Your link doesn’t work. It says your search expired.
What terms did you use to search with at that site?
Also, can you tell me what “the same as the last rebates” amounts to? Were the last rebates additional cash, or were they advances on the next year’s refund?
-FrL-
Okay.
:smack:
I get it now.
I am now in a 5% tax bracket instead of a 10% bracket. This means I will be paying less in taxes next year–which could mean (depending on what I do re: withholdings etc) I will get a larger refund next year. And what’s going on this summer is the gummint’s going to advance me (an estimate of) that difference.
This has probably been obvious to everyone but me from the beginning. But I am only just now understanding this from rereading this thread, paying more attention to what Aktep said and to the one line summary of the relevant bill given by muldoonthief.
-FrL-
I can’t find the bill you found in your search, but changing the tax bracket would be inconsistent with the plan being publicized of paying the benefit to those who do not pay income tax as well has having an upper income limit on those who receive the benefit. Doesn’t mean that that’s not how it’s being done, it just feels needless complex to give some people back money early and not others, and I don’t see how it works for those with $3000 incomes who pay no taxes.
As mentioned above, they were in essence advances on the next refund. The bottom tax bracket was changed to 10%, retroactive to 1/1/2001, which meant that everyone who had paid estimated taxes (through payroll withholdings) had overpaid on the first $X, since the calculations were done for the old 15% rate. The government “rebated” some of those excess withholdings in the form of a check mid-year. They could have just waited and you would have owed less taxes / got a bigger refund in April 2002, but chose the rebate checks instead.
Is this a permanent reduction in the lowest bracket to 5%, or is it a “this year only” trick just to write the rebate checks?
Wait. How are you gonna pay yourself a salary if you’re taking a loss?
You really can’t so that on a Scd C. Now if you are Incorporated, then you’d have to talk to your tax expert.
But what if I don’t have a next refund? For 2005 I got $1 as a refund, and owed for 2006… I’m a little behind when it comes to understanding these rebates because as a dependent of my parents at the time, I didn’t get one the last time around.
I think the money should be used more wisely…like they should send it directly to Haliburton! 
Ok, sorry, this hopefully is a persistent link to the bill I was talking about. I searched on “stimulus” then browsed the likely results. It calls for a permanent reduction of the lowest tax bracket from 10% to 5%, and an accelerated refund of the difference. I couldn’t find anything about a tax refund to people who don’t actually pay taxes (this is not GD, this is not GD…), but that might be in a separate bill - they do describe it on the news as a “package”.
On the last rebate my husband and I got nothing. Even though I work full-time my husband is disabled (SS) and my income alone was not enough to qualify us for anything. I am wondering if the same thing will happen again this time.
Is this rebate basically for those with incomes over $50,000?? $80,000?? What exactly would be the cut-off amount?
You still have a next refund, even if you’re not actually getting anything refunded. But in your case, no, you won’t get anything.
The articles I’ve seen say the cut off occurs at 75K for single filers and 150K for joint married filers. I don’t know if it just cuts off at 75K, or if it gradually drops after 75K or if it gradually drops up to 75K.
Edit - that’s the max income. The minimum is 3K.
What about us retired folks? Do we get a check if we’re on social security?
It seems that those who need the money the most are off the list. And yes, I’ve paid plenty of taxes over my lifetime.
Rumor is the money is coming from Haliburton. They needed the write-off this year.
The future is now, gramps - get out there and mow some lawns!
(yes, I’m kidding)
Who needs money? Any why do they need it? I’d be perfectly happy without a rebate. Of course, we all know that anecdote isn’t the plural of evidence, etc. But… handouts? Advances on returns? It just seems creepy to me.
Okay, I acknowledge that lots of people are going to say that they need money. But what would they’ve done without this handout? They’d meet their necessities somehow, or they wouldn’t, and charities would take over. Or friends. Or family. Or someone who knows what personal responsibility is. I don’t mean the 1% that has special needs; this rebate isn’t for them, but for the masses.
Nobody needs the money. The idea is that enough people will say “woohoo! Free money!” and go out and buy a new couch, a PS3, a down payment on a car, a few really nice meals, something, and keep the economy from slumping.
But if the rebates don’t go out until summer, how does that keep the economy from slumping NOW? That’s what I don’t get about this rebate: “Oh, the economy is in a crisis, recession is looming, the stock market has been falling for weeks in a row! So let’s stimulate the economy by giving people more spending money . . . six months from now?!” Ok, all you stock traders, just hold off on those sells for another few months . . .
Can someone explain how a rebate in six months will help the “crisis” now?
No one really thinks this is going to boost the economy. In the first place, any responsible person who was handed a chunk of money would invest it in a bad economy, or put it into savings. In the second place, the amount is too small to do any good and as has been pointed out if it were truly to boost the economy it would be given out much sooner.
The money is being given out to the “middle class,” and it’s being given as an incentive to vote Republican. Since the economy will no doubt have a slight increase naturally in the third quarter, and since optimism about the upcoming election will be driving that upswing, the Republicans can then say “See, look how we bumped up the economy with our rebates.” If for some reason it doesn’t work they will manage to blame the Democrats. Same old same old.
So…just so I get this straight:
I, as an employed, tax-paying single person with no dependents, will get a check for $600 this summer from the federal government, and do not have to do a thing for my tax return this year. But I will than have to add that $600 onto my taxable income for 2008? So it really will be $600 minus whatever percentage for my tax bracket?
I was under the impression that if you had less than X dollars from a given source (I always thought it was $1000, or something) you didn’t have to report it?
I hate taxes. Too damn confusing.