Fool, the government isn’t going to give you extra money back, they are going to take it away from others to give it to you. You don’t see a problem with that?
And buy your own damn groceries, like the rest of us.
I’m going to spend it on drugs. Mexican drugs. Fuck you economy!
Carol, perhaps you do not realize that the federal government collects more than just income taxes from Americans. Every time you fill up your gas tank or buy a carton of smokes, you are paying taxes to the federal government. So yes, it is a rebate that people are receiving, even those lucky duckies who pay no income tax.
Further looking into this reveals that there is a lot that is very confusing about what will actually be done (as seen in the current GQ thread on this subject). As a result, I’m going to suspend any outrage until I see something concrete. If this is just a changing of the tax brackets and a “prefund” on the next year’s taxes, then I don’t really care about getting a check or not. But I still insist that targeted assistance to those who need help in the form of helping with healthcare, job skills, education, and job finding assistance - is far better than a shotgun approach.
It’s too bad for Carol Stream and the similarly-minded that Jesus is immune to the ducking, bobbing, weaving, and dodging of pertinent questions.
Perhaps you don’t realize that the “rebate” has nothing to do with gasoline or cigarette taxes.
Why, no! No, I didn’t! But now that I do, I’m shocked! Shocked and ensickened!
I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the rebate. It is not to help the disadvantaged through a rough spot in the economy. It is to get more money circulating to prop up business so the stock market won’t crash. This rebate has never been about helping the poor; it is about protecting the investor class. They are terrified their portfolios are going to evaporate. Why else would god-fearing supply-siders suddenly give away cash to Joe Lunchbucket?
A tip?
I don’t misunderstand it at all. I’ve been posting what I would rather be done. I don’t think the economy is in that bad of shape and I think that it will recover on its own. But there is a risk that a significant number of folks could be hurt by a modest slowdown, and I think those folks could use a hand that focuses on investing in their futures. I’m no economist, nor financial expert, so it’s IMO.
No doubt you are right about that. But I see no motivation there for conservatives to invest in improving the prospects of the disadvantaged. There has always been a poor, unemployed, uneducated class at the bottom of the ladder, and the right is loathe throw them a bone. These guys live and die by the stock market, and right now, they are piss scared. If they did not believe their paper fortunes were about to go up in smoke, they would never have pulled the fire alarm.
It did not.
http://www.alloysilverstein.com/tips/tax/2001/0611.htm
It was also for a much smaller amount. I was only working part time and I think I only ended up getting like $45.
$600 is a much rounder (and nicer) number.
My partner and I had very different incomes that year and each got $300. We were clearing out tax files tonight and have actually handled those letters within the last three hours.
An anecdote is not a cite, as a general rule. But in 2001, I paid $0 in income taxes, after the EIC was taken into account. kaylasmom and I did receive an extra check that year.
No, it doesn’t have anything to do with them in particular, but it is a fact that we pay a lot more in taxes to the government than just our yearly income tax. I’m not sure you understand how taxes actually work. I’m going to get $1200 along with my husband this year. We make nothing in the neighborhood of 150K/year. If you want to come to my apartment, I’ll gladly show you our W-2s from last year. You would see that together, last year, we paid over $1200 in taxes. It was taken from our paychecks every two weeks throughout 2007. The idea behind this rebate is that we will get some of that money BACK. That, by definition, is a rebate. I am not getting a handout, and if the money was mine to begin with and it’s being returned to me, I am “buying my own damn groceries,” thank you very much.
That said, I don’t think this is any way to help the economy. Most of the people I know are in debt to someone or another for something (mainly school/home loans–I have never carried credit card debt, but some do), and so a lot of that unexpected income injected into our budgets is going to go to paying off loans. I sure as hell am not going to go out and buy a new DVD player/plasma TV/iWidget. This is going to help me pay for nursing school.
I understood this is a “prebate” and, using Millit the Frail as an example, Millet will then have the $1200.00 she receives this year deducted from her 2008 tax refund.
Is this correct?
Wasn’t this the case in 2001/2002? I seem to remember finding out in 2002 that the money from 2001 was factored into the tax filing somehow.
It was indeed the case then. It is unclear to me, even after having read the legislation, what exactly this newest effort is. If it’s really just turning part of the 15% bracket into a 5% bracket (which will benefit everyone who pays taxes), and sending out a check in advance of the anticipated tax refund, then I don’t care any further about getting a check or not, since one way or another I’ll end up with the same net benefit.
I read something to the effect that the tentative “rebate” is indeed a “prebate”, that is, an advance on anticipated tax refunds for anticipated 2008 income, based on the 2007 filings.
If this is the case, then it is not how people seem to understand it. I suspect that many people aren’t linking this “rebate” check to a similar decline in their 2008 refund.
And if this is the case, I don’t understand how this works for people who tend to either come out even, or owing additional taxes.
On Face the Nation this morning, the host named the cost of the war as $220,000 a minute. That’s 528,000 people’s $600 rebates a day, so 5 days would more than do it.