Say Anything Blog

It’s kinda of a tax dollar furlough program really, a god knows those dollars are going right back when it comes time to pay for Dubya’s Folly.

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

RBB,

Looking at your own comments, you seem a familiar friend of folly.

It’s because that article quote is pretty misleading.  It really doesn’t lower refunds.  It lowers rates and advances the expected refund early.

What this bill essentially does is lower tax rates for 1 year - in 2008 by $600 per person - by not taxing your first $6,000 of taxable income normally taxed at 10%.

Rather than wait until people file their 2008 tax returns in 2009 to get this $600 tax break, the treasury is going to advance the money to people who meet criteria (i.e. paid taxes of at least $600 in 2007 or had earned income of over $3,000 including SS payments).

The kicker comes in that if you get advanced money by meeting the advance criteria, but then don’t end up owing any 2008 tax when you file your return, you don’t have to pay back the advance even though the tax break would have been ‘lost’ to you since you weren’t paying tax.

The flip side is that if you don’t get an advance check because you don’t meet the criteria (say you were a full-time student with no job in 2007), but you go to work and earn an income in 2008, you will still get to take the $600 off your taxes when you file the 2008 return.

I’m sure this is all as clear as mud.

Evan,

In other words, if I understand you correctly, Mr.Bush, who came into office pushing tax cuts, leaves office doing much the same, but leaving it to his successor, who will likely be a Democrat who wants to raise taxes anyway, to deal with the deficit created by Mr. Bush’s last tax cut which advanced the money back to the people before they even filed for the “rebates” they would have got anyway after Mr. Bush left office.

Is that about it?

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One,

I am sure partisans can and will look at this anyway they want.  For one simple example, why do you call these Bush’s tax cuts when they were passed by a Democratic Congress?

If you want my partisan view, this is a tiny one year tax cut with some welfare added in by giving it to people who don’t pay taxes, which largely doesn’t matter in the big picture.  I also believe that Bush’s tax cuts back in 2001-2003, and Clinton’s tax hikes in 1993, were also tiny in comparison to the overall federal budget and the unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare.

The only reason we ‘balanced the budget’ in the late 1990’s was due to the stock market bubble, and the only reason Bush came reasonably close to balancing a budget in last couple years was because of the housing bubble.

The fiscal reality of the US is that regardless of the rates of taxation, we need far more people working in productive jobs and contributing to the tax pool, and far fewer people not working and drawing a myriad of federal benefits out of the tax pool. 

I see neither party addressing that problem, with Democrats typically being worse by advocating ever more idleness and government programs to reward it.

Evan, would you be so kind as to post a link to somewhere we can find an explanation that backs you up on this?  Personally, I’m concerned that I’m going to get whipsawed by a check, followed by a big debt owed to the IRS come April 2009.  Not exactly what I’d look forward to, for obvious reasons!

The only reason we ‘balanced the budget’ in the late 1990’s was due to the stock market bubble, Actually, it was because Clinton slashed military and intel, thus preparing the way for the terrorists on 9/11(which really unbalanced the budget), because he failed to counter the terrorism that existed all during his administration. and the only reason Bush came reasonably close to balancing a budget in last couple years was because of the housing bubble.  Basic economic will tell you, and previous experiences also reveal, that cutting marginal tax rates increases revenues.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

The CNN story was corrected at the request of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee because the suggestion that taxpayers’ regular refunds would be reduced next year was inaccurate.  The economic stimulus bill creates an additional tax credit for 2008 that decreases eligible Americans’ 2008 tax liability by the amount of the rebate check – and that additional money is being advanced to tax filers this year.  Any refund a taxpayer would normally receive on his or her 2008 tax return will remain intact and will be received by that taxpayer in full.  Note that the AP is reporting this accurately in its “Rebate Questions and Answers” article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7294441

Carol Guthrie
Communications Director
U.S. Senate Finance Committee

Thank you Carol for the clarification.

