OT-possible tax rebates for us Americans.

[Schachteles]

I am with you on this, I DON'T want an advance...I would rather NOT have it then have that.

From CNN...

Another way is to have the rebate be a payroll tax rebate. The payroll tax - 6.2 percent of your wages - is what's taken out of everyone's paycheck to fund Social Security, no matter how low your annual income.

A payroll tax rebate would not affect your Social Security benefits or the long-term solvency of the entitlement program, Furman said, because it would really serve as a tax credit. In other words, money from your paycheck would still be taken out and put towards Social Security, but the federal government would send you a check that would serve as an advance on a refundable tax credit on your tax return.

 

[dvcgirl]

Following on JodiR,


This is interesting....from that article:



"Right now, President Bush is said to want an income tax rebate that would be generated by eliminating the 10 percent tax bracket, which applies to roughly the first $8,000 of income for single filers and the first $16,000 of income for married couples filing jointly.

That would mean taxpayers could get rebates of up to $800 if single, or $1,600 if married."

Here's the deal, they don't want to attach this to the IRS refunds because some of us owe taxes each year. So, we'll get a bit of a break on anything we owe, but that's just erasing part of an existing liability.

They'll want people like me to send in my check to the IRS, and *then* they'll send me a check in June which in theory I'd be much more likely to view as some sort of "bonus" and go out and spend.

Based on the timing of these checks, look for big sales and probably discounts from our friends at Disney too....lol! And I'm not even kidding, I just find it all hysterical.....

 

[harleyquinn]

the federal government would send you a check that would serve as an advance on a refundable tax credit on your tax return.

So we'd pay for it next year? I don't understand. I don't think I qualified in 2001, so this thing is really confusing me.

 

[dvcgirl]

From CNN...

Another way is to have the rebate be a payroll tax rebate. The payroll tax - 6.2 percent of your wages - is what's taken out of everyone's paycheck to fund Social Security, no matter how low your annual income.

A payroll tax rebate would not affect your Social Security benefits or the long-term solvency of the entitlement program, Furman said, because it would really serve as a tax credit. In other words, money from your paycheck would still be taken out and put towards Social Security, but the federal government would send you a check that would serve as an advance on a refundable tax credit on your tax return.

Are you saying then that the Gov'mint would be giving us an *advance* on a future tax return? Did the U.S Government just turn into a PayDay Loan Joint? LOL! If this is true, it's too freakin funny.....the Government is no different than a crack dealer who tells the junkie..."that's cool, here's the stuff, you'll just pay me later". Oh man, only a politician could dream this up.

 

[Schachteles]

Are you saying then that the Gov'mint would be giving us an *advance* on a future tax return? Did the U.S Government just turn into a PayDay Loan Joint? LOL! If this is true, it's too freakin funny.....the Government is no different than a crack dealer who tells the junkie..."that's cool, here's the stuff, you'll just pay me later". Oh man, only a politician could dream this up.

LOL that is what I am saying...it sounds like it is just an advance...NO THANK YOU...keep it!

 

[harleyquinn]

Are you saying then that the Gov'mint would be giving us an *advance* on a future tax return? Did the U.S Government just turn into a PayDay Loan Joint? LOL! If this is true, it's too freakin funny.....the Government is no different than a crack dealer who tells the junkie..."that's cool, here's the stuff, you'll just pay me later". Oh man, only a politician could dream this up.

Is that what happened in 2001?

That has to be the dumbest thing ever, why are they all on board? Just cuz it sounds good?

 

[MrsNick]

Voodoo rebates, anyone? Whoosh! Now you see it, now you don't!

 

[java]

a fundamentally strong economy healthy, and it will help keep economic sectors that are going through adjustments, such as the housing market, from adversely affecting other parts of our economy."

Um if you have a fundamentally strong economy you don't need to increase the deficit by handing out money. If you don't have it don't just go print some! Can we discuss the value of the dollar? How is that significant of a fundamentally strong economy- just because you say it doesn't make it so.

 

[peanut12392]

Is that what happened in 2001?

That has to be the dumbest thing ever, why are they all on board? Just cuz it sounds good?

Yes, thats EXACTLY waht happened in 2001, I try to pay attention to things, but I didn't realize what happened until we were doing our taxes. That child tax "rebate" came directly off any refund you may have been getting. If they are doing that again, they should call it what it really is, an advance refund, not a tax rebate.
I do not want an advance refund. We try NOT to get a refund (come out even on out taxes as close as we can).

 

[luvsJack]

I agree with this thinking! Again not to start an outrage, but why don't we make some cuts to some of these welfare programs, etc?? I've seen people on foodstamps that eat better than my family. Or how about we stop paying for medical care and welfare for illegals??? Just a thought... If this whole "payout" does happen, I do not think that people on welfare or any assistance should receive it. But I don't think that they should get tax returns anyway, but that is another whole debate.

Have you ever been on foodstamps? Obviously not. It's not easy and its not fun, I can assure you. Until you have walked a mile in the shoes of someone who has to go on public assistance--you really should not judge them or decide what the do or do not need. The majority of people on public assistance are not there by choice and they are the ones that could really use this money and would put it back into the economy by buying things they NEED. Keep in mind that the people on assistance that you think do not deserve this money also includes many of our elderly who worked hard their whole lives and now only have social security to live on.

 

[luke6417]

There is some validity to the idea of pumping money into the economy to stimulate it. This was basically FDR's New Deal idea. I know that it's not exactly the same but is based on the same theory. I personally don't see it being all that successful because it is a short term band aid for an economy that is systematically flawed at the moment. Lenders loaned too much money to people who couldn't afford it. They figured that increasing property values would make up for any risk invovled. I was lucky with the housing boom. I built a house and sold it two years later for 190% of what I had invested in it. I then moved to Mississippi where it is pretty cheap to live. My wife and I are both teachers and we don't make that much less than we would if we were still living in South Florida. the only thing that is killing us right now is paying for fuel.
And by the way. Nearly everything that I get back from this will go to Disney World.

 

[WendyisDarling]

So, it is basically an advance and those likely to receive it are low to middle income...if I have misunderstood don't bother reading the rest of my post

I sure hope they explain the details when they mail those checks in June. I so often hear of people saying that they count on their income tax refund as a method for savings because they aren't disciplined. Then, the savings is usually for something like a vacation or home improvement...I'm fine with people doing that (not the best idea, but if that's what they want to do). It may come as a real shocker when 2009 rolls around and they find they don't have as much in "savings" aka "tax refund" as planned. I think the government shoudl make it clear that this is not free money it will be paid back.
Maybe the Disney deals will come in 2009 when families who planned on paying with their tax refund have to cancel. I hope that doesn't happen, but IMO it isn't fair to hand out money with strings attached and not explain the expectation.
After later posts, I realize I probably did misunderstand. I'm glad at least that this will not have the negative consequence I put forth in this post

 

[sarahlovesmickey]

Have you ever been on foodstamps? Obviously not. It's not easy and its not fun, I can assure you. Until you have walked a mile in the shoes of someone who has to go on public assistance--you really should not judge them or decide what the do or do not need. The majority of people on public assistance are not there by choice and they are the ones that could really use this money and would put it back into the economy by buying things they NEED. Keep in mind that the people on assistance that you think do not deserve this money also includes many of our elderly who worked hard their whole lives and now only have social security to live on.

Um, no I have never been on any public assistance. But I attended college so that I could get a college degree and do something that would make me okay money. I have, however, worked at various grocery stores (while in high school and college) and think that 80% of those people buy items that I cannot even afford. I don't agree that the majority of people that are on assistance are there by no fault of their own. I just don't agree with that statement at all! I work around people who are on assistance and if most of them could just get motivated and get a job, then they would be much better off. I am ending this topic, as I do not want this thread to get locked.

Okay, back to the subject at hand here, put me in the column of not agreeing with this little payout. It is just ridiculous to me....

 

[budbeerlady]

I really dont want it now if it is an advance on 2008. I figured it would be since that happened to us before. It wont really fix anything.

 

[Schachteles]

So, it is basically an advance and those likely to receive it are low to middle income...if I have misunderstood don't bother reading the rest of my post

I sure hope they explain the details when they mail those checks in June. I so often hear of people saying that they count on their income tax refund as a method for savings because they aren't disciplined. Then, the savings is usually for something like a vacation or home improvement...I'm fine with people doing that (not the best idea, but if that's what they want to do). It may come as a real shocker when 2009 rolls around and they find they don't have as much in "savings" aka "tax refund" as planned. I think the government shoudl make it clear that this is not free money it will be paid back.
Maybe the Disney deals will come in 2009 when families who planned on paying with their tax refund have to cancel. I hope that doesn't happen, but IMO it isn't fair to hand out money with strings attached and not explain the expectation.

