A tax cut is nice, but the plan could definitely be structured better. I doubt it would stimulate the economy much...but, then again, I'm not sure WHAT would stimulate the economy much at this point.

It's an OK PR move, but it's not going to get the job done. Fiscal policy is a poor way to stimulate the economy -- particularly if you only use the taxation half of the fiscal policy toolkit. Changes in the monetary policy are probably more effective in the controlling the economy in the long term. In Greenspan we trust.

bunch of baloney.... tax cuts don't make much difference in the overal economy. Real tax reform is needed

To all you naysayers: please mail me a check for the difference in your tax savings next year: 1546 Lawrence St Houston, TX 77008 thanks.

It's a tremendously dumb idea. Under Bush's proposed tax cuts, 31 percent of Americans would get no tax cut at all. Another 48 percent would get a tax cut of under $100 a year, usually well under. Meanwhile, those in the top 1 percent in income would get an average tax cut of $30,127. This is after his last round of tax cuts, which over 10 years would give the bottom 20 percent of Americans a total savings of $744 and the top 1 percent $342,472. It'd be one thing if there was a ton of money floating around Washington, or if Social Security wasn't facing enormous shortfalls. But unfortunately, we're facing a deficit of $400 billion, the largest in history. And the Bush administration itself says that Social Security and Medicare are currently underfunded by $26 trillion. This is really a generational issue. It's baby boomers and retirees who will benefit from this tax cut. It's young people and our children who will get stuck with the bill, for decades to come. Two columns from Scott Burns, the hardly-radical personal finance columnist for the DMN: Sending our kids the tax bill and It's fiscal child abuse.

It hasn't worked yet. I don't see how now is any exception.

In the last 15 years I have been though 3 major tax cuts. In that time my income has gone from a 5th the national avg to well above the avg. As a single non-home owner with no childern I pay have few deductions. I have only seen my % tax burden go down once. It went down in 2000 by enough to save me $200. With that money I bought a PS2. Now if it had not I prob would have found the $ to buy one anyway but it did affect the timing. If even 1 in 100 US house holds did the same, the durable goods numbers would spike this year. Long term I not sure my PS2 would have a big effect.

hnvjplce fwpqrib mypvxchqi qrnxvpkw wpcf oiybue gnfvbrjzh