Thats what Rush, faux, etc.. said about Clinton. But when he left office there was a budget surplus. I just hope whom ever is the next Prez can get us back to that position.
Thats what Rush, faux, etc.. said about Clinton. But when he left office there was a budget surplus. I just hope whom ever is the next Prez can get us back to that position.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
That's because the Congress at the time put the clamp down on spending. Congress is the one that controls the purse strings. The current Congressional leaders on both sides have basically opened up floodgates and are spending out of control.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
There was a projected Surplus when Clinton left office.
And if Congress sees money (surplus) lying around, they will find some way to waste it.
I don't get why people are whining that they won't "qualify" for this. It isn't free money. You just won't have to pay it back last year like those who do get it will. And, unfortunately, most of the people getting it won't realize it has to be paid back and will struggle to pay $600 (or $1200, or whatever) extra in taxes next year.
This is a PR campaign, not a free money raffle down at the radio station.
This is a PR campaign, not a free money raffle down at the radio station.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
The wording of this confuses me...
Individuals who pay income taxes would get up to $600, working couples $1,200 and those couples with children an additional $300 per child under the agreement. Workers who make at least $3,000 but don't pay taxes would get $300 rebates.
Does this mean that you only get the rebate if you end up paying in at the end of the year? Or does it mean if you payed any taxes in even if you get a full refund you still get a rebate?
God politicians suck. They should go back to the early USA where politicians took office without a salary and had a day-job to support themselves with. Imagine how much money the US would save!
Individuals who pay income taxes would get up to $600, working couples $1,200 and those couples with children an additional $300 per child under the agreement. Workers who make at least $3,000 but don't pay taxes would get $300 rebates.
Does this mean that you only get the rebate if you end up paying in at the end of the year? Or does it mean if you payed any taxes in even if you get a full refund you still get a rebate?
God politicians suck. They should go back to the early USA where politicians took office without a salary and had a day-job to support themselves with. Imagine how much money the US would save!
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
I'm thoroughly confused.
*Assumption 1*
I paid in $10,000 in Federal taxes in the Calendar year of '07.
*Assumption 2*
When I file for year '07 I owe nothing because I balanced my withholdings to my deductions.
*Assumption 3*
I owe nothing and receive nothings after the April 15th deadline in '08.
*Assumption 4*
I get a $600 check in June of '08.
*Assumption 5*
All incomes remain similar through '08 and I owe nothing to the government for my '08 income taxes.
*Assumption 6*
So when I file for '08 income taxes I have to pay back the $600 I got in June?
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
They had previously stated in that working out this deal, they would be working in that this is money that would NOT have to be paid back. I don't know if that still holds true, but they were saying that a day or two ago. Will edit when I find the link...
from what i remember with the prior rebates you dont pay the amount of the rebate back you pay taxes on it. So if you get a rebate for $600 in '08 you will have to pay taxes on $600 when you file in '09 not pay back $600.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Actually, you may get some back. They said the rebates will extend past $75k but will gradually taper in amount.
Eitherway it's "take from the rich and give to the poor." Oh, and by rich I mean 75K a year. That's too much money for you, I need to take some of that and redistribute it.
Marx isn't dead. He's a live and kicking in the house. And by he I mean she (Pelosi).
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
We need a real financial analyst type in here who can clear this up. My understanding is that the refund may increase your taxable earnings for 2008. But those of you who pay taxes or own a house understand that taxable earnings is not a debit/credit sheet - it slides around to different brackets determining what your actual taxable income is. If this is the case with the refund, then no, you won't have to pay back the $600. Probably more like $50 for most people.
I also don't understand how some people are claiming Marxism because they've capped it at 75K a year. I thought that at least part of the impetus for this was to help out the banks in the subprime market, which is entirely peopled with low-income families. That's hardly "hey let's put the power back in the hands of the workers", (thats marxism for those who don't read much) but rather "lets help out the financial sector and win some votes from the poor and lower middle-class at the same time"
I also don't understand how some people are claiming Marxism because they've capped it at 75K a year. I thought that at least part of the impetus for this was to help out the banks in the subprime market, which is entirely peopled with low-income families. That's hardly "hey let's put the power back in the hands of the workers", (thats marxism for those who don't read much) but rather "lets help out the financial sector and win some votes from the poor and lower middle-class at the same time"
The goal is to give money to people who will spend it, not people who would save or invest it. Statistically that means lower income people. It isn't robbing the rich to give to the poor. it is giving to the poor so they spend it propping up the market which the rich are invested in heavily...so actually the wealthy benefit quite a bit as well.
Again going back to my original question - the last rebate of 2001 was just an advance on the tax credit. It worked out to me getting a tax credit of $300 in June 2001 instead of getting the tax credit in Feb 2002 as part of my refund when I filed my tax. So say I'm suppose to get $1000 credit for one kid, what I ended up with was $300 in June 01 + $700 in February 02 (filed tax and reported $1000 credit minus "yes I received $300 credit so subtract").
If I had adjusted my income witholding so that I'd get no refund based on the $1000 credit, I'd be screwed because then I would've owe $300 come tax time. It was more like play now, pay later. I'd like to know what the tax implication comes filing time in 2008 since it's a bigger chunk. This question is probably premature anyway as I'm sure we'll hear more about it days to come.
Btw, it was not considered taxable income but actual credit as it knocked off $300 off the bottom line of my refund. If it was taxable income, it wouldn't be that big a deal if I only pay say 25% tax on the amount.
If I had adjusted my income witholding so that I'd get no refund based on the $1000 credit, I'd be screwed because then I would've owe $300 come tax time. It was more like play now, pay later. I'd like to know what the tax implication comes filing time in 2008 since it's a bigger chunk. This question is probably premature anyway as I'm sure we'll hear more about it days to come.
Btw, it was not considered taxable income but actual credit as it knocked off $300 off the bottom line of my refund. If it was taxable income, it wouldn't be that big a deal if I only pay say 25% tax on the amount.
They havent released a full text version of the bill yet. Wait until the final passage in the House to ask this question.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter