Little wrinkle in the $600/$1200 tax rebate...

[colleyvillesooner]

Didn't see anything about this in the "What are you going to do with it" thread, plus I didn't want it to get lost in the wash. Please don't merge.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/economic.stimulus/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


The package, which passed the Senate 81-16, will send rebate checks to 130 million Americans in amounts of $300 to $600 for people who have an income between $3,000 and $75,000, plus $300 per child. Couples earning up to $150,000 would get $1,200.

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.

If I understand that right, and my normal refund in 2009 was going to be $1200, I get zero back?

:mad:

Hopefully I'm wrong.

[KABOOKIE]

Boy howdy. There's going to be a lot of poor people actually having to pay taxes next year.

[mdklatt]

If I understand that right, and my normal refund in 2009 was going to be $1200, I get zero back?

:mad:



Boost the economy (maybe) without increasing the deficit. Win-win. If you play your cards right, $1200 now will be worth more than $1200 in 2009. Win-win-win.

[colleyvillesooner]

Yeah, but most people will just rush out and spend this, then get a pretty good shock when they don't get back that tax return the count on every year.

Like Clark's Christmas bonus.

[sooner_born_1960]

If you play your cards right, you'll save the rebate this year to pay it back next year. Not sure how that stimulates the economy.

[sooner_born_1960]

The reporting on this legislation has been shoody, as that is the first time I've seen that little bit of information. Unless, of course CNN has it wrong.

[mdklatt]

Yeah, but most people will just rush out and spend this, then get a pretty good shock when they don't get back that tax return the count on every year.


Well that's how government works. What it gives with one hand it takes away with the other. It can be no other way; you can't get something for nothing. It's not like we've been cutting spending the past eight years.

People who are calling this a "rebate" have it all wrong. Tax rebates, cuts, whatever when you're running a deficit are financed by more debt. In other words, they're redistribution of wealth from future generations to the present. But you'll never hear the current brand of Republicans (fiscal conservatives my ***) crying foul about that, will you? I guess it's only "socialism" if somebody else benefits from it.

[colleyvillesooner]

Lot more here from a 1/23/08 article:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/23/milstead-you-recall-the-01-tax-rebate-checks/



MILSTEAD: You recall the '01 tax 'rebate' checks?
By David Milstead, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Wednesday, January 23, 2008

There's plenty to be said about our government's response to the current economic travails, with a goofy one-time cash payment representing the "big idea" in place of more substantial economic reforms.

I will not say it, however, since plenty of ink, bytes and air already have been expended on such commentary. Instead, I want to get micro with you and return to one of my favorite topics in my time at the Rocky Mountain News.

Already, we are calling the Bush administration plan to give households $800 to $1,200 in cash a "tax rebate," much as the smaller 2001 checks were described.

That was a misnomer. The summer 2001 "rebate" checks were not a rebate of taxes paid the previous April, as many thought. Instead, they were an advance on the refund taxpayers were going to get in April 2002.

That meant refunds in April 2002 were $300 smaller than they would have been without the summer 2001 checks. And those who owed taxes faced a tax bill $300 higher.

That's the conclusion I came to after multiple talks with the Internal Revenue Service, which had been careful not to use the word "rebate" in any of its official documents.

IRS officials gamely answered my questions and showed me how the mechanics of the rebate worked. The resulting story moved on the national wires - and the Treasury Department public-relations staff let me know they disliked my interpretation of the matter.

As you may recall, the checks were part of a major tax-cutting effort in the first year of the Bush administration.

Part of those tax cuts was a reduction in rates, including a drop from 15 percent to 10 percent on the first $6,000 of income for singles and $12,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly.

That equaled a cut of $300 and $600. But instead of implementing the cut in the tax tables that accompanied the 2001 1040s in April 2002, Congress and the Bush administration sent out the checks early, then delayed changing the rates until the tables in the April 2003 1040s.

The forms for the 2001 tax year could have included a line at the end of the 1040 for taxpayers to take the amount of the check and reduce their refunds - or add the figure to the amount owed. But the IRS didn't do that, wanting to reduce the number of calculations necessary.

A good thing, too, for the politicians who were happy to make their constituents think they were getting a rebate, not an advance refund.

