Tax Refund??

[Bearybad]

I have been off of here for a while, so I am sorry if this has already been asked. Does anyone know for sure what the deal is with the refunds?? A friend said she heard on the news that they will base what you get on your TAXABLE INCOME. This means after you have taken all of your deductions. If your TAXABLE INCOME is less then 12,000 then you would get a 5% refund.
For my family this would mean $249 instead of the $600.
I can't seem to find anywhere that it says TAXABLE INCOME, I only see INCOME. This is so confusing. Thanks for any help to understand this one.:confused:

[Falls1]

Here is the site for your information, you will recieve it in the month with the last two
digets of your social security, you may even get more than you antipicated...

http://www.irs.gov/ind_info/apinfo/index.html

[Bearybad]

Thank you for the link. I did figure right. We will be getting $249 not $600. Being a family of 5 on one income, after deductions-- our TAXABLE INCOME comes up to less then $6000.
Oh well-- it is better then getting nothing.
Good luck to the rest of you. I hope you get the full amount.

[6_Time_Momma]

This bites!!! Near as I can figure, we get $0!!!!! We had a taxable income of 38,000, but with the child tax credit, we didn't have to pay taxes, so we get nothing? That just bites!!! I thought everyone was essentially going to get something! I have to figure that again....

[Bearybad]

I went back and checked. The first time I didn't pay attention to the Child Tax Credit being considered. Now that I have. We also will get $0. It says :
** If you filed Form 1040 or Form 1040A, your advance credit payment is limited to your tax liability which is the amount shown on your 2000 Form 1040, line 51, or Form 1040A, line 33

My line 33 say 0-- so my credit is limited to 0.

[frost5000]

From what I can figure out the only people who will really benefit are high income people who use investment loopholes and end up with higher taxable income, but lower overall taxes (people like George W. Bush.) This one is really unfair to working class people with families. Anyone who could really use the money won't see any. You know when we go to apply for social security, they"ll say "remember in 2001, that $$ you didn't really get back??? THAT was your social security!"

[tink2dw]

Never having been an Ace in math,how the heck do you figure out what you will get??using a calculator?

also,I thought all checks were to be recieved no later than July 30th??

[Humpbacks1962]

Wow... :eek:

And many of us understood it was a fixed amount. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the tease, George! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Wanda

[GoofyT]

If you didn't pay taxes, why would you expect a refund?

[TinkerbellRules]

Thanks for the link. If I read it right, we will get the full $600 in Sept. I hope I read it right!

[lmmollohan]

I don't mean to sound positive while you are all feeling so negative but if you did not pay any taxes or should I say got back all the taxes you did pay than why are you upset? It is a tax refund not a gift!

We are a one income family of 5 and we are getting back the entire amount. My husband does not make 6 figures or even close!! I consider us to be the working class and this helps us. I know the govn't wastes lots and lots of money but let's be honest...we get lots of privledges and good programs living in the USA and someone has to pay for it. Is the tax system fair to everyone...no...but what is.

I am sorry that you are not getting back as much as expected or hoped for but your mother warned you not to count those chickens before they hatched. It is more than I expected even with all the promises and I for one am grateful for it...it is better than we had with Clinton

[redbirdgrad]

Well said Immollohan, I would much rather pay no taxes then get a $600 refund.

[GoofyT]

I'm with you redbirdgrad & lmmollohan!!!!

Well said!

[ginga]

I'll chime in with immollohan. This rebate check does not only help the wealthy. if i was, i wouldn't be on the budget board looking for a ways to help with our vacation. it doesn't take much income to have a net tax liability of $600 - we don't qualify for many credits or deductions. i will be very happy to receive my check and i feel I DESERVE it; I can spend it better than our government.

[frost5000]

I wasn't trying to be a bummer, and I don't expect anything in return for nothing. My point is that many people are assuming that they are getting the full amount back, and are actually getting nothing or very little. The way this has been presented has been misleading some to think that they will get something for nothing. I'm glad that those that are getting some back will be able to have fun with it, I just hate to see others count on it and get dissappointed (I knew from the start I would be inelligible - I work full time for 12,000 and my husband is disabled and gets 3,500 for a grand total of 15,500 - not quite stellar tax material!!) :bounce:

[6_Time_Momma]

I agree. I don't expect something for nothing, either. But, I beleive the public has been mislead. I was actually under the impression that because of the surplus, it was money being given back. As to not paying taxes, I have paid taxes in throughout the year. Do you think that the government didn't earn interest or anything like that off my money?

Anyway, the overall point is that I beleive it was misleading. And it is not an additional refund, it is an advance of your 2001 refund, so my understanding (and you now all know how my understanding or lack of it is) is that if you were thinking you would get a refund of $1000 next year, now you will actually only get $400 at that time.

[ginga]

that's pretty much the message of this bill that the government is getting too much of our money and they are spending it, earning interest on it, etc. instead of us. The bill, in addition to this advance payment, initiates a lower tax bracket, so this payment is in essence a retroactive return of taxes that should have not been paid (for some people).

[6_Time_Momma]

Okay, I think I understand........................NOW, anyway....:(

[steph73]

I can see both sides of the fence on this one....It IS misleading. I have a friend who doesn't make much money but assumes that since they made over $12,000 they will be getting the full $600 refund. I doubt they had over $12,000 in taxable income...and I hate to be the bearer of bad news!

On the other hand, we are hardly rich (would I even be at the Budget board if we were? ;) ) but I double checked and we more than made the cut off - almost two fold actually. The last two years were the first years we didn't qualify for Earned Income Credit. The way I'm looking at it, the lower income got their "extra" tax credit with their original refund w/ EIC. We got a measly refund this year. It's hardly only for the rich, we are middle class and it seems we are in that magic tax bracket that gets the worst of it....we don't make a whole lot of money but we make enough to pay in quite a bit. We had our mortgage interest and some other deductions, and two children, but still didn't end up with much. The checks will be nice, but they sure will take a nice fat bite out of next years return....

[6_Time_Momma]

We didn't qualify for earned income credit. (Incidentally, it said that didn't count in their figuring of this refund anyway, whatever that means) What took ours down was the Child Tax credit of $500 a child that everyone get.

[Ecdubfan]

I do not consider myself rich, comfortably middle calss instead. I look forward to the $600 for which I qualify. While I understand the purpose of taxes and the need for maintaining a society, I do feel upset each payday at the amount that is taken out. Getting some back is just dandy.

As far as I see it, this credit will not vastly change yout taxes when compareed to previous years. Sure, if you get the credit now, you won't be able to collect it again in April, so your possible rebate will be lower then...BUT, this credit DID NOT exist last year. So, in comparison, you will face a similar fate next year on your taxes as you did this year. Your year to year refund should not be drastically altered by this.

Some other benefits of this act...

1) Most tax rates for 2001 were reduced by .5%. Since most companies won"t start changing withholding amounts until after June 30, this should iincrease likely refunds in 2002.

2) The child tax credit is increased to $600

3) The alternatice minimum tax limit has been raised to $49,000 married, $35,700 singled or head of household, $24,500 married filing separate.


Personally, I have already earmarked my $600 for my next DIsney trip. This will pay for most of my park hoppers.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Bearybad]

I can not believe the cold comments being made on this thread. Some one even posted that they "are the working class" and the refund is suppose to help them. My husband is a Correctional Officer - he risks his life eveyday to protect society. Does that not make him a part of the "working class"?
It was even said that if you didn't pay taxes, then why should you get a refund. We do pay taxes just like everyone else.
I posted on here to make sure that I understood how the refund would be figured. I also posted to help others understand that they also may not get $600 as everyone thought in the beginning.
I had no idea that people could be so cruel. I didn't ask for a hand out-- I just asked if I understood the tax refund.

