• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Planned Tax Rebate

I say, "We give all Americans one billion dollars, tax free" ........

They/we can live off the interest, and surely this will "boost" the economy.

Just get the 'mint' into overdrive........sure the dollar will drop like a rock, but I'll be "Rich........Beotch"

For a while. ;)
 
XBoxWarrior said:
I say, "We give all Americans one billion dollars, tax free" ........

They/we can live off the interest, and surely this will "boost" the economy.

Just get the 'mint' into overdrive........sure the dollar will drop like a rock, but I'll be "Rich........Beotch"

For a while. ;)
Click to expand...


You are the only one seeing reality. Well done!
 
shadron said:
In plain language, eligible people get a credit of up to $600 against their Subtitle A (federal income) tax in 2008. No "advance" (as you showed in your quote; must have been some other version of the law); just "credit". Is that plain enough, or do we need a Funk and Wagnall's to define the word?
Click to expand...

I will use the definition of credit according to Subtitle A which is the only relevant definition.

Did you read Subtitle A which I posted?


Everything I quoted was from the same law which I linked.

It is an advance of credit which is already due.

There is no new credit!
 
69dodge said:
They are just the titles of subsections (f) and (g). Have you read the contents of those sections? And subsection (a), too?
Click to expand...

Yes, did you?



That list is not the meaning of "refundable credit". It is a list of examples of refundable credits. The meaning of "refundable credit" is that it is a tax credit that can reduce below zero the amount of tax you owe (with the result that the government ends up owing you money instead of the other way around). The meaning of "tax credit" in general is that it is a reduction in the amount of tax you owe.

The bill we are discussing creates a new tax credit that didn't exist before, so of course it doesn't appear in an old list of tax credits.



They are creating a new tax credit for 2008, which they're allowing you to take, in advance, in 2007 instead.



I still don't know why you think that. Is it really because you've read the bill carefully, and that's what you think it says?
Click to expand...


Believe what you will.

You will remember this conversation on April 15th. :cool:
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
It is already 2008, did you get your check?
Click to expand...

No. It is already 2008, and I didn't file my 2007 tax return yet either. The year in which I get the check isn't necessarily the year for which my tax liability is reduced by the credit.
 
Bump, bump, Jerome.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Believe what you will.

You will remember this conversation on April 15th. :cool:
Click to expand...

And you, Jerome. What line on your return charged you the money that you'll be receiving this month? Or do you think it will be charged next year? Or the year after? While Intuit is not the official IRS spokesmen, here is what they said in their tax package FAQ on the rebate:

Will I have to give the rebate back at some point? Or will it be taxed next year and reduce my refund?

No.

However, you might have to report it on your 2008 tax return. But it will NOT be taxed.

While most people refer to it as a rebate, the IRS is calling it a "stimulus payment."

It’s money the government wants Americans to spend to boost the economy. The money will be borrowed by the government and added to the federal deficit.
Click to expand...

Jerome said:
It is an advance of credit which is already due.

There is no new credit!
Click to expand...

It most definitely not the same thing as the tax advance that GH Bush gave us in 2001, which simply advanced money against what would have had to be returned to us 6 months later anyway, as you insisted in this thread in February. In the tax return of that year was a specific line item subtracting the amount advanced from your returned amount. You were wrong. It didn't come out of my pocket last year, this year or next year. It will, of course, eventually come out of my pocket as we pay the interest on the debt, and presumably eventually the principle, but by then it'll be your problem, Jerome, as I will be out of here long before it ever becomes opportune, as it was in the 90's, to try to balance the budget again.
 
Last edited:
And yet...

In Jerome's defense, the first time I read about the rebate -- immediately after it was announced -- I also read that it was going to be an advance on our tax return, just like the earlier rebate. I think I looked at the official IRS site, but I don't believe I quoted it anywhere, so I wouldn't swear to it.

However, earlier this month, after a discussion IRL, I went to the IRS site, and they said what you're quoting now.

Could the government have changed its plan after public hue and cry? (Or the economy's obvious decline towards recession for the past few months?)
 
I don't think so, BigSis. It would not be a lift to the economy if it had to be directly recouped in any reasonable time. Congress passed it right quickly after Bush proposed it, and then it was a done deal. Had they gone back and made a simple $150 billion change so they could get the money back directly, someone would have noticed, I'm sure. :)

If you read back through the thread you will see that Jerome was adamant about his opinion, after being quoted to from the legislation by myself and others, and indeed, after quoting it himself. It plainly says what it says: the amount is a credit, which in IRS/accountant speak is the negative expression of a direct tax amount. There are other credits you can claim which directly mitigate taxes at that 100% level. Those amounts which mitigate against your tax liability (income), on the other hand, are called tax deductions, and all these terms have specific meanings in the legislation and tax law.

I probably wouldn't have even bothered to come back to this if Jerome hadn't been so bull-headedly stubborn in his beliefs. He didn't say he'd look into it and get back; he didn't say he was damned sure, but would check (which I myself most certainly did); no - he was right and the gates of hell would not withstand his word. He spoke of it as if it were a federal conspiracy theory, that they are tricking us with it just like they did in 2001 (which also is not true; GHBush was forthright in telling everyone exactly what he was doing, as I remember it, and I'm not an elder or junior Bush fan). If Jerome sends the money back to the treasury, I will then admire his stubbornness; but in any case, he is wrong.
 
Last edited:
shadron said:
I don't think so, BigSis. It would not be a lift to the economy if it had to be directly recouped in any reasonable time. Congress passed it right quickly after Bush proposed it, and then it was a done deal. Had they gone back and made a simple $150 billion change so they could get the money back directly, someone would have noticed, I'm sure. :)

If you read back through the thread you will see that Jerome was adamant about his opinion, after being quoted to from the legislation by myself and others, and indeed, after quoting it himself. It plainly says what it says: the amount is a credit, which in IRS/accountant speak is the negative expression of a direct tax amount. There are other credits you can claim which directly mitigate taxes at that 100% level. Those amounts which mitigate against your tax liability (income), on the other hand, are called tax deductions, and all these terms have specific meanings in the legislation and tax law.

I probably wouldn't have even bothered to come back to this if Jerome hadn't been so bull-headedly stubborn in his beliefs. He didn't say he'd look into it and get back; he didn't say he was damned sure, but would check (which I myself most certainly did); no - he was right and the gates of hell would not withstand his word. He spoke of it as if it were a federal conspiracy theory, that they are tricking us with it just like they did in 2001 (which also is not true; GHBush was forthright in telling everyone exactly what he was doing, as I remember it, and I'm not an elder or junior Bush fan). If Jerome sends the money back to the treasury, I will then admire his stubbornness; but in any case, he is wrong.
Click to expand...
Okay, I admit that I misread some of the prior postings, but I also submit that some of the language in the bill is just frickin' impossible to untangle (at least to my mind).

I'm also wary of the use of the term "advance refund" freely bandied in subsection (g). That just seems literally to say: "we're giving you in 2008 what you might have received in 2009 if we hadn't already given it to you."

Perhaps I am far too confident that the vexatious gubmint will figure out a way to dig deep into my left pocket, while apparently filling my right. Perhaps I don't trust a word any of them say. And until the day I die, I will remain suspect that some year on a tax return they'll ask me to enter the amount of my spring 2008 "rebate" on line 467(y) and subtract it from the amount obtained after viewing (a) page 1429 of the tax tables, (b) some ridiculously complicated calculation, or (c) my bank balance.

I don't trust the IRS one tiny bit, and I can't imagine anything anybody can say that will make me change my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom