Tax Rebate Approved!

[Hera]

I just saw that a tax rebate has been approved for $600-1200. Anyone think they might get a new bauble or anything?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782454?GT1=10755

 

[FrekeChild]

You mean to tell me that thats not why they got the idea of the tax rebate stimulus in the first place?

H3ll yes I''m going to get something shiny!

 

[Miranda]

Yep! I just want to support our ecomony!

 

[steph72276]

Well, if a diamond purchase will help the economy then I guess it is my duty as an American to go shopping! Woohoo!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/25/2008 7:51:17 AM
Author: steph72276
Well, if a diamond purchase will help the economy then I guess it is my duty as an American to go shopping! Woohoo!

Oh, a double ditto to that!!!

My husband mentioned it last night, and I said we''d better wait until we actually see it. But my wheels are already turning as to how I can help our economy!

 

[Erin]

This is a terrible idea. It basically sells out America and could throw us into a worse economic situation.

example of why...

The United States doesn''t collect x amount of money from taxes.
The tax money is usually spent on paying back all the money we lost due to lost manufacturing jobs to overseas & Mexico.

The people of the United States get their share of x amount and spend it on products that were manufactured overseas & Mexico.

Thus driving more money OUT of the United States and not having any effect on our national deficit.

Causing a deeper recession.

And people like us (in the manufacturing industry) suffer.

 

[steph72276]

Starset, what would be a better way in your opinion to stimulate the economy?

 

[vslover]

We don''t qualify because of the income cap, but I''m also concerned about the later ramifications of this...but if it helps....that''s great!

 

[Erin]

our GDP and Import/Export ratio sucks. so... place taxes and restrictions on the items manufactured overseas & in mexico.

eliminate NAFTA; create a flat tax on luxury items such as gas, cigarettes, and alcohol

decrease the military budget and remove troops from "peace-keeping / police" situations. but keep them in high security/terror situations such as Israel and the gaza strip - "peace-keeping" is the #1 cause of overseas military casualties

balance the budget with America first projects, not overseas initiatives

increased spending on clean energy projects aka nuclear & new oil refineries

and do not approve universal health care, do not take from social security, and do not drill for oil in endangered (Alaska) territories.

that would help.... and seriously, you need to look into the current crop of political candidates. they will make the changes that will help or hurt us in the next 5 years. and here I am getting off topic.... sorry.....

The problem is that rebates have no impact on incentives. They are just found money for people to spend without encouraging any additional work, saving or investment. Rebates don't even add anything to spending because of something called the permanent income hypothesis. People tend to treat tax rebates like windfalls and save most of it, which doesn't even add to national saving because it comes at the expense of lower government saving.

Think of all the money being spent on credit card bills and loans or to catch up on other outstanding bills. Essentially, that's money already spent.

 

[steph72276]

Date: 1/25/2008 10:07:01 AM
Author: Starset Princess

our GDP and Import/Export ratio sucks. so... place taxes and restrictions on the items manufactured overseas & in mexico.

eliminate NAFTA; create a flat tax on luxury items such as gas, cigarettes, and alcohol

decrease the military budget and remove troops from 'peace-keeping / police' situations. but keep them in high security/terror situations such as Israel and the gaza strip - 'peace-keeping' is the #1 cause of overseas military casualties


balance the budget with America first projects, not overseas initiatives

increased spending on clean energy projects aka nuclear & new oil refineries

and do not approve universal health care, do not take from social security, and do not drill for oil in endangered (Alaska) territories.

that would help.... and seriously, you need to look into the current crop of political candidates. they will make the changes that will help or hurt us in the next 5 years. and here I am getting off topic.... sorry.....


The problem is that rebates have no impact on incentives. They are just found money for people to spend without encouraging any additional work, saving or investment. Rebates don't even add anything to spending because of something called the permanent income hypothesis. People tend to treat tax rebates like windfalls and save most of it, which doesn't even add to national saving because it comes at the expense of lower government saving.


Think of all the money being spent on credit card bills and loans or to catch up on other outstanding bills. Essentially, that's money already spent.

While I agree on most of your points above, I don't think any of those things would provide an immediate lift to the economy...those are more long-term objectives. Although I agree that when it comes down to it, my practical side would win over and I would probably put the refund directly into savings or invest it. However, I feel that many people will use the money for things like down payments on cars, etc. that would throw money into our economy. We do need long-term solutions, but we also need to get the economy going again before we are in a full-blown recession.