[Here'sTigger2U]

If you listen to news, and read the papers, how could ANYONE assume that if you paid no taxes you would be getting anything back?:confused: My wife and I are a family of 4 (we were a family of 3 at 2000 filing time) and are completely thrilled with the extra cash we will be getting back. Even with the extra $600 back, we still paid a chunk to Uncle Sam, and no we didn't come close to 6 figures either. The system isn't perfect, and IMHO the truly wealthy have it made w/ the US tax system (but that's a debate board issue:) ). But I'll take my money and run. For those w/ difficult situations as mentioned above, my hearfelt sympathy and lots of pixie dust your way!!
Bob.

[6_Time_Momma]

Actually, things I read called it an advance payment of 2001 refund (overpayment) I pay taxes every single week, therefore I would certainly assume that I would get some too. NOTHING I saw on the news, read in the papers, heard on the radio said anything about last year's taxes, if you recieved child tax credit, etc. All it said was if you had taxable income over $12000 (I did) you would recieve the rebate of the 2001 taxes.

[DisDuck]

alemankc.. Like you I understood the media reports that this was a refund of 2001 Tax Year money not an additional (or new) refund of 2000 Tax Year. Yet when reading the linked site the rules as outlined by the IRS indicate that everything is based on 2000 Taxable Income. So it is not an early refund of Tax Year 2001 as we were led to believe.

This is a scam, plain and simple. What someone earned last year has nothing to do with how much is paid in Taxes this year. I would suspect that a lot less people are getting the 'refund' then originally thought. Also, I heard that some states will be taxing this money (for this year) reducing it even further.

If you earned any kind of tax credit that brought your taxes paid down below 'refund' level, tough luck, even though you may not be eiligible for same credits this year.

Scam is a Scam is a Scam.

[steph73]

I'm sorry if you took any posts as being "cruel" - and I surely didn't mean for my post to sound uncaring. Believe me, I know all about "working class" - my DH did 6 years in the military serving his country and every year not only did we make so little we qualified for the EIC every year, but we were also considered poverty level and qualified for food stamps (which we didn't use) and WIC (which we DID use). I do feel for those that will be receiving no refund or a reduced one when they anticipated the full $600.

However, this isn't really a hand out. We made nearly $39,000 last year - comfortable, yes but in MI anyway not even near upper middle class for a family of 4. Our taxable income (after deductions and the $1000 Child Tax Credit) was nearly $21,000. Even with our other refund and the $600 "refund", we still paid in over $2000 that we didn't and won't get back. I think many mistakenly thought that the refund would fall under the same rules as receiving EIC - that it doesn't matter how much you paid in, but based on income. Like another poster mentioned, this bill initiated an "advance payment" since most tax brackets were lowered 5%. If you had ANY taxable income, you will get back 5% of that. If you had 0 taxable income, well you got back all of the income taxes you paid in with your original refund. I know that EIC didn't come to play in this scenario, but my thoughts were that anyone who received the EIC wouldn't have $12,000 or more of taxable income - and I wasn't meaning to imply that everyone who won't get a full $600 received the EIC. Sure, the government earned interest on all of our tax money - but the bottom line is the entire taxing system didn't change, the tax brackets we're lowered.

I think that the government should have sent out notices to all tax payers right after the bill was signed explaining in layman's terms what it meant for everyone. Unfortunately, alot of people will be really disappointed when they don't receive what they thought they would.

BTW: I'm not sure on other states, but I heard on the radio that the State of Michigan already decided NOT to tax the refund checks.

[mickey7861]

We are not even close to being a six figure income family and we certainly are not in the same category as George W. Bush but we are receiving the whole $600 as we paid alot more than that in taxes. How could you get a rebate on something you didn't pay?

[6_Time_Momma]

But, see....NoBODY has actually paid their 2001 taxes yet, per se. I mean we are paying taxes in 2001, but nobdy has figured the final 2001 taxes yet, like at tax time. And I am paying taxes in 2001, have been all year. All people are saying is that they are basing this rebate of 2001 taxes on what was made in 2000. The taxes I paid in 2000 should have nothing to do with this rebate check for 2001.

