Tax Rebate BS

[naga_warrior]

I couldn't care less what they intend for us to do with the money. The fact is, it's welfare if you receive more back than you've paid in taxes. If you work 20 hours a week, you probably don't fall into this category, though you certainly don't deserve as much as people who have made more money. If they're going to do this, I don't see why it isn't done as a percentage rebate on taxes paid for 2007.

You don't understand the point. If they were to do what your saying it would work even less....The point is to put money into the economy. If you give more tax breaks to the rich, they are not going to spend any more money then they already do...Poor people will...It isn't about being a tax break, its about helping the economy....(How ever stupid the plan is)

 

[belian78]

I feel your pain.

I made $75,000 and paid over $20,000 in taxes and now I apparently owe them $4,000 more!!! What the hell is $300 gonna do for me? My stoner friend said "sweet, I can buy some weed". I work my ass off and owe $4,000... my friend doesn't do shit and gets money. This system is so fucked.

I am supporting my girlfriend and she is having a baby any day.

And they take my money cause Im "rich" while the lazy bastards around us want their "free" health car and handouts. Who the hell do they think has to pay for it? WE DO!!!

I earned my heath care and I feel if you haven't earned yours... tough shit, get a new job.

It makes me sick every time I think about it.

congrats on the baby, btw.

 

[homah]

You don't understand the point. If they were to do what your saying it would work even less....The point is to put money into the economy. If you give more tax breaks to the rich, they are not going to spend any more money then they already do...Poor people will...It isn't about being a tax break, its about helping the economy....(How ever stupid the plan is)

I understand the point and disagree with it on principle. I am saying that giving back a percentage of taxes paid would be more fair, even if it won't "work" as well in the short-run (I put work in quotes because I question what they even mean by stimulating/fixing the economy -- I think the market should be allowed to self-correct, even if it takes longer than this plan would).

 

[wv@SC]

This stimulus package is NOT going to work as we are sadly going to see with the next year or so. Where is the money coming from?

You know, we just spent (and sadly continue to spend) millions of $$$ on an unconstitutional war in Iraq that we can't afford in the first place, and then Mr. Bush decides to "help" the economy by basically borrowing more money from China or print it out of thin air via the Fed. It is just making the dollar more worthless driving the national debt what seems like forever upward!

We will be paying back whatever we get in the stimulus package, mark my words!

 

[naga_warrior]

I understand the point and disagree with it on principle. I am saying that giving back a percentage of taxes paid would be more fair, even if it won't "work" as well in the short-run (I put work in quotes because I question what they even mean by stimulating/fixing the economy -- I think the market should be allowed to self-correct, even if it takes longer than this plan would).

As I have said, I doubt it will work. But more tax breaks for the rich would work even less. My main point I was just referencing people in this thread calling people lazy that work 20 hours a week. And that is not always the case.

 

[Cinderella]

the gov wants people to be on welfare and not work....listen to my story quik...

i got pregnant at 21 yo....i was in nursing scool...i thought i could get on welfare for the time being until i finished school (i kno welfare, what was i thinking?? well i was young) anyway i applied and they told me i didnt qualify for welfare because i worked too many hours and made too much money (i was only making 200-300 a week)...they asked me to quit my job so i could recieve welfare....problem with that is the money from welfare wouldnt have been enough to pay my rent and bills etc...then they said well we can get u sec 8...ok i asked how long do i have to wait...they told me about 2 or 3 years.....hmmm....they said the wait would be only a few months if i agreed to live in a shelter....so i figure ok well maybe i can qualiify for foodstamps...i apply and again im denied because they said i made too much money....

funny how these programs "help" people....in order to recieve the aide id have to quit my job and move into a shelter??? lmfao.............well i ended up working fulltime and going to nursing school fulltime had my daughter and finished up my degree shortly after...it was the hardest thing ive ever had to do, but i did it....

so i totally feel where ur coming from....i get so damn mad to see people selling their food stamps for money...or getting nice apartments and only having to pay 8 dollars a month (AND STILL PAY LATE!!!!) its just pathetic!!!

then they get rewarded for doing nothing?!?! and we have to pay this back in 09??? all it is, is an advancement of our own money....i dont undrstand this whole tax rebate thing...i dont think ill be using mine...ill probably just donate it to ron paul or ill send it to my family in colombia where they could really use it

 

[TruthAtLast]

Dude, its money out of thin air...and the guy's point is that some lazy schmuck who'd makes all of $3000 a year gets the same amount as a hard working middle class dude who busts his ass 40++ hours a week.

He makes a good point wherein perhaps being poor is due alot to personal choice...and I agree with him. In this welfare, entitlement rich state we live in, IT PAYS TO BE POOR. I hate to say it, and forgive me it your on it, but most people I've met on welfare are LAZY.