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 1/25/2008 10:36:11 AM
Author: steph72276


While I agree on most of your points above, I don't think any of those things would provide an immediate lift to the economy...those are more long-term objectives. Although I agree that when it comes down to it, my practical side would win over and I would probably put the refund directly into savings or invest it. However, I feel that many people will use the money for things like down payments on cars, etc. that would throw money into our economy. We do need long-term solutions, but we also need to get the economy going again before we are in a full-blown recession.

I think since these are times of uncertainty and since the average American has $8k of debt; I think they will follow what you are doing Steph and not spend it, but I maybe wrong.

I am not debating if it is good or bad, that is just what I think will happen, since talking to others we all are worried about our investments and what will happen.

 

[steph72276]

Really the smartest thing people could do with the money is to make long term investments....stocks are way down, but the big businesses that have been around forever are not going anywhere and that is where people can make a fortune, so that is probably what we are going to do with it.

 

[movie zombie]

extending unemployment benefits would be of help: would happen faster than the rebate will and get dollars iinto the economy sooner. however, i think think the democrats have once again made a mistake. they parade their compromise around and whine that they didn''t get everything they wanted. if and when this economic package proves to be a failure, they will have their fingerprints all over it and probably get all the blame.

spending on food grown in the US and products manufactured in the US will stimulate the US economy. expenditures on items from out of the country will not. it will merely transfer more dollars to countries already holding too many of our dollars.

most people are going to pay they''re rent, the doctor bill, etc.

i find it difficult to understand how we''ve come to this: being a good American means spending.

our household won''t see a penny of the tax rebate. that''s ok. however, i''m afraid those that need the help the most won''t be getting it from this package.

movie zombie

 

[ringabling]

we get nothing. . . DH works his ar$e off and we''ll get nothing. . . not everyone gets it

 

[vslover]

I don''t understand being bitter about it...we don''t get it. DH makes too much. If you''re already making enough money to not need it, there''s no reason to be bitter about not receiving a handout. KWIM?

 

[meresal]

I majored in economics... and though I'm not sure that I completely agree with how they are going about this, but the intention is there.

I read this in a article: I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up, but this "rebate" is just a credit towards your next year tax return. They are tyring to push more money into the economy now, in hopes that we will recover enough by next years tax time, that a lower tax return wont hurt the economy.

And I understand that not everyone gets this rebate, but look at it this way... The families that have lower incomes, will more than likely return the money to the economy almost immediately. However, if you are in the higer income bracket, you will most likely put it into a savings acct (ie, IRA, etc). Chances are a lot of your income probably already goes there instead of back to the economy. Lots of people in their 40-50's are saving up so that in 10-15 years when you retire, you plan on spending it. Whereas, ppl in their 20-30's are still planning on buying houses and getting their lives together. Its common sense that they would give the money to the ppl that will spend it.

 

[Patiently_Waiting]

Due to the income cap, I''m not sure how much I will be getting (it graduates down from the $600 past a certain point), but I will probably end up putting it towards outstanding debt. I know that''s not the government''s intention, but probably the best place for me to make use of the money at this point (although a nice sparkly would be nice...

).

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/25/2008 11:23:56 AM
Author: meresal
I majored in economics... and though I''m not sure that I completely agree with how they are going about this, but the intention is there.

I read this in a article: I''m not sure if anyone has brought this up, but this ''rebate'' is just a credit towards your next year tax return. They are tyring to push more money into the economy now, in hopes that we will recover enough by next years tax time, that a lower tax return wont hurt the economy.

And I understand that not everyone gets this rebate, but look at it this way... The families that have lower incomes, will more than likely return the money to the economy almost immediately. However, if you are in the higer income bracket, you will most likely put it into a savings acct (ie, IRA, etc). Chances are a lot of your income probably already goes there instead of back to the economy. Lots of people in their 40-50''s are saving up so that in 10-15 years when you retire, you plan on spending it. Whereas, ppl in their 20-30''s are still planning on buying houses and getting their lives together. Its common sense that they would give the money to the ppl that will spend it.

If I am inncorrect in any of this please let me know.

I am still hoping that they will release a "Tax Rebate 2008: For Dummies". There is so much mumbo-jumbo flying around this agreement; I don''t know what to believe, and half the document and can''t even understand what they''re trying to accomplish.