To pull off the same trick in 2008, there will have to be a similar income tax cut that can be "advanced" in lieu of an actual rebate. Then, taxpayers can again be misled as to what those checks really mean.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

This would alter how I spend or use the "rebate".

[sooner_born_1960]

Thanks for the informative post, colley. I now believe I'll put my "rebate" in my daughters' college svaings plans. I'll help the economy in a few years.

[dolemitesooner]

Ok umm. I dont wanna end up paying Income taxes next year so can I just tell them No!!!

Thsi sounds like a ****ing forced loan that I have too take. Basicly they are tricking stupid americans that make under 75,000 a year into temporaliy boosting the economy.

[soonerbrat]

Didn't see anything about this in the "What are you going to do with it" thread, plus I didn't want it to get lost in the wash. Please don't merge.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/economic.stimulus/index.html?iref=mpstoryview



If I understand that right, and my normal refund in 2009 was going to be $1200, I get zero back?

:mad:

Hopefully I'm wrong.

Actually, there WAS a mention of that because I mentioned it. The last time they sent those "rebate" checks, it came out of my next year's return.

[soonerbrat]

P.S., when I mentioned it, my comment was completely ignored.

[mdklatt]

P.S., when I mentioned it, my comment was completely ignored.

Get back in the kitchen and fix me a sandwich!

[dolemitesooner]

Actually, there WAS a mention of that because I mentioned it. The last time they sent those "rebate" checks, it came out of my next year's return.
Smoke and ****ing mirrors. Sigh

[soonerbrat]

Get back in the kitchen and fix me a sandwich!


OK, i'll do that. I've been super sick all week with a stomach virus. I'll be sure to put my hands all over your sandwich.


http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2194156&postcount=10

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Didn't see anything about this in the "What are you going to do with it" thread, plus I didn't want it to get lost in the wash. Please don't merge.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/economic.stimulus/index.html?iref=mpstoryview



If I understand that right, and my normal refund in 2009 was going to be $1200, I get zero back?

:mad:

Hopefully I'm wrong.


I'm not finding that quote in the CNN article

[texas bandman]

Is this thread political. I'm giving up political threads on Friday for Lent. (I HATE fish.) :D

[sooner_born_1960]

Hmmm. They took that line out. It was there earlier.

[85Sooner]

I'm not finding that quote in the CNN article


Ditto's to this, I do not see that anywhere. It would be weird because the amounts given are for children that existed in 2007 not for ones born in 2008 which would be deductible on next years taxes.

[soonerbrat]

seriously..they did this a few years ago and it was deducted from my tax return at the end of the year.

[Widescreen]

It was never a rebate. When someone gets $300 back (as low income people are getting) after they didn't pay any taxes, its can't be considered a rebate.

I was worried they were going to make us pay it back next year. Not sure what I'm going to do now.

[mdklatt]

I was worried they were going to make us pay it back next year. Not sure what I'm going to do now.

So then it's a no-interest loan--what's the problem?

[soonerbrat]

It was never a rebate. When someone gets $300 back (as low income people are getting) after they didn't pay any taxes, its can't be considered a rebate.

I was worried they were going to make us pay it back next year. Not sure what I'm going to do now.

they called it a "rebate" when they did it before. I can't remember what year it was, but it was not very long ago. I got $800 in the mail.

[NormanPride]

I don't need the ****ing government, of all entities, telling me how to manage my money. Lord knows they do a bang-up job of handling the money I give to them. This is the **** that makes me angry at our government. Nobody has the balls to do the things that FIX the problems we have, they just want to put prettier and prettier band-aids on them that the populace pays for.

[colleyvillesooner]

Yep, they took that line out. Weird. Must of gotten a call from W.

[r5TPsooner]

If this is true then I'm happy that I'm not getting a check this year.

[NormanPride]

Pandering to the rich... :mad:

;)

[colleyvillesooner]

they called it a "rebate" when they did it before. I can't remember what year it was, but it was not very long ago. I got $800 in the mail.
2001. It was supposed to be in conjunction with a tax cut in 2002.

[Widescreen]

So then it's a no-interest loan--what's the problem?
The problem is I wanted my money back. I've got enough loans.

[mdklatt]

The problem is I wanted my money back. I've got enough loans.

Your money has already been spent and then some. It's either going to be a loan or a hand-out.

[SoonerBorn68]

Dang it, now I'll have to do something reponsible like start an IRA or somethin'. :mad:

[Widescreen]

Your money has already been spent and then some. It's either going to be a loan or a hand-out.
Wow, the gubmint might actually have to do some cost cutting to give me my money back. Oh the horror!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Wow, the gubmint might actually have to do some cost cutting to give me my money back. Oh the horror!

They won't do that, they just attach your next year's refund or increase your taxes next year...

[mdklatt]

the gubmint might actually have to do some cost cutting

Good luck with that.

[RacerX]

The state tax check is what we had to claim as income the next year. That stupid $90 dollars was a nightmare. They called it a refund instead of a rebate. We didn't have to claim it on fed, just state.

I don't remember doing that with the fed check.

[tommieharris91]

What is even better is that, as the Fed continues to cut interest rates (and they will), we smart people who get this rebate will be less and less encouraged to put it into a short-term investment vehicle because it won't be worth saving. This could be the IRS creating a new housing bubble.

[Ike]

according to CNN now:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/08/pf/taxes/rebates_what_you_need_to_know/index.htm?cnn=yes



Do I have to pay the rebate back?

No. And here's why.

Your rebate is a one-time tax cut - an advance on a credit you'll receive on your 2008 return.

It's based on your 2007 income initially. If it turns out that your 2008 income and number of children would have qualified you for a larger rebate than the one you received, you'll be sent the difference. If it turns out your 2008 income was lower than in 2007 and you should have gotten a lower rebate, you get to keep the difference.

"If you were supposed to receive a larger payment than you did, you will get the extra money," said Treasury spokesman Andrew DeSouza. "If you received more than what you should have gotten, you will not be penalized."

[usmc-sooner]

so you get $1200 now and have to pay back $1200 a year from now. I'd take that deal every year. It aint going to stimulate jack shiite but I'll take it. Seems like a money losing deal for the government.

[1stTimeCaller]

I'm sure that mdklatt will send it right back to the gov't and do the same next year being as society has afforded him things the society has not afforded you.

[OUbones]

Everyone should know from watching The West Wing this is what the government means/does whenever they pass a tax rebate. :)

[Widescreen]

So Ike's info seems to indicate that it's simply an advance on a credit we'll be getting on our 2008 return. If we claim it now, we won't get it next year but our normal refund (if we have one) won't be reduced. Does this sound right?

[Jerk]

mdklatt -the last time the Republicans tried to be Republicans and cut spending was in 1995 when they attempted to merely cut the annual rate of growth of certain programs, not the actual funding.

They were accused of starving women and babies by the msm. And some time between then and 2006 they decided it was much easier to spend than cut.

oh, btw, your party controls congress now. So, whatever happens is your guys' fault :)

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

So Ike's info seems to indicate that it's simply an advance on a credit we'll be getting on our 2008 return. If we claim it now, we won't get it next year but our normal refund (if we have one) won't be reduced. Does this sound right?
I think they're saying that this rebate will be deducted from your refund for next year. If you get $600 now and your return comes out to be $800 next year, you get $200 next year. If you get $600 now and you're only supposed to get $400 next year, the info says that you don't owe that extra $200 because the rebate you got this year was too big and that was the govt's bad.

[Widescreen]

I think they're saying that this rebate will be deducted from your refund for next year. If you get $600 now and your return comes out to be $800 next year, you get $200 next year. If you get $600 now and you're only supposed to get $400 next year, the info says that you don't owe that extra $200 because the rebate you got this year was too big and that was the govt's bad.
I don't know about that. This quote seems to indicate that you'll receive a new $600 tax credit on your 2008 return. If you've already gotten the credit in 2007, you just won't get it in 2008. It's silly that there's even any question about it. How hard is it to communicate in plain english what this all means???


Your rebate is a one-time tax cut - an advance on a credit you'll receive on your 2008 return.

[Whet]

The "rebate" is a credit against the fed tax liability for 2008. Take a read of the actual bill - it may clear up some of the misunderstandings.

Here is the bill Get Some Money (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h5140enr.txt.pdf)

or here for the non-PDF version: Money in your pocket (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:5:./temp/~c1107inJL0::)