Economic Stimulus Package?

[TallBill]

So how/when do we get it?

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: allisolm

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
So I got into a talk with a coworker about the package, and we started sending emails with links back and forth as to if its an advance on the 2008 tax return or not. So which is it a $600 advance on my return next year, or a check that will just be added to our income for 2008 (but not affect our return other then adding that amount to our 2008 income)?

It's neither. It's a rebate for your 2007 return, not an advance on next year. It will not be taxed as income for 2008.

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?...4e00-beed-656cf52c3e50
http://www.lakesunleader.com/a...2008/02/22/news/04.txt

From the IRS:

"Q. Is my stimulus payment taxable?

A. No. You will not owe tax on your payment when you file your 2008 federal income tax return. But you should keep a copy of the IRS letter you receive later this year listing the amount of your payment. You will need to know this amount next year when you fill out your 2008 return.

Q. Will the payment I receive in 2008 reduce my 2008 refund or increase the amount I owe for 2008?

A. No, the stimulus payment will not reduce or increase your refund when you file your 2008 return."

so it's free cash?!

what about those that dont make enuf $?

so confused...

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: TallBill
So how/when do we get it?

the IRS will start mailing out the checks when they finish normal refund checks, so sometime in May

last time they did it alphabetically over about 8-10 weeks IIRC

 

[spidey07]

If you make enough money you actually don't get anything. That is what is so wrong with this. It's nothing more the wealth redistribution - robbing the rich to give to the poor.

The biggest part is the tax cuts for business, that's the real stimulus.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ViviTheMage

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
Yeah, id rather commute an hour or so into NYC instead of renting at 40k a year...just my opinion though

lol, commuting an hour doesn't get you much either.

Well shit, move outta NYC if he cant take the heat ^_^.

I thought they had something on the taxes for renters?

Nothing at all.

 

[FoBoT]

here is an interesting fact, if you selected Direct Deposit when you filed your 2007 return, this stimulus payment will also be DD'ed into the same account, you don't have to worry about fooling with a snail mailed paper check

Stimulus payments will be direct deposited for taxpayers selecting that option when filing their 2007 tax returns. Taxpayers who have already filed with direct deposit won't need to do anything else to receive the stimulus payment.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: TallBill
So how/when do we get it?

the IRS will start mailing out the checks when they finish normal refund checks, so sometime in May

last time they did it alphabetically over about 8-10 weeks IIRC

Gotcha.

 

[sactoking]

Contrary to popular belief, it IS a tax advance. The 'Economic Stimulus Package' will eliminate the 10% tax bracket for the 2008 tax year. Said bracket is 10% of the first $6,000 in taxable income. That's where the $600 'rebate' amount comes from.

However, Congress doesn't want you to have to wait until 2009 to get your $600, so what they are doing is ADVANCING you the money now, in 2007. In order to keep the books balanced, the IRS will collect the 10% bracket in 2008. It's a simple ledger transaction.

The reason many people don't think it is an advance is because it is calculated off of 2007's returns. This is both correct and incorrect. It is legally calculated off of 2008's returns, but since the whole point of the Package is to get you the money now and we can't see the future, a provision was made for an ESTIMATE using 2007's numbers. Congress, in their boundless wisdom, has declared that your eligibility in 2007 will be close enough to your eligibility in 2008 that either number can be used. What does this mean? This means that if you do not qualify in 2007, but you do qualify in 2008, YOU GET THE REBATE WHEN YOU FILE YOUR 2008 TAXES. That's why it's an advance! You can still get it if your status changes. If you are eligible in 2007 but not in 2008, Congress has declared they the IRS will not ask for the money back (even though they legally could, since it's an ADVANCE on 2008's taxes). They'd rather have the money in the economy now than worry about the backlash later.

 

[FP]

sactoking is correct from what I have read...

Link

From the article:

The rebates represent a 2008 tax cut. But instead of getting the tax cut next year, when you file your 2008 return, you'll get it this year.

The IRS, however, will use your 2007 tax return to determine who gets a rebate and how much.

If it turns out that you would have gotten a bigger tax rebate based on your 2008 tax return, the IRS will refund you the difference. For example, a middle-income family that has a baby born in 2008 should be able to reap an extra $300 when they file their tax return next year, Luscombe says.

On the other hand, if you would have gotten a smaller rebate based on your 2008 return, you won't have to pay back the difference, says Bob Scharin, RIA Senior Tax Analyst from Thomson Tax & Accounting.

It is an advance on a tax cut that you will received on your 2008 tax return.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: allisolm

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
So I got into a talk with a coworker about the package, and we started sending emails with links back and forth as to if its an advance on the 2008 tax return or not. So which is it a $600 advance on my return next year, or a check that will just be added to our income for 2008 (but not affect our return other then adding that amount to our 2008 income)?

