President Bush To Give Taxpayers Hundreds to Stimulate Economy - Page 3

I haven't heard anything like that

Just like my tax refund, this rebate will go toward the new house: renting a truck, pizza and soda for my moving help, getting an outlet wired for my dryer. Oh, and I AM going to buy a swing for my front porch.

See, that's possible. I dont want to end up owing any money at the end of next year, so when the entire plan comes out I'm going to take a deep look at it.

for your perusal, from http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...#uslPageReturn

How proposed rebates could affect certain taxpayers, according to a statement from House Republican leader John Boehner:

A parent with two children: A man worked part of the year, earning $9,000. He has custody of two children. He owed no federal income taxes for 2007. He would be eligible for a base rebate of $300 for himself because his earned income was at least $3,000. He would also qualify for a $300 children's bonus for each of his two kids.
Rebate: $900 I'd consider this one a handout, not a rebate. This guy needs a full time job to support his family, not depending on the government to help him.

A couple with two children: Both worked part-time in 2007 and have two children. After taking available deductions and credits, their federal income tax liability was $500 for 2007. Because their earned income was more than $3,000, they would qualify for the $600 base rebate for a couple. They would also have enough earned income to qualify for a children's bonus of $300 for each of the two children.
Rebate: $1,200 Again, how can people with kids work part time?

A couple with five children: After taking available credits and deductions, their 2007 taxable income was $95,000, leaving them with a federal income tax liability of just over $16,600. Under the proposal, they would get the full base amount of $1,200. They would also qualify for a children's bonus of $1,500.
Rebate: $2,700 These people probably don't need the cash. $95k AFTER deductions puts them in six figures, they should be able to survive without any help.

Retired couple: As a result of their investment income, a retired couple paid $4,000 in federal income taxes in 2007. They had no dependent children, so there is no children's bonus.
Rebate: $1,200 Investment income being enough to be taxable. They are probably living comfortably as well.

A couple with one child: They were able to retire young but still collect dividends and capital gains from a business they sold a few years ago. The couple paid $19,000 in federal income taxes on that income in 2007. They would qualify for the base amount of $1,200. They would also qualify for a children's bonus of $300, because they paid at least $1 of federal income tax in 2007 even though they had no earned income.
Rebate: $1,500 Retired young? With two dependet children. They are not hurting like Average Joe either.

High-income couple with children: Both spouses are lawyers with a combined income in 2007 of $300,000. They have four children. Because their AGI is over $150,000, they are disqualified from receiving either the base amount or the children's bonus.
Rebate: $0 The only formula that does make sense.

Please note there are no examples of single taxpayers, single parents that work full time OR of retirees without investment income living off social security.

I noticed that too when I was reading that - so what? Does that mean us single people don't get anything?

I think they don't want you to be disappointed, so they left it out. I think more people are gonna get way less than others due to the "formulas" they use, and they don't want to advertise that information.

Another link from the White House's page on it...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0080124-4.html

The agreement reached today would allow Americans to keep more of their money to stimulate consumer spending. The growth plan provides approximately $100 billion in temporary relief that will allow Americans to keep or spend more of their incomes. Under the agreement:

In 2008, taxes would be cut from 10 percent to zero percent on the first $6,000 dollars of taxable income for individual taxpayers and the first $12,000 of taxable income for couples. Taxpayers could receive rebates of up to $600 for individuals and $1,200 for couples. A minimum of $300 per person and $600 per couple would be available to those with at least $3,000 of earned income. This relief would be available to everyone with adjusted gross income less than $75,000 for singles and $150,000 for married couples filing jointly. It will be phased out for taxpayers above those income thresholds.
Everyone eligible for this relief would also receive an additional $300 per child. For example, this would mean up to $1,800 of tax relief for an eligible couple with two children.

Sounds to me like they are just reducing your taxable income for this year, and giving you this advance on it (since you're already paying the 10%).

That's exactly what I was looking for.

Wouldn't it be a blessing for those that are retired, that have to scrape their pockets in order to put food on the table?? Or for those that are widowed, caring for disabled children and unable to work because care of disabled children can not be found, or afforded!! Now these are the people that would really put these rebates back into the economy!

I was thinking that it was.

So you will have paid more in tax this year than they want you to, so next year's tax tables should reflect the rebate. Basically the taxable income rate will be adjusted up, and you will have already paid the tax this year.

In other words, they are giving you back money now that is actually your own money.

That's how all the previous rebates have worked.

This money is so going into savings.

Thus negating the economic stimulus it is meant to provide.

You are doing the right thing, but so many people will spend it now and suffer the consequences with next year's tax bill being higher.

Again, a weak move to plump up the economy using money that actually already belongs to the taxpayers. A more realistic plan would be to have employers actually deduct less NOW and put our money back in our pockets, instead of taking it out in our payroll deductions and then penalizing us next year.

Once again, nothing is free. The government doesn't have to go give you any money, and in this case, they won't be. You're getting your own money back.

I don't know if it's good or bad. Haven't really took a stand that way. I don't think in the long run it's going to fix the mess that the economy is in.

I'll be paying bills with it. A moving loan.

That figures.

I agree with this unequivically.

But alas, that would be LOGICAL, and the government doesn't appear to ever act logically.

http://www.wxii12.com/money/15135132/detail.html

"But it would leave out about 20 million senior citizens living chiefly on Social Security. They wouldn't get rebate checks unless they have at least $3,000 earned income or pay income taxes based on other sources such as earnings, interest, investments or private pension plans."

This alone is reason to complain.