[perdidobay]

help me out here, what is your definition of "rich". Obviously, someone making 90k a year is not on the same level as Bill Gates or even George Bush with his millions. But according to the government they are all "rich". so, is there rich, super rich , filthy rich, and out of this world rich? How much do you have to make to be lumped in with billionaires?
:(

[Humpbacks1962]

Oh My...

Guys, bottomline is, da Bushman said: depending on what your taxable income is, you may see some money by the end of the year. Yes, the government keeps a substantial amount of it, makes a profit in interest earned that we never see.

I was misled myself, understanding the amount was fixed. Our governor issued fixed tax rebates in our state years ago, based on taxable income and filing status. Why would I think it was a ridiculous alternative to receive a fixed amount based on the same stipulations?

I have seen couples making over $100,000/yr and hosting tupperware parties. Bad management, if you ask me. I have also seen lower income families with clean credit card debts. "Rich" is a relative term.

And yes, it is true, there will be many disappointed people who thought they were getting more money. Doesn't it happen every year around tax time anyway?

Wanda

[wdwobsessed]

So let me get this right...

If my taxable income was more than $1200 (we file jointly) .... it is

And my tax liability listed on line 51 of the 1040 is at least $600 (it its)....

I will be getting back $600 in August according to the chart?

???????????

[steph73]

wdwobsessed: I assume you meant $12,000 - not $1,200 - if so, yes you will!

[wdwobsessed]

yes 12,000

oops!

Wow, surprise for me!

WDWO

[lmmollohan]

I am sorry if anyone thought any of the comments I made were cruel, I certainly did not mean them to be. I did not mean to be insulting I just did not understand the complaint about not getting more back when you already got everything you paid in back. I now understand what you were thinking.

The bottom line is that communication is the main problem...isn't it always.:D Who knows if the govn't was telling the media the correct thing and we certainly know that most likely the media was not telling us the correct thing. I think we all know with taxes nothing is a sure thing accept that fact that we will owe them.

I am sorry for those people who were hoping for some money and are not getting it but maybe there is hope for next year! Imagine all of those people out there (like me) who live in caves and this refund is coming as a total surprise to. At least someone gets Christmas in July.:D

Once again I am sorry if I offended anyone, it was never my intent.

Lisa

[tink2dw]

wdwobsessed- thank-you for cutting thru the gobbly-guck to make things clear!! Finally!! That was the info I needed!! Thanks:) :D :) :p

[DisneyKidds]

It is always difficult when someone learns that something doesn't meet their expectations. For those who thought they would get this rebate and won't I can understand your disappointment.

However, if you didn't pay any taxes last year, or paid very little - it is reasonable that you won't get a rebate. And if your income goes up and you have a tax liability in 2001 you will get whatever portion of this rebate you are entitled to through your tax return.

This rebate does not help the wealthy only - nor does George W's tax cut plan. Simply put - if you paid taxes you get relief, if not you don't. What could be fairer than that.

[6_Time_Momma]

Let me ask this hypothetical, if anyone knows the answer. Okay, Mr. Joe Happy paid taxes of, oh...say..., $800 last year. In July, he happily gets his rebate of $600. THe next day, Mr. Happy loses his job. He can only find a job flpping burgers at McDonald's, but since he has to support his 2.5 chldren, so he takes it and keeps it the rest of the year. Now, so far this year, at his previous job, he had paid, oh....., $500 out of his check in taxes. Next year at tax time, he finds, much to his delight, that becasue of his lower income, and thanks to his 2.5 children, he does not have to pay taxes this year, and will get a refund of the whole $500 he had paid in prior to his job loss, and then probably some on top of that to.)!!!! Now, will Mr. Happy have gotten an extra $600 or not? (I know, it is a completely ridiculous scenario, but hey, I'm curious!);)

[lmmollohan]

Kristi,

I think it would be easier to tell you where two trains would meet if one left Chicago traveling 55 mph and one left San Francisco.....:D

I am not sure what exactly you are asking but I do know that what you get is what you keep. You will not be penalized next year for your refund this year...at least that is what they (the govn't) are saying. Don't know if that helps or not??!