 

[steph72276]

Could someone shed light on the income cap? One place I heard it was $110,000 and in this article it said $150,000. Thanks

 

[vslover]

The cap is $150K

 

[meresal]

It is $150,000 if married filing jointly

Under 150,000: Filing jointly= $1200 + $300 for any children

Single earning less than or equal to $75,000= $600+ $300 for any children

Single earning at least $3000/yr and don''t pay taxes (ie, less than $7500/yr)= $300


Hope this helps

 

[chiefneil]

Date: 1/25/2008 11:23:56 AM
Author: meresal
I majored in economics... and though I''m not sure that I completely agree with how they are going about this, but the intention is there.


I read this in a article: I''m not sure if anyone has brought this up, but this ''rebate'' is just a credit towards your next year tax return. They are tyring to push more money into the economy now, in hopes that we will recover enough by next years tax time, that a lower tax return wont hurt the economy.


And I understand that not everyone gets this rebate, but look at it this way... The families that have lower incomes, will more than likely return the money to the economy almost immediately. However, if you are in the higer income bracket, you will most likely put it into a savings acct (ie, IRA, etc). Chances are a lot of your income probably already goes there instead of back to the economy. Lots of people in their 40-50''s are saving up so that in 10-15 years when you retire, you plan on spending it. Whereas, ppl in their 20-30''s are still planning on buying houses and getting their lives together. Its common sense that they would give the money to the ppl that will spend it.

Except that even people that don''t pay taxes will be getting a "rebate". That''s objectionable on one level, but hard to argue against on a moral basis.

I don''t think there''s a good quick fix. The rebate is not a quick fix, it''s probably a long-term bad thing, IMHO. Long-term structural problems got us here, and those need to be addressed for a long-term solution.

I''m also above the cap for the rebate, but I would never complain about it. Although I could certainly put $1200 or whatever to good use, I don''t need it to put food on the table or keep my kids warm at night, unlike many people who do qualify.

 

[steph72276]

Thanks, that does help!

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/25/2008 12:09:47 PM
Author: chiefneil

Date: 1/25/2008 11:23:56 AM
Author: meresal
I majored in economics... and though I''m not sure that I completely agree with how they are going about this, but the intention is there.


I read this in a article: I''m not sure if anyone has brought this up, but this ''rebate'' is just a credit towards your next year tax return. They are tyring to push more money into the economy now, in hopes that we will recover enough by next years tax time, that a lower tax return wont hurt the economy.


And I understand that not everyone gets this rebate, but look at it this way... The families that have lower incomes, will more than likely return the money to the economy almost immediately. However, if you are in the higer income bracket, you will most likely put it into a savings acct (ie, IRA, etc). Chances are a lot of your income probably already goes there instead of back to the economy. Lots of people in their 40-50''s are saving up so that in 10-15 years when you retire, you plan on spending it. Whereas, ppl in their 20-30''s are still planning on buying houses and getting their lives together. Its common sense that they would give the money to the ppl that will spend it.

Except that even people that don''t pay taxes will be getting a ''rebate''. That''s objectionable on one level, but hard to argue against on a moral basis.

I don''t think there''s a good quick fix. The rebate is not a quick fix, it''s probably a long-term bad thing, IMHO. Long-term structural problems got us here, and those need to be addressed for a long-term solution.

I''m also above the cap for the rebate, but I would never complain about it. Although I could certainly put $1200 or whatever to good use, I don''t need it to put food on the table or keep my kids warm at night, unlike many people who do qualify.

I do agree with much of what you say... but these are the reasons I got out of Poli Sci and Law school, and switched to Economics. No politics and still all the fun.

As far as the non tax-paying ppl that will recieve checks. It just occured to me that the last time I made between 3000 and 7500 in one year was a part time job in high school. And how many high school students do you know that have already sent up savings accounts for their future... not many?? Once they recieve that check, they will be off to the nearest mall or car dealership. It''s all about the quickest way to get money flowing back in the economy. This also means that they don''t have to PRINT more money, which would drop the price of the american dollar even more than its current plunge.

There are pro''s and con''s everywhere...

 

[Beacon]

We won''t get anything either, which annoys me, even though maybe it shouldn''t. They did this once before, maybe around 2001, gave away either 300 or 600, I forget. I suppose most people will spend it and the people who receive it will respend it, etc. But seriously most people just don''t think ahead and what will happen 3-6 mos down the line? I don''t think these one time things do much. However if given a choice of mailing the money out to all of us or spending it on more ammo to blow in Iraq, this is ok.

I believe the cap is a phase out, meaning that for a couple the reduction starts if you earn 150K and then goes to zero rebate if you are over 175K

 

[shel]

Invest the rebate in a no-load, low-cost index fund that tracks the entire U.S. stock market and you''ll do just fine.