They surely need to lay this out for people...CLEARLY! Because if you don't read it carefully or the whole article, it sounds like we are getting a nice $1600 bonus. But then when you read the WHOLE article you realize that this is just a "payday loan" and you will settle up at tax time.

I am one of those people that "counts" on the tax refund...not to get by, but we usually do a splurge with it...like this year we booked a Disney Cruise. So if all of a sudden we had $1600 less we would feel it. But if I KNOW it is coming then I can brace.

 

[disneyjunkie]

Um, no I have never been on any public assistance. But I attended college so that I could get a college degree and do something that would make me okay money. I have, however, worked at various grocery stores (while in high school and college) and think that 80% of those people buy items that I cannot even afford. I don't agree that the majority of people that are on assistance are there by no fault of their own. I just don't agree with that statement at all! I work around people who are on assistance and if most of them could just get motivated and get a job, then they would be much better off.

Life happens.

Yes, there are plenty of deadbeats out there. However, there are plenty of people that are working to make life better for themselves and their children.

It takes time to move from one situation to the next.

The family may no longer receive a welfare check, but still receive food stamps, medicaid and housing. As their salary increases, services will be decreased.

These people are doing the right thing and should not be lumped together with the deadbeats.

 

[dvcgirl]

Um, no I have never been on any public assistance. But I attended college so that I could get a college degree and do something that would make me okay money. I have, however, worked at various grocery stores (while in high school and college) and think that 80% of those people buy items that I cannot even afford. I don't agree that the majority of people that are on assistance are there by no fault of their own. I just don't agree with that statement at all! I work around people who are on assistance and if most of them could just get motivated and get a job, then they would be much better off. I am ending this topic, as I do not want this thread to get locked.

Okay, back to the subject at hand here, put me in the column of not agreeing with this little payout. It is just ridiculous to me....

Not trying to pick on you, because I don't agree with the government stimulous plan either, but sometimes people do end up on foodstamps because they really need it. When I was a kid my Dad was on strike a few times and I remember we had to get on the foodstamp program one of those times to help us out. I remember my Mom watching that grocery store total like a hawk and having to put a few items back if there wasn't enough money. I was very young then, so it was early in their marriage and the emergency fund wasn't enough to cover everything. During that time my Dad worked a few part time jobs to bring in whatever he could, but it didn't match his regular salary.

There was a woman in front of me at the grocery store just last week and she was paying with food stamps. She didn't have enough to cover her last few items....bananas, apples and rice, and so she asked the cashier to take them off. She had an infant in a car seat and a toddler in the cart. I asked the cashier to please put those items on my bill. The woman thanked me and even gave me a hug.

I hoped later that I didn't embarrass her, but it reminded me so much of being in that same spot with my own mother. Hey, I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but sometimes people really do need these programs. I just think that there are really some people out there right now who are hurting.

 

[Jennifer823]

There was a woman in front of me at the grocery store just last week and she was paying with food stamps. She didn't have enough to cover her last few items....bananas, apples and rice, and so she asked the cashier to take them off. She had an infant in a car seat and a toddler in the cart. I asked the cashier to please put those items on my bill. The woman thanked me and even gave me a hug.

That was a really nice thing to do

 

[disneysteve]

I just can't help but note the irony that the same government officials who complain that Americans aren't saving enough for the future are now crying that Americans aren't spending enough so let's send them more money to blow at the mall. You can't have it both ways. Either people will be responsible, live below their means and save for the future, or people will spend every penny they get their hands on and then some, living paycheck to paycheck and racking up debt.

Sending out these checks, the folks who are living paycheck to paycheck already will likely spend it. The folks who are savers will save it. And the end result will be not much of anything will change.

The 3.5 million people at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure are not going to be bailed out by $800 or $1,600. People with 10K and more in CC debt aren't going to make a dent with $800 or $1,600.

This is election-year politics basically.

 

[Fizzgig]

What does a discussion of our personal judgement calls on who should or shouldn't be on welfare add to a discussion of an "economic stimulus package"?

I think all we're generating with that sidetrack is animosity.