Lisa

[6_Time_Momma]

Ummm......somewhere in Idaho????:D So theoretically speaking, it is possible for this to turn out as "extra" money for someone over and above what they paid in for taxes. That is what I was trying to ask.......in a round about way, since in that scenario, Mr. Happy got ALL of his taxes back that he paid in PLUS the $600 rebate. I know, I make no sense do I???? (Just still trying to figure out where to get that $600 to put into our trip fund now that we won't be getting it!!):(

[DisneyKidds]

Regarding the Mr Happy question I wish I knew the answer. But I have to believe that Mr. Happy's refund in 2001 will have to take into consideration the "advance payment" he will get based on his 2000 tax info. The info regarding the rebate states that if someone doesn't qualify for a rebate check now but has a qualifying tax liability at tax time they will get the benefit when they file their return. This will probably somehow work in reverse as well. I'm sure my 2001 refund will be less than it would be if I didn't get the rebate. It would be quite a problem if they gave Mr. Happy a rebate now and told him he had to pay it back next year if he doesn't have a tax liability.

There has been some questioning in this thread on why 2000 imcome and tax liability should be the basis for determining the 2001 rebate. The gov't needs some sort of a guide to determine what people's income and tax liabilities will be in 2001, and 2000 info is the best available. For the majority of people, their 2001 income and taxes will be similar to their 2000 numbers, adjusted for inflation. It is not perfect, but what else could they have used?

[dvcdenise]

The IRS sight states that you will NEVER have to pay it back, however if the person doesnt qualify this year they may qualify next year.

[SheDaisy0088]

My hubby is a tax advisor at his job. He says that this is not a refund. It is a rebate on next year taxes. Let me explain it this way. Basically if you were going to get $600 back next year (2002), then you wouldn't get anything back in 2002!! If you owed $600 next year then you are going to owe $1200 next year!! If you were going to get $2000 back in 2002 then you are only going to get back $1400. Make sense. It is not a refund merely a rebate!! One that we will have to pay back one way or another!!

I am ashamed to say that at the time that he proposed the tax cut it sounded good!! Now I am really beginning to wonder!! It looks like the only people that are going to see anything worthwhile are the rich people who don't really need it anyway!!

:mad: :bounce: :mad: :mad: :bounce: :bounce:

[Falls1]

Here is a bit of information to help you understand some
of the tax information..

Individuals who did not have an income tax liability for 2000 but who have one for
2001 will be able to claim the tax credit on their 2001 return, provided they are
otherwise eligible. Taxpayers whose advance payment is less than the credit
amount figured on their 2001 tax return will be able to claim the rest of the credit
when they file their 2001 return. Taxpayers whose advance payment is larger than
the credit amount figured on the 2001 tax return will not have to pay back any
difference.

[Riverview]

SheDaisy008 Isn,t that the way it always works the rich get richer and we get the crumbs.
Riverview :smooth: :bounce: :p :bounce: :wave:

[Sleepy]

I do not understand the gov thinking on this one. IF this *refund* is merely an advanced payment for our refund for next year, wouldn't it make more sense for the gov to just hang onto the refund until the normal tax year rolls around before giving people this money? Think of all the interest the gov could be making off this?

I don't see how this could be classified as a surplus since as they now specify, it is merely an advance on next year. What I also do not understand is.....if the tax rate is less for next years filing, then of course your normal refund would be less next year, but I do not see how this could amount to $600 less for everyone. Everyone makes a different amount, and I do not see how someone making $12,000 a year and someone making $30,000 a year could have that $600 figure be the same. Ok, so I am confused and am no tax expert, but this just does not make sense in average man's terms.