 

[Erin]

"being a good American means spending"... that is all we have left.

my view is that this is a result of 3 major changes in the course of american politics & world view.

#1 WWI & WWII Stage: America & the world were at war. if we help europe, then as a team we will win the war we become a superpower and gain massive buying and selling power. Everyone wants to buy american, the world wants to buy american, we are the team MVP. (US dollar value goes WAY up)

#2 Vietnam & Korean War Stage: America stands for freedom. we can fight any war under the pretenses that its "for freedom" and we show everyone we don''t need the european team anymore. We are the Captain of a team that has retired and we still want to keep having wars. In order to save face we create trade agreements with those countries lesser than us. we just bought our new best friends. (US dollar value sinks, but stays above most countries)

#3 Gulf War & Iraq War Stage: We are the annoying, showboating bully, who has no team. The team doesn''t want us, nobody wants our help. So now WE pick fights with the world. We also sell out to every piece of trash country that will pay attention to us and stroke our ego. they take our money and laugh at us. we have no products & we have no services. (US dollar value has hit rock bottom).

At this point in history, other large countries would invade smaller countries and claim their land, resources, and national treasury to expand their own sinking status. Then the large country folds all the countries that were picked on end up with a profit.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/25/2008 1:21:23 PM
Author: Starset Princess

''being a good American means spending''... that is all we have left.

my view is that this is a result of 3 major changes in the course of american politics & world view.

#1 WWI & WWII Stage: America & the world were at war. if we help europe, then as a team we will win the war we become a superpower and gain massive buying and selling power. Everyone wants to buy american, the world wants to buy american, we are the team MVP. (US dollar value goes WAY up)

#2 Vietnam & Korean War Stage: America stands for freedom. we can fight any war under the pretenses that its ''for freedom'' and we show everyone we don''t need the european team anymore. We are the Captain of a team that has retired and we still want to keep having wars. In order to save face we create trade agreements with those countries lesser than us. we just bought our new best friends. (US dollar value sinks, but stays above most countries)

#3 Gulf War & Iraq War Stage: We are the annoying, showboating bully, who has no team. The team doesn''t want us, nobody wants our help. So now WE pick fights with the world. We also sell out to every piece of trash country that will pay attention to us and stroke our ego. they take our money and laugh at us. we have no products & we have no services. (US dollar value has hit rock bottom).

At this point in history, other large countries would invade smaller countries and claim their land, resources, and national treasury to expand their own sinking status. Then the large country folds all the countries that were picked on end up with a profit.

actually it was the end of the cold war that had the biggest effect
Which was actually the end of ww2 because it was a continuation of ww2 in the first place.
All of the sudden Europe decided they didnt need the King of the hill that kept them safe for decades.
But whats funny after 2 wars too save them from domination they form the EU and give in without a shot. Must have been taking too many lessons from France.
Gee no wonder we had too pull em out of the fire twice.
We need a middle finger icon to express what I think of Europe.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/25/2008 10:59:24 AM
Author: movie zombie
extending unemployment benefits would be of help: would happen faster than the rebate will and get dollars iinto the economy sooner. however,

that would be the best thing they could do for the American people as a whole but under that plan not everyone gets a feely goody check.
Instead they come up with a plan that rapes single and poor people and buys more votes from the middle.

This spending will drive the dollar down farther when ya all buy your bling remember that you just raised the price of that bling for yourself because you got that check. (not talking about you specificaly MZ but too the group to consider)

This applies to a Republic this day as it did then:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. -- Alexander Fraser Tyler, 18th century Scottish historian, The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic


That is our future....
The founding fathers should have put it into the constitution that federal funds can never go too the states or directly too the people other than too buy goods and services needed to fulfill the assigned duties.
That would have avoided most of the mess we are in now.

 

[surfgirl]

When I read the first few posts on this thread I immediately thought "and this is why Social Security cannot be abolished...because people will just spend and not think about saving for the future..." Seriously, with all due respect to the initial few posters on this thread, if you have any outstanding expenses that need to be paid off (ie: credit card debt, school loans, bills, etc.), shouldn''t you be paying those off with this "extra money" rather than buying more jewelry? Now, if you have no outstanding debt then why not bank/save/invest that extra money and grow it for the future? Just a thought...I dont know if I''m getting any of this alleged rebate, and while I have no outstanding debt as of this moment, I''d probably take this money and put it away somewhere...Things are too unstable right now to not have every little bit "just in case"...You cant pay a bill with an earring...