That’s why I called it the current “situation”, not the current recession. We have problems other than just recessionary problems-- ie, a credit crunch. One may be worse than the other.
President Bush and Congress agreed today on a stimulus package. We will cut a $150B check to China. It will be in the mail tomorrow.
All tax rebates go back to the government. Whenever I get them, I set it aside because they’ll come aknockin for it back soon.
Property taxes due in May…will use it for part of that.
Wouldn’t it save time if we just gave them the deeds to the lands and businesses they are going to buy with our money anyway?
I’m confused. I thought the money was just basically an advance on next year’s tax rebate. (See thread currently on front page in GQ about this.) But in this thread it’s being discussed as though it were an additional amount added to one’s total rebate.
What’s the straight dope then?
-FrL-
I think anything that Bush and the Democratically-controlled Congress can agree on is necessarily a bad idea.
I thought Pelosi et al. came into control of Congress with a pledge of “pay as you go”. If Bush is going to continue spending money like a drunken sailor, and Pelosi and Reid are going along with it, the last hope of restraint-thru-gridlock is gone.
We’re doomed.
Regards,
Shodan
Wait a sec…
You mean this isn’t a rebate? That they will send me $x and I will just have to give it back a few months later?
If so…why does it ‘cost’ $150 billion…There is no cost because they send us the money and we send it back later?
I’m confused (and alot pissed if this is the case)
Can someone eliminate my ignorance on this?
Now if we can get them to make the tax rebate permanent, just like the Bush tax cuts.
It seems to be a rebate to me. At least that’s what I’m getting from the overview.
What, you think stamps are free?
I dunno what Huerta’s on about. How much does a typical under-$10,000/year earner pay in sales and other non-income taxes and what difference does it make if the coffers are state or federal?
The federal government takes one pot of money from various people (including me). Some states take other pots of money from various people (sometimes me, sometimes not). By definition, a federal “tax refund” would come out of the federal pot and would go to all those who put money into that pot (pro rata, but of course I’m dreaming there).
People earning less than $10k per year probably pay some sales tax and payroll (FICA). I don’t understand the point you’re getting at. I’ve not heard anyone on the political spectrum justify the current giveaway as redressing the sales tax burden (nor is the federal government supposed to be in the business of doing so).
Yes, it is a rebate.
The question is whether it’s part of the rebate you would already have recieved anyway (hence “an advance on next year’s rebate”) or whether it’s an additional amount you would not have been rebated otherwise (hence whatever that other thing I said was).
The link you provided doesn’t settle this question.
Link to the GQ thread about the rebate. No links to official info there, but a couple of knowledgable sounding people chime in in that thread. It appears to be simply an advance on the rebate you would already have been recieving. (But not having seen the correct official information, I don’t know!)
-FrL-
That’s why it’ll work.
I’m going to just put it in the bank, because I don’t balance my checkbook or write a budget, so I’m not sure when it’s safe to spend any extra money I get.
Two people working 80 hours a week at minimum wage would be pulling down almost $60,000 a year. I assume you make more than minimum wage.
If you only have one car and few electronics toys, then that money is not being wasted on frivolous stuff. It’s probably being saved and invested and used to pay off “good” debt like student loans and your mortgage.
Congratulations, you’re richer than a vast majority of the country.
I feel for you, I’m exactly the same. In my area (greater Seattle metro) the key difference is that there is no such thing as “a house within my means”, and hasn’t been since the early 90s, for anyone below a 6-figure income. Everyone I know here who has purchased a house in the last 10 years has done so by stretching themselves threadbare, or overextending. I have many full-time good-salaried friends who have commented “wow, you have a house? I could never afford to own!”
It is the choice I’ve had to make wanting to be a homeowner though–the cruel reality for much of middle and upper-middle income America is that owning a home is now a luxury rather than an achievable economic assumption.
wait another year.
You all wait and see how fast this thing gets eaten up by inflation. We’re cutting rates, and handing money. Yippee. We’ll get to make mortgage payments for the next 6 months, and have it bite us in the ass all over again.
By then we’ll be paying $130 per barrel of oil, not to mention steel, lumber, and everything else that is a global commodity.
We’re fucking housed right now (pun intended). It’s just a matter of how and when we want to pay for it. Bushie is just making it that much tougher on the next guy while keeping his own name a little more out of the mud. Congress, of course, has no incentive in shutting off the tap either.
I didn’t say that I’m poor. I feel fortunate for my economic position. I just think that it’s remarkable how often fortune favors people who work hard and do the right things.
Isn’t this more or less where we came in, seven or so years ago?
The only difference is, back then we had a budget surplus to squander.
Yea…the problem is if you don’t get a rebate next year…they’ll still want the money back. They are basically letting you borrow money against your future self.
If it is true anyway…I wouldn’t put that past them, but I hope they are not playing this shell game.
Lemme see. Let’s say there are 110 million families out there getting a rebate…and it costs 150 billion. 150 billion/110 million = $1364 per. Sounds about right. Maybe it is for real. {unless by ‘cost’ they mean THIS years cost, but they get back next year}