[SheDaisy0088]

Sleepy,

Yes, it would make sense for the government to hang onto it. But, when does our govenment ever do things that make sense?

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[frost5000]

ok, I'm going to post again, despite my inner-voice telling me to turn the computer off and just stay away from this topic (I think I mistakenly upset a lot of people from my post on page one). Please keep in mind I have kinda an "off" sense of humor, not trying to offend!!! With that said, here we go! I am starting to think the reason the "refunds" are being sent out early (before Nov. elections maybe???) may be to sway political opinions for better "ratings"? (I know I'm gonna get blasted for this one!!!:) ) Otherwise why not keep the money, earn interest and give better refunds at tax time (there are no elections in April???) Just a thought....:bounce:

[Riverview]

Politics as usual!
Riverview :smooth: :bounce: :p :bounce: :wave:

[tink2dw]

frost5000- I think you got it!!They knew that GW's controversial election wouldn't help any Republicans keep their jobs, so ply the people with a little payola!!! THAT THEY GET BACK!!!

[SheDaisy0088]

Frost- BINGO!!! You got it right!! I voted for Bush because of the fact that I like his policies. Not because of this rebate stuff. i think it is a big concidence that it is being done at this time of year!!!


:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Luv2Roam]

Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the country, lives in Omaha. He was quoted in our local paper stating that even he doesn't think the taxes are fair. He said legally, he can pay less in taxes than his secretary.:rolleyes:

[pats]

Wow....all this controversy...and im just glad to be getting $600 just in time for my Disney trip!!!! Come on August...haha

[DisneyKidds]

It has been stated that the reason the rebate is being given now is to help stimulate the slowing economy. The idea is that the billions of dollars sent in rebates will be pumped back into the economy when people spend the money. As traditional thinking goes - this will help businesses, create jobs, yada, yada, yada. Is it this or is it political? I'll stay away from that.

As for one comment related to the fact that if tax rates are lower next year then refunds would be lower. (So why the rebate?) Generally that may be true in future years. But for 2001, it will take some time before peoples withholding rates are changed. This will result in the gov't withholding taxes at current rates when actual tax liabilities will be based on lower rates. Thus the rebate on the excess withholdings.

[phins_jazy]

I don't know if we get the refund or not. I don't have my 2000 taxes in front of me. All I know is that we are a two income family....well, technically 1 and a half since I only work pt, family of 3. We made about 39,000 last year. We have a 2 year old DD. Will we get the refund??????

[6_Time_Momma]

It sounds like you would probaly qualify, but the determining factor is how much you ended up paying in taxes after you tax forms were filled out. For example, if you had $1500 taken out of your checks last year and got all of it back, you actually paid no taxes, so you would not get the rebate. If you got all but $300 back, You paid $300 in taxes and you will get a rebate of $300. If you didn't get any of it back, you paid $1500 in taxes and so you would get the full $600.

[phins_jazy]

Thanks alemankc
I don't remember exactly how much we paid in and how much we got back but I do remember we got less than what we paid in. I remember making a joke with my DH that it didn't pay for me to work since it put us into a different tax bracket and we got less back. So hopefully we'll get something back. If not the whole amount any amount will do. :)

[msr709]

I'm completely confused, when it comes to tax matters I am a DUMBO!! LOL!! Does this mean that if the taxes taken out of my paycheck were over $8,000 in and I got a refund of $1,500 this year when I filed, I do qualify for this "refund"? I am head of household with no child-care age children, my dependents are over the age of 21 with the exception of one 16yo.??

[DisneyKidds]

msr709

Based on what I have seen and the info you provided you should qualify for the "advance payment".

You tax liability for 2000 appears tohave been $6,500 ($8,000 less $1,500 refund). As Head of Household your "advance payment" amount should be $500.

