Stimulus

[Groucho]

I would happily - very happily - trade my check for a chance for us to have a national deficit that wasn't even bigger than those giant lens pouches Mark was sporting in that now-famous photo, and getting bigger all the time. Same goes for that dumb $300 rebate we got a few years ago. Did that make any difference? Will this? No to both. But it sure sounds nice and is a way to try to buy the public's affections. Whoever ends up in the White House next, let's hope that they're a bit more fiscally responsible.

As for the "stimulus" itself, I wouldn't buy anything extra whether it comes or not. (It'd go towards credit card debt, which is well under the nat'l average but still more than I'd like - ie, zero!) That being said, assuming I can get one before mid-April, I do plan on having a new K20D in my possession......... If I can't get one by then, I'll wait a few months and probably save a few hundred, too.

 

[Steve's Girl]

My unsolicited advice on how to "spend" it is to save it. I just read some more troubling articles on how little Americans are setting aside for their retirements. If that's you, why not take this as an opportunity to start saving. The earlier you start, the easier it is.

I vividly remember a friend's father explaining the powers of compounding to me back when I was in high school. I said that most people tend to either save a bit more than what they make or spend a bit more than what they make. He then drew a chart showing how much money or debt you would have if you saved $100/month or borrowed $100/month. The difference was huge. He said that the difference each month wasn't big, but the as the effect compounded over time, it got to be bigger and bigger.

Most of us have the luxury of choosing which side of that saving/borrowing line we want to be on. If you've been choosing the borrowing side or even just not being on the saving side, take this as an opportunity to change.

I've known people with poverty level incomes that saved money. I've known people with incomes too high for this stimulus package that go steadily into debt. It's not easy changing your lifestyle to accommodate saving. Take it from someone that made the change years ago, it's very, very worth it.

OK, I'm off my soapbox now. Umm, take a picture of your bank balance. There, this is a photography related comment.

Well said, Mark. Thank you! I'm a financial planner and "preach" this message every day. Now, don't get me started on the sub-prime mess...That ticks me off!

 

[WickedWench]

Just found this little nugget buried in an article on the Stimulus on CNN.com, so you may want to keep it in mind before running out and spending:

"The checks are an advance on next year's refunds, and most, if not all of the money, will be deducted from taxpayers' refunds in 12 months' time."

 

[DebºoºS]

We don't qualify but if we did it would go toward DSs college tuition. Not too glamorous or exciting.

 

[emmabelle]

We don't qualify but if we did it would go toward DSs college tuition. Not too glamorous or exciting.

We're not getting it either, which is a bummer. Looks like our cruise this summer may not be as flashy as it could have been.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Just found this little nugget buried in an article on the Stimulus on CNN.com, so you may want to keep it in mind before running out and spending:

"The checks are an advance on next year's refunds, and most, if not all of the money, will be deducted from taxpayers' refunds in 12 months' time."

That doesn't sound quite right. They keep saying that it will cost $168 billion, which seems rather high if all they intend to do is refund money early. Still, you never know.

We're not getting it either, which is a bummer.

It does seem rather rude to give it to some people and not others - particularly withholding it from those that pay the most taxes. My suggestion is that those people that get a bigger rebate than they actually pay in taxes should be given the name and address of someone that didn't qualify. The receiver should then be obligated to send a thank you note to the payer.

 

[JR6ooo4]

That doesn't sound quite right. They keep saying that it will cost $168 billion, which seems rather high if all they intend to do is refund money early. Still, you never know.



It does seem rather rude to give it to some people and not others - particularly withholding it from those that pay the most taxes. My suggestion is that those people that get a bigger rebate than they actually pay in taxes should be given the name and address of someone that didn't qualify. The receiver should then be obligated to send a thank you note to the payer.

On the CB someone said that line is no longer in the CNN article. Still have to wait for the final details, I guess.

Mikeeee

 

[NostalgicDad]

On the CB someone said that line is no longer in the CNN article. Still have to wait for the final details, I guess.

Mikeeee

Yeah, I was a bit miffed when I read that CNN article first thing this morning and it mentioned this was an advance on next year's refunds. I just re-read it and it is in fact no longer there.

 

[DVC Jen]

that would have to be an error on CNN's part wouldn't it? Maybe I am totally misunderstanding but how can they give you an advance on a refund they couldn't possibly know you are getting?

 

[madge]

my understanding (for what it's worth ) is that the rebate is an advance on a 2008 (only?) tax credit.