It's neither. It's a rebate for your 2007 return, not an advance on next year. It will not be taxed as income for 2008.

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?...4e00-beed-656cf52c3e50
http://www.lakesunleader.com/a...2008/02/22/news/04.txt

From the IRS:

"Q. Is my stimulus payment taxable?

A. No. You will not owe tax on your payment when you file your 2008 federal income tax return. But you should keep a copy of the IRS letter you receive later this year listing the amount of your payment. You will need to know this amount next year when you fill out your 2008 return.

Q. Will the payment I receive in 2008 reduce my 2008 refund or increase the amount I owe for 2008?

A. No, the stimulus payment will not reduce or increase your refund when you file your 2008 return."

so it's free cash?!

what about those that dont make enuf $?

so confused...

Not everyone is getting it. You have to qualify. I'm getting $1800 myself

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you make enough money you actually don't get anything. That is what is so wrong with this. It's nothing more the wealth redistribution - robbing the rich to give to the poor.

The biggest part is the tax cuts for business, that's the real stimulus.

This is the complete opposite of the truth. Here's how it works:

Under the legislation, most people who pay federal income taxes will get up to $600 for individuals, or as much as $1,200 for married couples, with an additional $300 per child. But many upper-income Americans will get nothing because of income limits. The amounts begin to phase out for incomes above $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples who file jointly. Many low-income Americans who pay little or no federal income tax will get something, too. To get a payment this year, you have to file a tax return for 2007. Congress also approved business-tax breaks, including one especially designed for small businesses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286096062963791.html

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Contrary to popular belief, it IS a tax advance. The 'Economic Stimulus Package' will eliminate the 10% tax bracket for the 2008 tax year. Said bracket is 10% of the first $6,000 in taxable income. That's where the $600 'rebate' amount comes from.

However, Congress doesn't want you to have to wait until 2009 to get your $600, so what they are doing is ADVANCING you the money now, in 2007. In order to keep the books balanced, the IRS will collect the 10% bracket in 2008. It's a simple ledger transaction.

The reason many people don't think it is an advance is because it is calculated off of 2007's returns. This is both correct and incorrect. It is legally calculated off of 2008's returns, but since the whole point of the Package is to get you the money now and we can't see the future, a provision was made for an ESTIMATE using 2007's numbers. Congress, in their boundless wisdom, has declared that your eligibility in 2007 will be close enough to your eligibility in 2008 that either number can be used. What does this mean? This means that if you do not qualify in 2007, but you do qualify in 2008, YOU GET THE REBATE WHEN YOU FILE YOUR 2008 TAXES. That's why it's an advance! You can still get it if your status changes. If you are eligible in 2007 but not in 2008, Congress has declared they the IRS will not ask for the money back (even though they legally could, since it's an ADVANCE on 2008's taxes). They'd rather have the money in the economy now than worry about the backlash later.

Yeah, I think I'm going to believe the Wall Street Journal over a guy on the Internet:

Q: But what about all these rumors that the payments will cut into what I get as my refund next year?

A: They're wrong, congressional staffers say. "Please be aware that there have been erroneous reports that stimulus rebate checks are an advance on next year's tax refund, so that any refund a taxpayer might normally receive would be reduced by the amount of the 2007 stimulus check," says the Baucus aide. "This is not correct."

Amy McAnarney, executive director for H&R Block's Tax Institute, says, "The actual credit will be calculated on your 2008 return. If you're due a higher credit, you'll get the remainder next year when you file. If you received a higher credit than you should have, you do not have to pay anything back."

"What might happen next year," a House staffer says, "is that somebody who didn't get their full amount this year could get more, based on their return for 2008. For example, if you had a child born in 2008 and you were within the income caps, you'll get another benefit of $300 next year when you file your return for 2008."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286096062963791.html

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Fritzo


Yeah, I think I'm going to believe the Wall Street Journal over a guy on the Internet:

Q: But what about all these rumors that the payments will cut into what I get as my refund next year?

A: They're wrong, congressional staffers say. "Please be aware that there have been erroneous reports that stimulus rebate checks are an advance on next year's tax refund, so that any refund a taxpayer might normally receive would be reduced by the amount of the 2007 stimulus check," says the Baucus aide. "This is not correct."

Amy McAnarney, executive director for H&R Block's Tax Institute, says, "The actual credit will be calculated on your 2008 return. If you're due a higher credit, you'll get the remainder next year when you file. If you received a higher credit than you should have, you do not have to pay anything back."

"What might happen next year," a House staffer says, "is that somebody who didn't get their full amount this year could get more, based on their return for 2008. For example, if you had a child born in 2008 and you were within the income caps, you'll get another benefit of $300 next year when you file your return for 2008."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286096062963791.html

Look at paragraphs 2 and 3. That's EXACTLY what I said.