Yes, LAZY. They have become beholden to Daddy Government. They are slaves every bit as much as we are...except with them, it is worse. They (the lazy ones) LIKE being slaves...All they do is work just enough to get by so that the welfare check comes every month...then they pay the $250 Section 8 rent for an apartment a person like me would have to pay $800 for. The rest they use to buy 47 inch plasma televisions and 22" rims for their P.O.S. used police cruiser. If you don't beleive me, move to a large city, get out of the subburbs, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

You say you stopped reading after, "Hey am I stupid or is giving people money..." Why don't you read the rest...the guy speaks THE TRUTH...and if you read my signaure, you'll see what the truth is good for. Ciao.

I agree 100%. I'm sick of working my ass off to get ahead only have it stolen from me and given to some lazy bastard who doesn't have the same ambition. And I don't want to heard the insane argument about "well you had more opportunity to get where you are". I never graduated college and instead used my own ingenuity to build wealth. I learned skills on my own.

But my wages will pay for someone else to go to college, and for someone else's house, and food. It will pay for services for illegal aliens who don't pay taxes at all.

All of it is just collectivism. The Government WANTS to wipe out the middle class. That is exactly how they plan to rule the world. If everyone is poor and completely dependent on the "State" then there is total control.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1208131&postcount=17

 

[naga_warrior]

See I don't understand your mentalities I guess. We all here agree that the economy is in trouble. And while it looks like we all agree that this isn't the best way to fix it, it is happening this way no matter what. So why not make it work the best it can work. Try and help the economy out just a little bit? Even if it isn't much it is better then nothing. In order to do that, the money needs to be spent in America. Yes donating to Ron Paul counts because he will spend it here.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

You don't understand the point. If they were to do what your saying it would work even less....The point is to put money into the economy. If you give more tax breaks to the rich, they are not going to spend any more money then they already do...Poor people will...It isn't about being a tax break, its about helping the economy....(How ever stupid the plan is)

Actually, poor people won't. Look up "permanent income hypothesis." It's well accepted economic theory that one time payments don't change spending habits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_income_hypothesis

 

[Mr. White]

Here's the deal guys: We have an imperfect system. We have raised several generations on welfare. Contrary to what many of you think, the vast majority of welfare recipients do work, do pay taxes and do try to better themselves. The Section 8 apartments they live in aren't palaces, the food stamps they get don't ccover everything and nothing about their existance is certain.

We have a lower class in this country that is incredibally ignorant in terms of economic planning. Likewise, the welfare system that we have in place is not a catch-all. Typically, as illustrated by the nursing school case above, circumstances exist to disqualify those who exceed the maximum income allowed to receive benefits. We are partly to blame for this. Rather than modifying requirments and guidelines, we simply cut budgets across the board. Lifetime recipients of welfare know all the ins and outs, but the veryday joe that needs assistance may get the shaft.

Welfare exists because we did (and still do) have the poor and homeless dying in the street. Sometimes this is a result of poor life choices, sometimes a result of random circumstance, sometimes a result of disability. Whatever the case, that is unacceptable. What has come out of this is a system that catches as many people as possible, but is still shitty enough to make living on it uncomfortable long term. Some people can accept it, some people can't.

I personally tolerate the welfare sytem and recognize the need for improvement. You cannot simply solve the problem by cutting off the money. We need to focus on funding education and training for these people. Even if we do that however, we will still see a sizable welfare system and the inevitable leeches that accompany it.

I understand the anger, but rather than reacting harshly when injustices such as these occur, we should instead focus on fixing the system. Harsh, ultimate declarations simply result in two sides desperately trying to get as much money as possible or no money at all. Fools deal in absolutes.

 

[Libertytree]

If the true desire is to help the economy and the intent is purely in the interest of circumventing a recession then why stop at the $600 threshold?

Why not print or borrow more dollars if it's really that important to the U.S economy? Why not give everyone $5000?

The stimulus package will cost $168 billion, for the 2 year plan.

The defense budget from the discretionary funds are $481 billion and that's not including requests for Iraq or Afganistan, tack on another $150-$175 billion for the 2008 War on Terror.

It's ALL BS!!!! We're bankrupt, it's all an illusion that's ready to crumble.

 

[lisajames96]

Refunds are going to people who don't even pay taxes. The IRS has said that even if you don't pay taxes, to be sure and file a tax return so you can get your $300 check.

apologies ahead of time, i didn't read through all the pages. My question is, can we opt out of this refund? And wont we have to pay it back the next year?
-lisa

 

[Libertytree]

Depending on your income level, you may see up to $600 per person, with an additional $300 per child. The rebate starts out at $300 per person, but rises to $600 per person to match the taxes you will pay based on your 2007 Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). Your AGI is generally lower than your salary, and is based on your earnings after tax deductions such as 401(k) and Traditional IRA investments and other qualified deductions. However, if you earn above a set limit, you may receive less than $600. The tax rebate decreases by $50 for every $1,000 earned above $75,000.

