighted. I suppose people who don't pay income taxes shouldn't be allowed to use public facilities paid for by those taxes either? It's not like they contributed anything to it, right?