As far as paragraph one goes, "so that any refund a taxpayer might NORMALLY receive would be reduced by the amount of the 2007 stimulus check" (emphasis mine), that says it all. You would not NORMALLY receive this $600 (or $1200 or whatever).

"Please be aware that there have been erroneous reports that stimulus rebate checks are an advance on next year's tax refund"
Again, this Package IS an advance. It's NOT "an advance on next year's tax refund". It's an advance on the Economic Stimulus Package. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS, they just happened to be tied to 2007 and 2008 IRS 1040, 1040A, and 1040EZ forms.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you make enough money you actually don't get anything. That is what is so wrong with this. It's nothing more the wealth redistribution - robbing the rich to give to the poor.

The biggest part is the tax cuts for business, that's the real stimulus.

This is the complete opposite of the truth. Here's how it works:

Under the legislation, most people who pay federal income taxes will get up to $600 for individuals, or as much as $1,200 for married couples, with an additional $300 per child. But many upper-income Americans will get nothing because of income limits. The amounts begin to phase out for incomes above $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples who file jointly. Many low-income Americans who pay little or no federal income tax will get something, too. To get a payment this year, you have to file a tax return for 2007. Congress also approved business-tax breaks, including one especially designed for small businesses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286096062963791.html

That's what I'm talking about. If you make decent money you get shafted. The people that pay most all of the taxes anyway get shafted. Folks that pay little or no taxes get some money. That's wealth redistribution and it's flat out wrong.

 

[sactoking]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...temp/~c110od4pqF:e1660:

There is the Bill itself, as passed by the Senate, the House, and signed by the President. I'd like to quote a few things:
"SEC. 101. 2008 RECOVERY REBATES FOR INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General- Section 6428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
`SEC. 6428. 2008 RECOVERY REBATES FOR INDIVIDUALS.
`(a) In General- In the case of an eligible individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by subtitle A for the first taxable year beginning in 2008 an amount equal to the lesser of--
`(1) net income tax liability, or
`(2) $600 ($1,200 in the case of a joint return)."

As you can see, the Bill states that this is a 2008 recovery rebate.

"`(g) Advance Refunds and Credits-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Each individual who was an eligible individual for such individual's first taxable year beginning in 2007 shall be treated as having made a payment against the tax imposed by chapter 1 for such first taxable year in an amount equal to the advance refund amount for such taxable year.
`(2) ADVANCE REFUND AMOUNT- For purposes of paragraph (1), the advance refund amount is the amount that would have been allowed as a credit under this section for such first taxable year if this section (other than subsection (f) and this subsection) had applied to such taxable year.
`(3) TIMING OF PAYMENTS- The Secretary shall, subject to the provisions of this title, refund or credit any overpayment attributable to this section as rapidly as possible. No refund or credit shall be made or allowed under this subsection after December 31, 2008.
`(4) NO INTEREST- No interest shall be allowed on any overpayment attributable to this section."

It also refers, IN IT'S OWN TEXT, to making payments 'as rapidly as possible', meaning sometime in 2007. Heck, the section is even called ADVANCE REFUNDS AND CREDITS!
It IS an advance. It is an advance on a credit that has not occurred yet. You will not pay more in 2007 or 2008 because of the advance. Anything to the contrary is the media dumbing it down or politicians using double-speak.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you make enough money you actually don't get anything. That is what is so wrong with this. It's nothing more the wealth redistribution - robbing the rich to give to the poor.

The biggest part is the tax cuts for business, that's the real stimulus.

This is the complete opposite of the truth. Here's how it works:

Under the legislation, most people who pay federal income taxes will get up to $600 for individuals, or as much as $1,200 for married couples, with an additional $300 per child. But many upper-income Americans will get nothing because of income limits. The amounts begin to phase out for incomes above $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples who file jointly. Many low-income Americans who pay little or no federal income tax will get something, too. To get a payment this year, you have to file a tax return for 2007. Congress also approved business-tax breaks, including one especially designed for small businesses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286096062963791.html

That's what I'm talking about. If you make decent money you get shafted. The people that pay most all of the taxes anyway get shafted. Folks that pay little or no taxes get some money. That's wealth redistribution and it's flat out wrong.

I don't think I agree with you. Congress doesn't want to give anymore tax breaks to the rich, they want to give them to the middle class and the poor. Anyone that is considered middle class or poor that filed a tax return can get a check. It's more of a retroactive tax break than redistribution.

 

[FoBoT]

anytime someone gets more from the govt. than they put in, it is income redistribution, i.e. welfare
so if they paid income taxes < their "stimulus payment" , then it is income redistribution

this thread has moved into P&N territory

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you make enough money you actually don't get anything. That is what is so wrong with this. It's nothing more the wealth redistribution - robbing the rich to give to the poor.

The biggest part is the tax cuts for business, that's the real stimulus.