 

[Groucho]

The very first time I heard this proposal mentioned, it was stated that it was basically an advance on next year's tax refund... which seems like a really lousy trick for those who don't normally get a refund! On the other hand, it would be an interesting time bomb for the current administration to leave behind for the new one to explain this time next year.......

I would agree that doesn't sound like the way it will eventually happen, both because of the quoted high cost and the amount of anger it'd create among the citizens.

 

[ukcatfan]

If I remember from last time, it is an advance on a new deduction on next year's taxes (i.e. 2008 this time). I believe that you report it on your next year's return as a new deduction, but then elsewhere on the return show that you have already been paid it. Because it is a new deduction and already paid, it is a net zero effect on the return and just a paperwork thing.

If it was just a regular advance on your next refund, it would not cost the govt anything and they would not be bickering over the cost. They would never do that anyway b/c if you have your withholding set correctly, you should not get a refund. That would cause a nightmare next year.

Kevin

 

[SharonLowe]

ukcatfan is mostly correct. It is an advance on a "tax credit" that will be on next year's tax return. You will claim the credit and show that you have already been paid it so it washes to zero.

My big question is what about the person who qualifies for it based on 2007 income (the amount reported on this year's tax return) but earns a lot more in 2008 so wouldn't qualify for it based on that income. I sure hope they have factored that in and make sure that it is based on 2007 income levels, not 2008 income levels.

 

[ukcatfan]

Now that we have that settled, what is everyone going to do with it?

I probably would not use it very much, but I would like a flash for birthday parties and other indoor stuff where 50mm is not wide enough.

Kevin

 

[DVC Jen]

Ours (1500.00 - 1200+300 child under 17 credit) will either go towards our WDW vacation or next semesters tuition for the child whom is OVER 17 - or straight into savings. It all depends on how much we get put away into savings between now and June - since we don't use credit for our WDW trips.

 

[Steve's Girl]

ukcatfan is mostly correct. It is an advance on a "tax credit" that will be on next year's tax return. You will claim the credit and show that you have already been paid it so it washes to zero.

My big question is what about the person who qualifies for it based on 2007 income (the amount reported on this year's tax return) but earns a lot more in 2008 so wouldn't qualify for it based on that income. I sure hope they have factored that in and make sure that it is based on 2007 income levels, not 2008 income levels.

I can't find the link right now, but this week I was reading the details of this issue specifically. If you qualified in 2007, but not 2008, you get to keep the credit (ie, you don't have to pay it back when you file your 2008 tax return). The other issue is that if you did not qualify in 2007, but do qualify in 2008, you will be able to claim the credit on your 2008 tax return.

 

[mhutchinson]

if so, on what?

not sure of my eligibility...but after the last OIL fill I had from my Oil Company up here in the northeast...it would go to heating the house

260+ gallons at $3.38 but they will knock off .05 per gallon if I pay in less than 10 days

 

[SharonLowe]

I can't find the link right now, but this week I was reading the details of this issue specifically. If you qualified in 2007, but not 2008, you get to keep the credit (ie, you don't have to pay it back when you file your 2008 tax return). The other issue is that if you did not qualify in 2007, but do qualify in 2008, you will be able to claim the credit on your 2008 tax return.

I just read that too yesterday. I think we'll see what stock losses and IRA contributions we can make to get it for us in 2008. Oh, and maybe we'll get that 1DsMkIII so my business can have a big loss too

 

[jann1033]

not sure of my eligibility...but after the last OIL fill I had from my Oil Company up here in the northeast...it would go to heating the house

260+ gallons at $3.38 but they will knock off .05 per gallon if I pay in less than 10 days

i am so glad we live in amish land and heat with wood..the amish sawmills sell their leftovers for 20 a pickup sized load so we only spend maybe $200 a yr..other wise it'd be getting mighty cold in my house ( 4 degrees outside right nownot including the windchill)

 

[MarkBarbieri]

It's looking like a done deal. Here are some of the rules based on what I've read:

1) The payments should go out in May

2) You get $600 for one person, $1,200 for a married couple, $300/child.

3) I don't understand the rules for people who pay little or nothing in taxes, but they get something. I'm just not sure how much.

4) It's not very complicated if you had a moderatly high income - you lose. Basically, for every $1 you earn above the limit ($75K for a single person, $150,000K for a married couple), you lose $0.05 of your refund. Next year, don't work so hard. Oh wait, that won't stimulate things very much now will it.

5) This is a new giveaway. It doesn't come out of what you were going to get back next year.

6) Will it actually help the economy? Ask four different economists and I guarantee that you'll get at least five different answers.