What about the guy that is a lower income laborer with 5 kids. there is no income tax withheld, only FICA, so he won't beneift much, compared to the CEO executive that might have 20,000 a month withholding. Again, a stupid idea.

Y'all are making this WAY too difficult. I understand that you don't have to PAY your federal taxes each month. I choose to do so because it is easier and my employer works it out for me. If you fill out your tax forms appropriately, ie single 0, married 2, etc and use your "deductions" appropriately things work out quite well.

This plan takes your income from Jan and Feb, figures what you SHOULD owe in Federal and FICA taxes, and in turn you keep that amount. You would normally pay on the earning from those months; instead the Gov't pays your tax bill for those earnings. You can drag out how you pay it, but the amt you would pay on that income is a certain amt.

I'm not going to complain if someone wants to allow me to keep more of the money I earn. I'm not going to apologize to anyone if I get more money back than they do. In turn, I'm not going to complain because I didn't get as much as the next guy.

Honestly I could care less if my neighbor gets twice the money back than I do. That means he makes more money than I do and in turn pays more in taxes.

As far as the guy who has 5 kids... I didn't impregnate his wife or play any part in his decision to over extend himself enough that he does not pay federal income tax. If he wants to get money he did not earn he can go stand in a line somewhere. That is called welfare and is a totally different issue.

The real question is would you rather get to keep more of the money you earned or would you rather a Bank or business get bailed out instead? I trust myself to spend money on the things I need more than I trust the Gov't to pass out money to failed private businesses.

It's all a moot point not worth arguing anyway.

The proposal is from a republican congressman, they couldn't get a resolution passed that the sun would come up tomorrow.

No, it does not take in consideration what expenses you might have to offset that income(business travel, etc) nor what other income you might have. The point is, the plan does not consider how complicated the tax structure is, and will end up rewarding those that need it the least.

We don't know if the plan takes this into account. That is what Congress get's paid for. This is a proposal. When the plan is submitted they can workout the details at that point. We have not seen the WHOLE plan because that would come after deliberation in Congress.

I've never seen so much opposition when someone wants to allow "you" to keep more of the money you earned. Let Congress decide if it is a good idea first. If the "idea" is accepted the details will be worked out. Don't shoot is down because it "MAY" not work or it "MAY" be too complicated. Would you rather have Citi Group get the money?

I'd rather... The government just give me money.

First, the money does not exist, our kids, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren will be paying for it. Secondly, the bailout is supposedly for the auto industry and the finance industry. How is helping me with my taxes in Jan and Feb going to keep GM going past December? It just reeks of Congressmen trying to get votes by offering the people something they think sounds good and is an easy sell. In reality, it's all hocus pocus.

They need to get busy restructuring Wallstreet so that companies don't have to show ever increasing profits every quarter just to keep their stock value. When a company can grow 12 percent in a quarter but lost 25% of it's stock value because an analist said they should have made 18%, it's just wrong. That was Alcon. All this handout stuff relly gets to me.

The money is going to be "SPENT" one way or another. If you read the links the proposal's 350 Billion is coming from the original 700 billion dollar bailout. So this money can either go to a failing company that is more than likely failing because of poor management and oversight or it can go to the "people".

This money that would go to Americans could be spent on what ever they deem. It could go to buy a new GM vehicle, it could be put in the bank an sit there, it could pay off credit cards, it could pay off student loans, or it could be blown on booze and hookers. No matter which way you slice it, it goes back into the economy.

How much of the AIG bailout money has gone back into the economy? I'd be willing to guess mostly the amount spent on the Execs who went on a lavish vacation the week after the bailout!

two months taxes will not buy a new GM vehicle, and will be too late anyway. That's like spitting on a forest fire to put it out.

You forgot the one that kills.
LIFO, FIFO, but you forgot FISH.
"First in still here."
Thats the one that stinks.

AMEN! The best thing would be to not spend the money. These stupid stimulus packages, bailouts etc. is just the government's version of bad credit card debt. We must stop spending money we don't have.

Once again you hit the nail on the head. It was not the unions, engineers or CEOs that killed the big three. Sure some of the blame can rest here, but the real fault lies with the bean counters and accountants. It their attempts to maximize the profit margin to please stock holders, they drove the companies to cut corners everywhere possible. That's what is killing the businesses.

It's like a cancer feeding on itself. It really isn't the bean counters so much as it is whom they are attempting to please. Instead of companies reporting their results and Wallstreet reacting to that and investing accordingly, for the last 20 years or so, Wallstreet analysts have been predicting what a compnay will do the next quarter, which, to fuel the gains they are looking for in the stock market, has to be considerably higher each quarter. They have been promoting investments based on this future growth potential rather than the real growth of the immediate past. So, when a company fails to achive the numbers some analyst has stuck out there, then the company is a "failure" and no longer the darling of the investors. That is why everything is all about current profits. It's unsustainable! Has to end somewhere. Gone is the old day when advisors looked for a solid, steadily growing company that was investing in it's people and it's future. It's all about the greedy "gotta have it now" attitude that the American people have come to embrace. I could go on, but that's enough.

I heard the congressman interviewed on Fox news this morning, and typical of all politicians, he made the vacation sound like a slam dunk tax stimulis that would lead us out of the recession.

I assume that the 4/15 issue would be resolved with an adjusted tax table which would charge 10/12 of the usual tax, no?

I asked that 15 times last night without a straight answer.
It wasn't spelled out, which means they are hoping you will 'assume' which means you get screwed.