This was the same canard they circulated last time this scheme was implemented.

No Free Lunch

The Fed is going to print this money and loan it to Congress to send out. The additional money supply will result in inflation. No one is getting anything.

Next year, unless there’s a tax increase, faced with a bigger budget and paying for the rebates, guess what happens to the deficit, the value of the dollar, and the economy. This will of course be blamed on the Bush administration but, by then, he won’t care.

The first thought is that the government is engaging in some flimflam for an election year, but, why would anyone intentionally destroy themselves unless they’re just stupid or nuts?

Next year, unless there’s a tax increase…

What is a tax increase going to do to government coffers ews48? Let’s see if you have been paying attention to history.

Next year, unless there’s a tax increase, faced with a bigger budget…

Tax and spend…

The only solution is to sharply reduce govt spending, and to leave the money in the hands of those who make more money with it.  Everyone benefits from that, except the govt elites.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

...except the govt elites.

And those who depend on the vote buying; i.e. the Democrat controlled inner cities, the ‘Great Society’ slums, and every other American slum.

...except the govt elites.

I specifically mean the ones who create and administer the taxpayer-funded programs that pay them their wages.
Nice trick.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Evan,

I appreciate your 2:58 pm comment; it is helpful.  Can you please on opine on the following scenario?  A couple with two kids with a 2007 AGI of $170,000, but the same couple only will have a 2008 AGI of $120,000.  Would the couple only get rebate check of $200 plus $X for each kid in 2007?  Would the couple then save an extra $1,000 plus $300-X for each kid on their 2008 tax return?

Alan,

The tax cut is specifically for 2008 (not 2007), is $600 per taxpayer (therefore $1,200 for married couples) plus $300 per qualifying child.  Therefore, a couple with two kids should get $1,800 in total($600+$600+300+300).

Now there is an phaseout loss for married couple making above $150,000, which is 5% of the amount that AGI exceeds $150,000.  It’s clear you knew this from your calculation as well.

Given the example you give, you would receive $800 in your rebate check this year (reduced by $1,000 {5% x $20K} because your income calculates above the $150K).  However, when you do your 2008 tax return, you will complete a worksheet and then will be able to take the additional $1,000 off your taxes in 2008 (because your income is actually below $150K).  So in total, you do get the $1,800, just split up instead of all at once.

Hypothetically, assume your income levels were reversed, and you had AGI of $120K in 2007 and $170K in 2008.  Under that scenario, you would get the entire $1,800 back in the rebate this year since the 2007 based criteria would assume you were entitled to the entire amount.  Then when you actually filed your 2008 return, you do the worksheet calcuation and it would show that you were only entitled to $1,000.  Nevertheless, you get to keep the extra $800 since you don’t have to pay back the rebates under any circumstances.

In essence, this is a one-time 2008 tax reduction, but through the mechanics of this rebate scheme, you get it if either your 2007 or 2008 tax returns would qualify you for it.

Evan,

Thank you for the detailed response; it is very helpful.

Note that the AP is reporting this accurately in its “Rebate Questions and Answers” article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7294441

Carol Guthrie
Communications Director
U.S. Senate Finance Committee

I don’t understand why the only accurate information is posted on a British news web site. Can the US government post an official Q&A and calculators to explain the ramifications in layman’s terms?

No matter what is said the rich get richer and the poor get the leftovers.  The people with the most money get the larger rebates and the people who need the money get $300 what a joke.

The people with the most money get the larger rebates and the people who need the money get $300 what a joke.

The reality: The people who made the most money(and created the most jobs) get no “rebate” at all; many people who paid nothing in taxes get money.
This is just more commie redistributionism.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Taxes go up, taxes go down. In the end there will always be a balance, the main question is: when ? I’m really curious why the quote has been removed from CNN. Does anyone have an answer ?
0 balance transfers

Taxes go up, taxes go down.

Taxes go up during Dem administrations, and down during some Republican administrations.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!