Where at WDW would you spend your $300 - $1,200 GOV'T REBATE CHECK?????????

[JeffZ]

Can anybody say "Dole whips"?

 

[creativeamanda]

I think we are going to add 1 day and water park/park hopper tickets. We have three kids and would get anywhere between 1500 and 2100. Last time it was near school so we used it to buy extra clothes for the kids. This year we are gonna use it for WDW and my dh's trip to Pennsylvania for a CigarFest

 

[Crystal_27]

This is what I read off of CNN

Up to $600 per individual, $1200 for joint filers, plus additional $300/child.
Under the deal, nearly everyone earning a paycheck would receive at least $300 from the Internal Revenue Service. Workers who earned at least $3,000 last year -- but not enough to pay income taxes -- would be eligible for $300.
Overall, 117 million families would receive a rebate check, including 35 million with incomes too low to have qualified under the earlier Bush proposal. Those 35 million families would receive rebates totaling $28 billion.
Full rebates would be sent to single taxpayers who earned up to $75,000 and couples with incomes of as much as $150,000. The value of the payments would decline after that and phase out entirely at incomes of roughly $87,000 for individuals and $174,000 for joint filers.

We aren't eligible either. Oh well, at least the IRS won't come 'alooking for it back next year.

 

[luvdisney77]

We would get 2400.00 (1200.00 per married couple and 300.00 each child), but it most likely will not come in time for our trip, so we could actually use it for home remodeling. (I would rather spend it at Disney, LOL)

 

[RescueRanger]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation going on about this subject. The 2001 checks that people received were ADVANCE payments on a tax credit. It just reduced your tax burden and it was NOT considered taxable income. I found a site that had a better description of the 2001 package. Try www.unclefed.com/Tax-News/2001/nrfs01-09.html They are not even calling the new package ADVANCE payments, so it is probably not even going to be like the 2001 package. However, even if it is, it will not cost you money or reduce your return for next year. So, I say enjoy the money the government is giving you and spend it on WDW. I could think of worse things to do with it.

 

[pyrxtc]

Mine would be spent before we went ona video camera so we could capture some of the vacation on video. The rest would be spent on dining.

 

[MickeyNicki]

Spa day baby, at the Dolphin, followed by a nice dinner at Il Mulino. We are going to add it on to our Oct trip

 

[overit]

Well, actually it will cover my WD hopper passes, and probably have about $350 left which will be used for meals.
So the only thing I have left is hotel and souvenirs. Which I'm putting away some of my tax refund for. There, not out of pocket expenses LOL COOL

Ok, here's a really stupid question, the way everything is worded makes me so annoyed....they say $600 for individual then $1200 for marrieds and $300 per child (family) but it's listed UNDER the $1200 for marrieds...now I know this is probably dumb but as a single parent, I would receive the $600 for me and $300 each for child as well right, not only just marrieds receive the child amount correct?

 

[Grumpy's_Gal]

Rescue Ranger is correct...

***************

From: http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-te.stimulus25jan25,0,7365441.story

Most workers - those who will pay at least $600 in federal taxes for 2007 - would receive a $600 rebate if they filed individually and $1,200 if they filed a joint return. Unlike a similar stimulus program in 2001, the money is an outright payment, not an advance or offset against the next year's tax filing.

The rebate checks would be increased by $300 for each dependent child, without limit. That means a couple with four children and taxable income of $100,000 after deductions would receive $2,400. The rebates are not taxable.

Payments would be phased out for individuals with more than $75,000 in taxable income, and joint filers earning more than $150,000.

***************

Sorry, I don't know how to post a link, but if it doesn't work you can copy and paste to read it.

Lori

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Nowhere because I'm probably not going to get one.

 

[PrincessTiffany]

Rescue Ranger is correct...

***************

From: http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-te.stimulus25jan25,0,7365441.story

Most workers - those who will pay at least $600 in federal taxes for 2007 - would receive a $600 rebate if they filed individually and $1,200 if they filed a joint return. Unlike a similar stimulus program in 2001, the money is an outright payment, not an advance or offset against the next year's tax filing.

The rebate checks would be increased by $300 for each dependent child, without limit. That means a couple with four children and taxable income of $100,000 after deductions would receive $2,400. The rebates are not taxable.

Payments would be phased out for individuals with more than $75,000 in taxable income, and joint filers earning more than $150,000.

***************

Sorry, I don't know how to post a link, but if it doesn't work you can copy and paste to read it.

Lori

I also think this info is correct. I called my best friend this morning, who is a CPA, and she said that since we file jointly and I don't work and my husband's income comes in just under $150,000 and we have four kids we should get a check for $2,400.00 She said we would most likely have to pay state taxes on this of about $240 to $350.00. That still makes it a pretty good payment.

 

[jberry5]

I also think this info is correct. I called my best friend this morning, who is a CPA, and she said that since we file jointly and I don't work and my husband's income comes in just under $150,000 and we have four kids we should get a check for $2,400.00 She said we would most likely have to pay state taxes on this of about $240 to $350.00. That still makes it a pretty good payment.

That would be interesting. I guess it will depend on how they classify this payment. And I sure hope these reports are correct, and it is in fact a rebate, and not the advance the '01 "rebates" were. If they are saying it's a rebate of federal income taxes, I can't see how that is going to cause it to be taxable at all, unless you're in a state or locality that allows a deduction for federal taxes paid, and then would have to add this rebate back now, since you would have deducted it previously.

(EDITED AFTER SOME THOUGHT) I think your friend is likely correct. I was just thinking about how these are going to be given out, and they are going to anyone who had $3,000 or more in earned income, not necessarily taxable income. Someone making $3,000 who is not a dependent is not going to be paying any federal taxes, so upon second glance, I'm starting to think these won't be considered a rebate of previous federal income taxes paid, rather some other sort of federal payment. Then it would be up to each state and/or locality to decide if they are going to tax it or not (and who knows, maybe it will be taxed federally as well, when that time comes, can't wait if that happens (heavy sarcasm)).

