Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll: Tax Rebate checks paying off debt
CBS MarketWatch ^ | August 20, 2003 | Carolyn Pritchard

Posted on 08/20/2003 4:47:07 AM PDT by AntiGuv

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: AntiGuv
I would have spent all of the money to pay down debt. But since a check was sent though the mail instead of going straight to the bank, as I requested for the income tax rebate, the wife saw the check! I had to agree to split the check and only use half of it to pay down debt. But eventially when the debt is paid off, I will probably buy more stuff. Maybe even enough to go into debt again.
21 posted on 08/20/2003 5:24:02 AM PDT by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
18% of 30% represent a majority of Americans????????????
22 posted on 08/20/2003 5:28:03 AM PDT by OldFriend ((Dems inhabit a parallel universe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Well, you could say I used mine to pay off debt.

I ordered my son's college textbooks at the beginning of August over the internet, cost about $400.

Had to charge them because I ordered them online.

I thought when the check arrived, that's handy, it'll cover the cost of the books.

Didn't need to use that money per se to pay the bill, and would have paid it anyway if the check hadn't arrived, but just associated the check with the books.

Maybe that's what other folks meant by "paying off debt."

23 posted on 08/20/2003 5:29:45 AM PDT by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Darn those supply-siders!
24 posted on 08/20/2003 5:29:53 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
Of course credit cards are paid off immediately, and then run up again almost as fast.

Exactly! Plus, there are probably millions of Americans who increased their credit card spending in anticipation of getting the refund. And, of course, CBS has not even mentioned the possibility that people are not answering the question honestly. It sounds a lot more fiscally responsible to tell the pollster that you will use the money to pay off debt rather than on a frivolous purchase. I bet a poll asking how many people plan to go to church this Sunday would yield a higher percentage of intended rather than actual church goers.

A president does not have many avenues available to stimulate the economy. Keeping taxes and interest rates as low as possible are about it. The democrats, by blaming the Bush policies for the recession, are blaming the candles for the small amount of light during the blackout.

25 posted on 08/20/2003 5:31:24 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST
How far was this paltry rebate supposed to carry the burden?

Whether it's $4, $40, $400, or $4000, it's better off in the hands of the taxpayer than in the government's.

26 posted on 08/20/2003 5:32:47 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
We're all gonna die!!!!

ROFLMAO

27 posted on 08/20/2003 5:33:31 AM PDT by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Yep. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

30% received checks and of that 30%, 18% spent it.

You can make stats say whatever you want.

BTW since when do we live in a closed economy? Any money not in the government's hands is OK by me regardless of where it ends up.

28 posted on 08/20/2003 5:34:04 AM PDT by Damocles (sword of...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
18% of 30% represent a majority of Americans????????????

Well, look at a Chicago Math text book. If you really, really feel that this represents a majority, then it does.

29 posted on 08/20/2003 5:38:21 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (France delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
I did exactly that with mine.

As a matter of fact I am throwing every extra dollar at debt elimination.

With the exception of my mortgage, I'll be debt free early next year.
30 posted on 08/20/2003 5:40:02 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (It's now the Al Davis GOP...........................Just Win Baby !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle
When you pay off a debt, say to a bank, the bank gets the cash, right?

OK, you liquidate a debt, yours. Makes sense so far.

the other 99 percent goes out to other customers - investments in business new loans.

Now you create a new debt and it is more likely a consumer rather than business debt. So what has happened is a debt transfer from one individual to another. In essence, we are back to square one ;-)

31 posted on 08/20/2003 5:40:14 AM PDT by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
Whether it's $4, $40, $400, or $4000, it's better off in the hands of the taxpayer than in the government's

No argument here, but this is being treated as the Nations Salvation. It will be nothing more than a ripple. I am all for getting them completely out of my paycheck, rather than these silly Tax games. That would have an impact. Blackbird.

32 posted on 08/20/2003 5:41:44 AM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: varon
In essence, we are back to square one. Well, no. The previous debt was liquidated, remember?
33 posted on 08/20/2003 5:45:00 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST
I'm with you. The overall impact is miniscule, but this type of incrementalism is good. In truth, families with children will now have received $1000 back from the government since '01 on top of the rate reductions that have taken place. That's real money, and represents correct thinking on the part of the administration.
34 posted on 08/20/2003 5:47:25 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: varon; camle; AntiGuv
Now you create a new debt and it is more likely a consumer rather than business debt. So what has happened is a debt transfer from one individual to another. In essence, we are back to square one ;-)

Correct, but your premise is that by $-volume an equal number of debtors stepped up to borrow that money again. But the point of the revolving credit reports is that, no, on balance, revolving debt went down, and other reports show re-fi and mortgage apps falling as well. The valid point has been made that with lower balances, folks may run up their cards again in the future.

However, even if other borrowers stepped up or revolving credit is run up in the future, the velocity of money slows because debt was repaid in the 1st transaction, rather than spent.

35 posted on 08/20/2003 5:53:43 AM PDT by Starwind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: varon
So what has happened is a debt transfer from one individual to another. In essence, we are back to square one ;-)

Hardly! Someone bought something with that new debt! This improves our economy just as effectively as spending it at the Mall.

36 posted on 08/20/2003 5:55:01 AM PDT by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Starwind
Repaying debt is spending, and I think you are confusing the velocity of money with the multiplier-effect.
37 posted on 08/20/2003 5:56:29 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
One thing this doesn't mention is the morality bias of most polling answers. If the two options for the poll were "pay off debt" and "buy beer and cigarettes", people would be more likely to say "pay off debt" even if they were called while standing in front of the fridge trying to make room for $200 worth of beer they just bought with the refund check.
38 posted on 08/20/2003 6:14:43 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (A flash mob of one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Repaying debt is spending

No. Repaying debt is the compensation of prior spending of borrowed money. It is not additional spending.

I think you are confusing the velocity of money with the multiplier-effect.

No. The multiplier effect is the result of banks making multiple loans (assuming debtors step up) less the reserve req on each loan. But to make multiple loans, the money has to come back in multiple times. Each time it comes in, it is loaned out less the reserve. Each time a loan is made from the 'same' money supply (less a reserve) the velocity of money increases (assuming the loaned out money is spent on something) and the money supply 'multiplied'.

But the velocity of money can increase without multiplying when instead of saving, someone buys something with cash. But a cash purchase only increases the velocity, it does not increase the banks 'multiplier effect'.

They are related, but not the same.

39 posted on 08/20/2003 6:16:58 AM PDT by Starwind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
We're all gonna die!!!!

ARE YOU SURE!!!!
40 posted on 08/20/2003 6:24:08 AM PDT by RipSawyer (Mercy on a pore boy lemme have a dollar bill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson