WOO HOO!! Tax Rebates!!

[Jefe]

$300-$1200. $300 per person with a paycheck, plus $300 per child up to $1200.

[zero cool]

I make too much. I won't be getting one. :mad:

Ironically, people who don't pay taxes at all will get one of these "rebates". :rant:

[Big Dave]

Ironically, people who don't pay taxes at all will get one of these "rebates". :rant:


That pissed me off too. I liked GW's plan better, at least on a personal basis!

[Friscokidd]

whats the cut off for how much you have to make to GET one of those checks??

[Jefe]

At least $3000, no more than $75,000 individually or $150,000 as a household.

[Colin]

I must have been asleep. Are these something you will get automatically or something you have to apply for?

[OrangeCrush]

At least $3000, no more than $75,000 individually or $150,000 as a household.
dammit

[1973CJ5]

That's a load of crap! I pay my taxes, but don't get a rebate?

[Jefe]

I would gladly trade the $900 we will be getting back for a $150K a year household income!

[jtw2]

is that pre or post deductions amount?

[Jefe]

Not sure.

[Jefe]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782454

[ColoradoSkier]

Haven't seen a story yet about when/ how this is to be handled.

[jtw2]

looks like it's still tentative. don't know if I get a rebate yet or not. :(

[denverd0n]

What I don't see is where the money is going to come from. If it is like the last tax "rebate" program then the money you get comes directly from YOU!!! In other words, the last one was just a bit of accounting BS, where you got a portion of your refund on withholding early. Is this going to be the same?

[jtw2]

that's what I'm betting. it's a rebate that you will then have to turn around and claim on your taxes next year.

[TheCopperCowboy]

I'm sure this will be no different than the "tax rebates" given out in 2001. As some of you may recall, you either had that amount deducted from your refund or needed to include that amount with your payment in 2002. That was an actual stimulus package to jumpstart the economy and was more than likely used to purchase goods and/or services. It will be no different this time around and will be repaid in 2009, but I believe the money will be spent on debt already created or towards higher energy cost. About as useful as spitting on a forest fire. :rolleyes:

[bsaunder]

......no more than $75,000 individually or $150,000 as a household.

to all those that are always in favor of making the "rich" pay their "share" - above those limits are the people considered rich and will be targeted by any tax increases aimed at the "rich"

...just something to think about for those that think the "rich" aren't carrying their fair load of the income for this nation.

[TheCopperCowboy]

What I don't see is where the money is going to come from. If it is like the last tax "rebate" program then the money you get comes directly from YOU!!! In other words, the last one was just a bit of accounting BS, where you got a portion of your refund on withholding early. Is this going to be the same?


Beat me to it. :thumbsup:

[bsaunder]

What I don't see is where the money is going to come from. If it is like the last tax "rebate" program then the money you get comes directly from YOU!!! In other words, the last one was just a bit of accounting BS, where you got a portion of your refund on withholding early. Is this going to be the same?

It means the government will be giving me an interest free loan for a year again. (maybe...)

Since I cut my taxes as close as I can, the rebate will be more than I would receive in a possible refund; means I have to plan to repay it next April; but its better than giving the gov. a tax free loan from me IMHO.

[starbreaker666]

At least $3000, no more than $75,000 individually or $150,000 as a household.


Well I certainly don't make anywhere near that so im good!:flipoff2:

[signman2007]

Hmmmmm I make more than $150,000 annually and I'm complaining that I don't get a $300 dollar check back for a rebate.....whats wrong with this picture?

I guess the more money you make the more you spend so that $300 dollar check is a big deal....:shrug:

If you are making more than what is allowed in order to recieve this rebate and all you have to complain about is not getting a $300 dollar check like the rest then you must be doing pretty good :flipoff2:

[Oscar]

Me either heck add the wife and military retirement and we don't even get to the single amount

[Yota]

Hey you poor people making $150K enjoy spending my money. :thumbsup:

I say this merely to highlight the inherent unfairness of the entire progressive tax system we have in this country. It's government-sanctioned robbery.

[1973CJ5]

Hey you poor people making $150K enjoy spending my money. :thumbsup:

I say this merely to highlight the inherent unfairness of the entire progressive tax system we have in this country. It's government-sanctioned robbery.

Not saying I am poor, but I work my ass of just like everyone else. How does that make me any less deserving of a rebate. I am sure my debt to equity ratio is the same as those under the cap.

[Steve]

I make too much. I won't be getting one. :mad:

Ironically, people who don't pay taxes at all will get one of these "rebates". :rant:

Same here. Don't ya just love socialism? :rolleyes:

[starbreaker666]

Screw you richies!!!!!!!:flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2:

Just teasing as I see, even though im broke as a joke, there are HUGE issues with this upcoming bill that need to be addressed.

[Yota]

I'm sure this will be no different than the "tax rebates" given out in 2001. As some of you may recall, you either had that amount deducted from your refund or needed to include that amount with your payment in 2002. That was an actual stimulus package to jumpstart the economy and was more than likely used to purchase goods and/or services. It will be no different this time around and will be repaid in 2009, but I believe the money will be spent on debt already created or towards higher energy cost. About as useful as spitting on a forest fire. :rolleyes:


Incorrect. The checks we got in 2001 were for a retroactive tax cut and it was that tax cut (which was long-term) that kicked the economy in the ass and started a very long period of steady economic growth.

This stimulus is temporary and is combined with inflationary monetary policy. So ultimately we'll pay more because of the inflation that is inherent with rate reductions like we're seeing. The minute this "recession" (the biggest non-recession in history so far if you listen to the hyp :) ) ends (or fails to begin, more likely), the Fed will have to begin immediately raising rates to try and rein in the inflation that they created. And that will lead to all the usual hangovers from inflation that economists write about.

The bottom line is that we ultimately will have to face the consequences of the post-9/11 inflationary monetary policies (which led to the speculative lending and high housing prices). So the "housing bubble," IMHO, is not the cause of the problems, the Fed is. As usual.

I just think that we have to bear this cross one way or another. Might as well make it painful and short instead of painful and long.

[Steve]

About as useful as spitting on a forest fire. :rolleyes:

Holy Fawk, we agree on something? :eek:

To be honest I don't need the rebate, but when the gov't gives "tax rebates" to people who pay very little or no federal income tax while not giving said rebates to those who pay huge amounts it is socialism, plain and simple. It's also pandering to voters, but why should we expect anything different?

[TheCopperCowboy]

Yota, you're right on one account, wrong on the other.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/taxadvance.htm

Subject: WARNING: There's a catch to that tax "refund" check

WARNING: There's a catch to that tax "refund" check....
Rocky Mountain News
July 21, 2001

Tax checks in the mail -- with a catch
Practical reasons behind advance-refund system
By David Milstead, News Staff Writer

The tax-relief checks that will start arriving in mailboxes next week don't have a consumer-warning label, so we're happy to provide one.
Warning: This check is not a "rebate" of taxes you already paid. It's
an advance on the refund you'll get when you file next April.

If it's an advance, you ask, does that mean my refund in April will be
$300 smaller than it would have been? And if I'm unlucky enough to owe taxes, does that mean my tax bill will be $300 higher?

The answer to both questions is yes. But you'd never guess that from
the 1040 you'll fill out next year. It's been designed so that it's nearly
impossible to realize how the 2001 rebate checks affect your tax
preparation in 2002.

"I think people think what they're getting is a refund of taxes they
paid in 2000," said Gary Dudley, the tax partner-in-charge at Deloitte &
Touche's Denver office. "If they think their taxes were going to show up
lower April 15 (from this change), they're not."

The "immediate tax relief," as the Internal Revenue Service calls it,
was designed by Congress and the Bush administration to give taxpayers the benefit of a 2001 tax-rate reduction as soon as possible. Rather than wait for next April, you'll get the tax cut now.

"Congress intended the credit to take care of the rate reduction for
2001," said John McGreevy, an assistant branch chief for administration with the IRS. "They wanted to get money into people's pockets for an economic stimulus."

Bear with us for the math on how your check is calculated: The rate on
the first $6,000 of income for singles and $12,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly is being cut from 15 percent to 10 percent. That's why the refund checks range from $300 for singles ($900 in taxes reduced to $600) and $600 for married ($1,800 in taxes reduced to $1,200).

But if you were to fill out the tax form next April using the new
rates, you'd get the tax-cut benefits a second time. That's why the tax
tables that will accompany next year's 1040 will charge you the old 15
percent tax rate, not the new 10 percent rate.

The IRS could have included a line at the end of the 1040 where you
took the amount of the refund check and reduced your refund by $300 or $600 or, even worse, added that money to the tax bill you owe. You won't have to do that, because the amount owed you pull from the tables at the back of the booklet will have already done that for you.

"The risk of that (line) approach is that the adjustment could flip you
from a refund to a balance due, and you really wouldn't believe you
received that money," Dudley said.

But before you direct your anger at the IRS, look to the folks who
designed -- and are taking credit for -- this advance-refund system:
Congress and George W. Bush.

"It was not left to our discretion," said Marilyn Brookens, an IRS
attorney in Washington. "It was a congressional and presidential decision to do it this way, and we're implementing what we were told to do."

Brookens points to the tax-cutting language in the report from the
House-Senate conference committee that Bush signed into law earlier this year. The law said that in 2001, the advance refund occurs "in lieu of" the rate cut from 15 percent to 10 percent.

That statement, Brookens said, meant "if we didn't do it this way, we
would be in trouble with them."

But there are practical reasons, too, Brookens said: "It's an effort to
have as few people as possible enter a number on the 1040. Every time there's another computation, it increases the likelihood of errors.
"It's the way that will be quickest, most effective and result in the
fewest number of errors," she said.

July 21, 2001

[Loki]

Holy Fawk, we agree on something? :eek:

To be honest I don't need the rebate, but when the gov't gives "tax rebates" to people who pay very little or no federal income tax while not giving said rebates to those who pay huge amounts it is socialism, plain and simple. It's also pandering to voters, but why should we expect anything different?

x2 :thumbsdown:

[Eric]

I think it's a waste of resources.

Anyway, it reminded me of something I read on another forum about our tax system in general:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that?s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve: since you are all such good customers, he said, he's going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybodys share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

I only got a dollar out of the $20, declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, but he got $10!

Yeah, thats right, exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a dollar, too. Its unfair that he got ten times more than I!

That's true! shouted the seventh man. Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!

Wait a minute, yelled the first four men in unison. We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

[denverd0n]

The checks we got in 2001 were for a retroactive tax cut...
Well, yeah, sort of. The 2001 "rebate" was basically the feds saying, "because we cut taxes we assume that you are over-withholding, so we're going to give you some of your withholding back early." Except, of course, they didn't word it that way, and for those of us who chronically under-withhold it didn't work that way. And, of course, the money still came directly out of YOUR pocket any way you look at it. The fact that a whole lot of stupid people thought that they were getting some sort of gift didn't actually make it one.

I'm still wondering where the money for this one is coming from... Except that, in reality, I already know that one way or another it's going to come out of my pocket!

[Jefe]

Just checked MSNBC and now they are saying:

"Individuals who pay income taxes would get up to $600, working couples $1,200 and those with children an additional $300 per child under the agreement. Workers who make at least $3,000 but don?t pay taxes would get $300 rebates
The rebates would phase out gradually for individuals whose income exceeds $75,000 and couples with incomes above $150,000, aides said. Individuals with incomes up to $87,000 and couples up to $174,000 would get partial rebates. The caps are higher for those with children."

[Clint]

I think it's a waste of resources.

Anyway, it reminded me of something I read on another forum about our tax system in general:

Excellent!!

[MountainJeep]

we are getting $2,100

I can't complain, but isn't this just throwing a small bandaid on a gushing head-wound for our economy?

[scottycards]

One of the greatest blessings I'll have today is knowing I'll not be receiving a rebate check. My wife and I are fortunate enough to be out of the range.

No complaints here. Life is good.

[potter]

Just checked MSNBC and now they are saying:

"Individuals who pay income taxes would get up to $600, working couples $1,200 and those with children an additional $300 per child under the agreement. Workers who make at least $3,000 but don?t pay taxes would get $300 rebates

So it should be anywhere from $300-600? That's nearly what I pay in taxes every year. Being self employed I get a tax cut for everything I own and use. I don't see how I'll be getting a rebate of nearly the full amount of taxes I pay each year.

[Sound_Man]

we are getting $2,100

I can't complain, but isn't this just throwing a small bandaid on a gushing head-wound for our economy?

Same here but this is going to effect my taxes... I am not sure if I should change my deductions throughout the year to compensate for it or not.

[starbreaker666]

Same here but this is going to effect my taxes... I am not sure if I should change my deductions throughout the year to compensate for it or not.

bingo.. we, being not near as A) fortunate as apperantly most here or B) not too smart with the money I do get, will be getting a sizable chunk back...but if this goofs with next years taxes i'd just as soon they try something else.

[bsaunder]

So it should be anywhere from $300-600? That's nearly what I pay in taxes every year. Being self employed I get a tax cut for everything I own and use. I don't see how I'll be getting a rebate of nearly the full amount of taxes I pay each year.

You'll be getting a tax free loan for the year and then owe double when it comes to pay taxes.

[bsaunder]

bingo.. we, being not near as A) fortunate as apperantly most here or B) not too smart with the money I do get, will be getting a sizable chunk back...but if this goofs with next years taxes i'd just as soon they try something else.

Just treat it as a debt that you know you will have to pay back next April - ie plan for it.

I could see it screwing a lot of people up as they won't realize that this is really an "interest free" loan until next April, and therefore will not plan accordingly. Unfortunately, most of the people that this is targeted for will go out and spend it like mad money and will not plan for paying it back - so next April they will have to go further into debt to pay it off.

[starbreaker666]

Just treat it as a debt that you know you will have to pay back next April - ie plan for it.

I could see it screwing a lot of people up as they won't realize that this is really an "interest free" loan until next April, and therefore will not plan accordingly. Unfortunately, most of the people that this is targeted for will go out and spend it like mad money and will not plan for paying it back - so next April they will have to go further into debt to pay it off.

we are in a good/bad spot this year. That rebate check might help since my wife left state employment and we yanked her PERA to pay off all our debt. We know we are going to be ganked on taxes due to pulling all the money early. We put a sizable chunk in savings just for tax time to help alleviate the burden this year. If we still end up owing that money now could help, but then doink us next year..lol