This tax rebate actually is a rebate against your 2008 taxes, even though they have not yet been filed. Even though this rebate is actually for your 2008 taxes, it will be based upon your 2007 AGI. When you file your 2008 taxes in early 2009, the calculation will be run again. If you should have received a larger rebate, the treasury will send you another check to make up the difference. This would apply to people who had children during 2008, or those whose 2007 AGI was above $75,000, but dropped below that level in 2008. If you income rises and you would have received a lower rebate, you get to keep the difference. In either case, you do not have to pay back any of this rebate.

 

[golf247]

While I don't necessarily agree with you guys, you do have some valid points. The system is messed up. But the point of the refund check is to try to stop the recession/depression. They are trying to get people to spend money. So yes, you might have worked a lot more then poorer people, if they don't have money, they can't spend it. So it is giving them money to put INTO the economy. Now people are going to do exactly the opposite and horde the money. So no matter how stupid this plan was to begin with, it is likely to fail even more because of this. And everyone that works 20 hours a week isn't lazy. I am a college student at a engineering school, going to school full time, and I am working 20 hours a week. I would hardly call my self lazy. So yes, I believe I deserve this check just as much as you do when your working 40 hours a week.

This is a false premise, though. You cannot spend your way out of a recession without a corresponding increase of capital goods in the market. The people that argue for this are the same ones who believe the money supply needs to be elastic.

All this rebate will do is increase the demand for the existing supply of goods. Econ 101 tells us this will result in higher prices. Now, the amount of money added to the system isn't significant in the grand scheme of things so you won't see big price jumps, but don't be shocked if we see a slight bump by the time the checks get here.

But, hey, the American public will feel good that their government is working for them, so they'll be happy. Makes me sick.

 

[Libertytree]

As Milton Friedman said "There's no such thing as a free lunch". We will pay very dearly for the economic poicies and money schemes that our government has engaged in, it's just a matter of when the piper insists on being paid.

The sad thing is most people can't fathom the nightmare that will shortly befall each and every one of us.

 

[Laughingcow]

I couldn't care less what they intend for us to do with the money. The fact is, it's welfare if you receive more back than you've paid in taxes. If you work 20 hours a week, you probably don't fall into this category, though you certainly don't deserve as much as people who have made more money. If they're going to do this, I don't see why it isn't done as a percentage rebate on taxes paid for 2007.

% is gooooooood

 

[lisajames96]

Depending on your income level, you may see up to $600 per person, with an additional $300 per child. The rebate starts out at $300 per person, but rises to $600 per person to match the taxes you will pay based on your 2007 Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). Your AGI is generally lower than your salary, and is based on your earnings after tax deductions such as 401(k) and Traditional IRA investments and other qualified deductions. However, if you earn above a set limit, you may receive less than $600. The tax rebate decreases by $50 for every $1,000 earned above $75,000.

This tax rebate actually is a rebate against your 2008 taxes, even though they have not yet been filed. Even though this rebate is actually for your 2008 taxes, it will be based upon your 2007 AGI. When you file your 2008 taxes in early 2009, the calculation will be run again. If you should have received a larger rebate, the treasury will send you another check to make up the difference. This would apply to people who had children during 2008, or those whose 2007 AGI was above $75,000, but dropped below that level in 2008. If you income rises and you would have received a lower rebate, you get to keep the difference. In either case, you do not have to pay back any of this rebate.

Thanks for the explaination. I still would like to opt out. It's not free money. I can't help but feel that it will hurt us in the end because it creates a false business cycle. Businesses will react to the flood of money, but then when the consumer spending is down again, they will be stuck with extra head counts, extra inventory, on, and on...it will still fail in the long run.

 

[therealjjj77]

It's a total farse. You pay about 50% of your income and virtually none of it goes to benefit you. In reality, you could take that money and take care of 4-5 poor people in your church and help them get on their feet for far less then you're spending now for the government to line their coffers while sending out a welfare check every once in a while.

I have always contended that the best place for charity is in an organization where you personally know and hold accountable both the administrator and the recipient. In that type of a situation do people not only derive satisfaction from doing such acts of charity(if they choose), but there is also an increase in productivity in the recipient because of the expectation from their close community to contribute back.

In a scenario like social security where you do not personally know the administrator nor the recipient and you do not get to choose if you send in the money or not, the money disappears, gets wasted, and the small amount that makes it to the intended recipients only encourages them to be unproductive.

 

[WV Freedom Fighter]

168 billion more debt that we owe for this "stimilus package". It's a short term "fix" and will only hurt us more in the long run. I can't believe Congress doesn't understand that.

 

[mconder]

...and the guy's point is that some lazy schmuck who'd makes all of $3000 a year gets the same amount as a hard working middle class dude who busts his ass 40++ hours a week.

No doubt...I should be getting back 15K if it was proportional to my income vs. a person making 3K per year! Not to mention, the average person on welfare probably get $500x2 income earners, plus 300x8 children. That's $3,400 for a poor family with 8 children vs. the 1,600 or so that a middle class cat gets with 2 children.