[Ecdubfan]

I think what many of you are neglecting here, is that this rebate is an advance on next years tax returns. Next year's tax returns include a new $600 tax credit. This is similar to the standard child tax credit. The basis of this NEW tax credit is 5% of year 2000 taxable income up to a max of $600. Yes, this is an advance on next year's tax returns. No, this credit did not exist last year, so there is a maximum $600 new tax credit for next year's filing. If you do not qualify for this rebate now, or if you partially qualify, you may qualify at filing time if you find your circumstancs change to those meeting the guidelines. Granted, there is always politics involved in most government decisions. But, the basis is that there is a potential of $600 in new tax credits for fiscal year 2001. Plus, tax rates were reduced by .5%. What this means is I get to keep a bit more of my hard earned money. If you qualify for the rebate this year, then your 2001 tax return should still even out to the standard set in 2000 with major differences being caused by changes in earnings, exemptions, withholdings, or other deductions that changed during the year.

Isn't it amazing that we Republicans are looked at with such scorn? Lets cut tax rates .5% and introduce a new $600 tax credit and increase the child tax credit by $100 solely to help the rich get richer. I'm by no means rich, but I'll take it!!! :p :p :p :p :p :p

[msr709]

You answered my question! The people on these boards are the greatest!
:p :bounce: :p :bounce: :p :bounce:

[JandD Mom]

Everyone should understand the REAL purpose of the supposed summer $600 tax credit ... they are giving the money back to people later in the summer and closer to the next election ... as opposed to waiting until 2002 when the election will be a distant memory. Now everyone (like us) :smooth: gets their check, goes to Disney world to spend it (on about 1 day -- MAYBE) and talks about how great the Republicans are for returning the money to them. Then they vote. It's the latest gimic. New Jersey is one of the first states to start this.

[ginga]

Well, we don't have any elections coming up in NC this year so that logic doesn't apply here. Furthermore, any time Democrats, Republicans, Independents, anyone...want to give me back my hard earned money...THANK YOU! I worked too many years at Social Services and saw our money thrown around carelessly to feel any different.

[castmbr]

No upcoming elections here in WI either! I'm happy to take any money offered, especially since the check should arrive a few weeks before our trip to WDW!

[JandD Mom]

Not to quarrel, but everybody has something to vote for on election day, not necessarily a congressman, or senator, and certainly not president this time around. There are local legislators, judges and people right down to the local dog catcher. The national Republican slate helps the locals by giving money back to the people before election day.

Here in NJ, we have a gubenatorial election in addition to other local legislators. We are getting a "double whammy" this year. First the Federal money, then much closer to election time, the state gives a "real estate rebate check." Then, for those in NJ who are public workers who are retired or about to retire, there will be an increase in their pensions kicking in Nov 1. Just in time for all those NJ people to inundate WDW, thus causing NJ residents to get no discounts whatsoever.

Whatever your political affiliation, you have to love republicans sticking a few more bills in your pocket in time for vacation!

[castmbr]

No, trust me on this one, at least in the Village I work for, there are no elections this fall. I am sure there are elections elsewhere in WI. I run the elections, so I have to know! The only thing would be if we had a referendum come up.

[LKS]

Perhaps the people who are not getting an advance pament and feel left out would want to consider reducing their withholding? From what I can tell, this is essentially the same thing and they are just basing it on last year's return for lack of any other measure to figure out what people might be eligible for.

[6_Time_Momma]

In our case, though, reducing our witholding would also mean less state taxes being taken out, and I would end up having to pay in to the state at the end of the year, because the state taxes are usually right on the money for us.

[CarolMN]

Are you sure that reducing the witholding for federal would also reduce it for the state?

My and my DH's employer allows us to have different amounts withheld for state than for federal. We have had a different number of "deductions/allowances" for the state income taxes than for federal income taxes for many years. If we had the same for state as for federal, we, too, would owe the state. I always thought all employers gave you this option, but maybe they don't. We live in Minnesota - maybe Michigan is different?