This is the complete opposite of the truth. Here's how it works:

Under the legislation, most people who pay federal income taxes will get up to $600 for individuals, or as much as $1,200 for married couples, with an additional $300 per child. But many upper-income Americans will get nothing because of income limits. The amounts begin to phase out for incomes above $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples who file jointly. Many low-income Americans who pay little or no federal income tax will get something, too. To get a payment this year, you have to file a tax return for 2007. Congress also approved business-tax breaks, including one especially designed for small businesses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286096062963791.html

That's what I'm talking about. If you make decent money you get shafted. The people that pay most all of the taxes anyway get shafted. Folks that pay little or no taxes get some money. That's wealth redistribution and it's flat out wrong.

I don't think I agree with you. Congress doesn't want to give anymore tax breaks to the rich, they want to give them to the middle class and the poor. Anyone that is considered middle class or poor that filed a tax return can get a check. It's more of a retroactive tax break than redistribution.

My wife and I break that threshold pretty easily and we are far from "rich". The ideas of "rich" are grossly out of whack in this country. People who make 150k in Manhattan aren't ""rich" by any measure.

 

[PingSpike]

I don't get why people want to live in extremely high cost of living areas so bad, but I recognize it as a personal decision. Hell, if I didn't have family in Vermont I'd probably move to North Dakota or something.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't get why people want to live in extremely high cost of living areas so bad, but I recognize it as a personal decision. Hell, if I didn't have family in Vermont I'd probably move to North Dakota or something.

If this job didn't lead to such long-term benefits I wouldn't be here. Same with most people here.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't get why people want to live in extremely high cost of living areas so bad, but I recognize it as a personal decision. Hell, if I didn't have family in Vermont I'd probably move to North Dakota or something.

I have family in Baltimore Co., Maryland.
If I didn't care about my family or have any family like some of my foreign friends, I'd be moving to Delaware in the next 3 months.

I am in the process of accepting a job offer with a company knowing fully that I'd be making $3k/yr less than working in Delaware for the same exact company doing the same job.

Lets also not forget the tax advantages of living in Delaware vs living in Maryland.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
No, it's an additional bonus check funded by China, Japan, Social Security, and anybody else who buys our government debt. Enjoy your $600, because you're going to be paying interest on it for 30 years and screwing over future generations.

Perhaps I am bitter because my wife and I paid more in taxes than most people make in this country this year. We aren't even close to "wealthy" when you consider we have massive student loans and pay a crap-ton in rent due to living in NYC. But that's OK, the government doesn't consider COL adjustments when calculating income tax, so even though what I make here is equiv to half as much anywhere else, I get uber-screwed by taxes.

Enjoy it though, honestly, while you're at it send a thank you note to China and Japan.

that's kind of the story of all of NJ. highest cost of living accross the state as an average, highest income per capita, most taxes paid, BUT because of the toll roads in the state, the fewest fed funds come back to the state of any in the US. NJites get screwed coming and going.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you make enough money you actually don't get anything. That is what is so wrong with this. It's nothing more the wealth redistribution - robbing the rich to give to the poor.

The biggest part is the tax cuts for business, that's the real stimulus.

This is the complete opposite of the truth. Here's how it works:

Under the legislation, most people who pay federal income taxes will get up to $600 for individuals, or as much as $1,200 for married couples, with an additional $300 per child. But many upper-income Americans will get nothing because of income limits. The amounts begin to phase out for incomes above $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples who file jointly. Many low-income Americans who pay little or no federal income tax will get something, too. To get a payment this year, you have to file a tax return for 2007. Congress also approved business-tax breaks, including one especially designed for small businesses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286096062963791.html

That's what I'm talking about. If you make decent money you get shafted. The people that pay most all of the taxes anyway get shafted. Folks that pay little or no taxes get some money. That's wealth redistribution and it's flat out wrong.

I don't think I agree with you. Congress doesn't want to give anymore tax breaks to the rich, they want to give them to the middle class and the poor. Anyone that is considered middle class or poor that filed a tax return can get a check. It's more of a retroactive tax break than redistribution.

My wife and I break that threshold pretty easily and we are far from "rich". The ideas of "rich" are grossly out of whack in this country. People who make 150k in Manhattan aren't ""rich" by any measure.

Yes we need some welfare for those only making 3 times the median. Oh but you paid 40K in rent so after that your are still over 2times the median income.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Yes we need some welfare for those only making 3 times the median. Oh but you paid 40K in rent so after that your are still over 2times the median income.

And your goal is to level all that out, right? If somebody makes "too much money" according to you then it should be "given to others", right?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smack Down
Yes we need some welfare for those only making 3 times the median. Oh but you paid 40K in rent so after that your are still over 2times the median income.

And your goal is to level all that out, right? If somebody makes "too much money" according to you then it should be "given to others", right?

Right we need to make sure everyone makes at least 4 times the median income