 

[jberry5]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation going on about this subject. The 2001 checks that people received were ADVANCE payments on a tax credit. It just reduced your tax burden and it was NOT considered taxable income. I found a site that had a better description of the 2001 package. Try www.unclefed.com/Tax-News/2001/nrfs01-09.html They are not even calling the new package ADVANCE payments, so it is probably not even going to be like the 2001 package. However, even if it is, it will not cost you money or reduce your return for next year. So, I say enjoy the money the government is giving you and spend it on WDW. I could think of worse things to do with it.

Hopefully, that is correct, and these will truly be rebates this time. I don't think anyone was saying the '01 "rebates", were taxable income. But if these payments are handled as those were, it would reduce your return next year. When this happened before, the majority of married couples received $600 (if I recall correctly). When they did there return for that year, the calculated their taxes as they normally would, and let's say it showed a $1,000 overpayment, in that case they would have received a $400 refund. A couple that calculated a $100 refund, would have actually had to pay in $500. But as I said, hopefully this article is accurate, and this is truly a rebate this time and not an advance. To me the advances just give people a false sense of a windfall.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

She said we would most likely have to pay state taxes on this of about $240 to $350.00. That still makes it a pretty good payment.

I'm certainly no tax expert, but I thought the state taxes were based on your federal adjusted gross income. At least they are in Illinois. So if you don't have to claim this check as income on your 1040, that means it wouldn't be part of your federal adjusted gross income and thus wouldn't carry down to the state taxes either. I've never claimed a federal refund on my state taxes in the following tax year. This is essentially the same thing as a federal income tax refund check, so I can't see why it would have any bearing on state taxes. Does anyone know for sure?

 

[PrincessTiffany]

I'm certainly no tax expert, but I thought the state taxes were based on your federal adjusted gross income. At least they are in Illinois. So if you don't have to claim this check as income on your 1040, that means it wouldn't be part of your federal adjusted gross income and thus wouldn't carry down to the state taxes either. I've never claimed a federal refund on my state taxes in the following tax year. This is essentially the same thing as a federal income tax refund check, so I can't see why it would have any bearing on state taxes. Does anyone know for sure?

Okay, I have to state that I am fiscally/financially/tax law challenged and in no way claim to have a definite answer on this issue. But, I believe, in the State of Alabama, we do have to claim federal income tax refunds on our tax returns. My friend, the CPA, did tell me she was going to have to delve further into this matter to see if we had to pay anything back on this. We just had a very short conversation about this on the phone (and her baby was screaming in the background) and she was in no way speaking to me as a client.

 

[bdcp]

Nowhere because I'm probably not going to get one.

Us either. What I find interesting is what we make where we live is middle to upper middle income. Somewhere like mid america we'd be upper upper middle compared to what the cost of living is so that's one thing that people forget when they talk income limits. Geez, in the town I was born in we could buy the same-sized home we have where we live now for 1/3 the cost. The tax rebate is simply a way to make people think something is being done. It's not the government's responsibility to attempt to fix the economy which it won't. My guess is there are many people who qualify and live in just as large a home as I do, have just as much debt, as many cars, etc (and debt payments are the same percentage of their incomes as ours), but because of where they live, they qualify for it by income alone. A true rebate to taxpayers would go to every taxpayer, regardles of income.

But, since we're considered rich, I guess I better go buy the Mercedes and get rid of the Honda.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Us either. What I find interesting is what we make where we live is middle to upper middle income. Somewhere like mid america we'd be upper upper middle compared to what the cost of living is so that's one thing that people forget when they talk income limits. Geez, in the town I was born in we could buy the same-sized home we have where we live now for 1/3 the cost. The tax rebate is simply a way to make people think something is being done. It's not the government's responsibility to attempt to fix the economy which it won't. My guess is there are many people who qualify and live in just as large a home as I do, have just as much debt, as many cars, etc (and debt payments are the same percentage of their incomes as ours), but because of where they live, they qualify for it by income alone. A true rebate to taxpayers would go to every taxpayer, regardles of income.

But, since we're considered rich, I guess I better go buy the Mercedes and get rid of the Honda.

That's funny because I just finished emailing my DW saying how, on paper, if we lived somewhere else we'd probably be considered upper-middle to upper income. Yet she's driving an 8 year old SUV and I'm driving a 3 year old Hyundai because that's what we can afford after we factor in the cost of housing, student loans, the property taxes, the income taxes, etc. And what got me is - as I filled out my 1040 - I realized that if we were still living in an apartment and had no mortgage interest to deduct, I would have ended up owing the federal government even more than I already paid them, and still not be entitled to any of this wonderful little tax rebate that isn't going to do a darn thing to stimulate the economy. Like you said, it's an illusion that our illustrious Congress (who apparently can act on something quickly when they want to) is actually doing something for us - when they're not busy investigating really important issues like steroids in Major League Baseball. Hey wait a minute - it's an election year, isn't it? Nah, what am I thinking. I'm sure that it's merely just an ironic coincidence.

 

[TinaLala]

IF I had to spend it on my Disney trip I would definitely upgrade our resort!

I don't want to stay at ASMovies - I'd rather stay at the Beach Club!!

Or I would use it on a dinner off of the dining plan.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

That rebate will go a long way toward helping pay for a 15th anniversary trip DW will probably take later this year.

 

[PrincessSuzanne]

Well, I don't think they can even get everybody to agree on it yet, so as the saying goes "Don't count your chickens before they hatch"

Suzanne