Cash Advances

Thoreau at Unqualified Offerings compares the proposed tax "rebates" to a cash advance on a credit card:

I don’t really mind the feds giving us some money back, but if they’re just going to borrow in our name then it’s not much of a win.  If your spouse came home and said “Look, I just got $600 from the credit card company!” would you give a high-five or note that you’ll have to pay interest on it?

It's worth noting that while this may be a valid analogy in the aggregate, it's not generally applicable at the individual level. Because the top quintile of income earners pay 73% of all federal taxes, any increase in future tax burden resulting from this will be shouldered mostly by a small minority of taxpayers.

In fact, the current tax distribution actually understates the case against the analogy. Lower- and middle-class tax hikes are no longer politically feasible--even proposals to increase payroll tax revenues focus solely on increasing or eliminating the cap on Social Security taxes--so it's quite likely that the top 5-10% of income earners will end up paying for 100% of any future tax burden resulting from the "rebates." Adding insult to injury, these are the very same people who will not be receiving checks because their incomes are too high.

A better analogy, then, is checking your mail to find either that the credit card company has sent you a cash advance drawn on someone else's account, or that it's charged your account for cash advances to one or more of its other customers and given you nothing.

Share this

The question is whether or

The question is whether or not to oppose this kind of tax rebate. The answer is that opposing it means stealing from the people who could get some of their money back. There is no duty to pays taxes nor is there a duty to honor the national debt.

If the writer is concerned with the US government's debt, he may offer his tax-rebate to pay for it, I won't.