Posted on 02/19/2025 5:32:58 PM PST by Strict9
U.S. President Donald Trump revealed on Wednesday that he’s considering sending 20% of the money saved by the Department of Government Efficiency advisory group to Americans.
“There’s even under consideration a new concept where we give 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% goes to paying down debt,” Trump said during his remarks at the FII Priority Summit in Miami Beach, Fla.
His remarks came after Elon Musk said in a post on X Tuesday that he “Will check
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
We have a massive debt to pay off.
while i get the sentiment, and applaud the reduction in waste going
forward (thereby slowing the debt increase), we still have to pay
it off.
our annual burn is ~$6T while bringing in ~$4.5T
we need to get the burn rate around $3T and crank up the revenue
to $6T for a while.
It’d still take 13+ years to pay off the debt but it puts us on a path.
15 years from now... while keeping strict controls on spending... we
can discuss reductions
Wanna bet? Trump would love nothing more than to give money to people who could actually use it and would spend it. Anyone who filed Federal taxes, whether they owed or not. Of course, they would need to go back several years and help those lost jobs under Biden, whether by regulation changes, mandates, or were targeted (conservatives, parents at school board meetings, vets, etc.)
From the article:
““There’s even under consideration a new concept where we give 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% goes to paying down debt,” Trump said during his remarks at the FII Priority Summit in Miami Beach, Fla.”
Any idea what’s going to happen to the other 60%? The article does not say. Waste of an adblock disable.
Its 80 percent to pay for the national debt and 20 percent which goes to US..sounds good to me, thats OUR money
The article says 20% will be used to pay down the deficit and 20% will be returned to taxpayers. That still leaves 60% for some unspecified purpose.
I wish for simple things....like maybe letting us deduct some of our charitable giving when you don't itemize which most of us can't do anyway....but the rich can.
So those that were more successful in life either by hard work, luck, or born with a silver spoon should get more because they earned more? What about us not so fortunate that worked very hard our entire lives some at manual labor that did not receive high pay? Are we lesser people just because our paychecks weren’t as large? I’m beginning to think their are a lot of elite snobs on this board.
Maybe, just maybe, Prez. Trump wants to do something for individuals, not just high earning individuals.
there...
I’ve warmed up to this idea. It sounds like they plan the real, deep cuts—and the return to taxpayer is thus right.
plus, it spurs people to jump into or back into the job market to get on the tax rolls. Then, it gives incentive for government employees to point out waste in a particular department in the hopes of getting further rebates. It’s actually not a bad idea.
I’m not so sure about that. A one-time thing? You may be right, if it is based on 2025 tax returns, though I think it should be 2024.
yes and you also have to factor in that Trump says a lot of things. Hillary is going to go to jail but Hillary is actually on a beach and has never been better, 15 days to slow the spread, if Hamas doesn’t hand over All the terrorists on Saturday hell would rain down and so forth. I like the guy but he does bluster
So true!
That’s pretty presumptuous on your part and says more about you than the other people you deride. My beef with this idea is more about the numbers than someone’s circumstance. I mention minimum wage and professional only as simple example of difference in income that everyone would understand.
So to put another way for you - let’s say two different people are both making the same wage, but one has only been working one year, and the other has been working five.
The one working five has paid five times more in federal taxes than the other, meaning five times more of their money has been squandered in waste, fraud, and abuse.
Shouldn’t the one working five years get a bigger check since more of their money was”stolen”?
No, I don’t think so. After thinking about your post (and others on this board with similar thoughts), I’ve come to the conclusion that a refund should not be based on income or taxes paid. There has to be another FAIR way to do refunds. I also read this morning that the refunds will be at least two years away, so I’ve decided not to waste anymore time thinking about it right now. Much can change in two years.
Have a great day!
The number of years spent in that bracket does mean something whether you understand it or not. Take a math class.
Is the percentage going to be based on just the past year of the household’s income, or is the totality of their “tax life” taken into account?
E.g., take someone who got their first minimum wage job in 2024 and is in the 10% tax bracket. Should they get the same payment as someone who was in the 38% bracket for several decades, but was in the 10% bracket in 2024 because they retired in 2023?
If you think that’s reasonable or “fair”, I’d say you’re a socialist.
I wish for simple things....like maybe letting us deduct some of our charitable giving when you don’t itemize which most of us can’t do anyway....but the rich can.
The better solution might be to eliminate itemized deductions so we all are the same.
It is being discussed.
Agreed, it’s still an idea at this point.
The fairness is why I don’t like the check because you have to basically jump through mathematical hoops to try and figure out a fair way to do it.
That’s why it makes more sense to me to just put it on the debt. The money they are recovering ultimately added to the debt and would’ve caused some inflation - the effects of which will vary based on someone’s circumstance. Paying down the debt will cause a comparable variance to everyone based on those same circumstances. No complicated formulas required to figure that out.
Yes, and right after I responded to you this morning, I got a call that my oldest sister now officially has dementia. My other sister is presently taking care of her but her health is bad, so decisions to be made. That pushed the refund right off my plate. Money is fleeting and unfortunately so is life. Time to prioritize. :)
Sad news. I hope it goes as well as it can for you.
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.