![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-76659-100x100.png\")
So the $600 will never lower any of my tax returns? Is that what I'm to understand?
So the $600 will never lower any of my tax returns? Is that what I'm to understand?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6979-100x100.png\")
Does this have anything to do with Biff stealing the Sports Almanac from Martie?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-90026-100x100.png\")
Let's hope no one steps on a butterfly and changes the presidency in the future. :p
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-177822-100x100.png\")
@Toof_75_75: Yes. Your 2008 taxes have been reduced by $600. Instead of waiting until next year for you to get that extra $600, they are sending it to you a year in advance.
I'm all for lowering taxes... but the guv'ment needs to reduce the spending as well.
@cmdr.sass: As far as I am concerned, tax policy should take no more than one or two pages. It should be that simple. Something fair, no loopholes, etc.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-10718-100x100.png\")
So, is this a sort-of non-apology for the previous article, which was hugely confusing on this point?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-5270-100x100.png\")
The complicatedness of this has nothing to do with the fact the current president's term is up this year, does it?
Whatever ill effects taking on this much more deficit spending will cause won't show up until next administration, but I'm sure that's not the reason for setting it up this way.
People are smart enough to connect \"Bush gave me $600 in 2008\" and \"...and now the dollar is worthless in 2009\", aren't they?
/no, they aren't. you've seen how many people voted for Huckabee?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-210139-100x100.png\")
@Mr. Gunn: I really think this last less to do with the final year of the Bush presidency and a whole lot more to do with the fact that there are national elections at the end of this year. As people have said, this is more of a political stimulus package than an economic stimulus package.
And can we please stop attacking Bush on this issue? In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats aren't exactly moaning about deficit spending right now...
@Mr. Gunn: You know what, I bill myself as a conservative... but I am convinced that, if we keep going down this path of massive government spending (on both sides of the aisle) and then taking money away from the people who earn it... then nobody from either party is going to fix it.
We need to get real people elected into office, on all levels... not lawyers looking to make loopholes, not people who take campaign money from people in exchange for promises... there should be a new law that states that candidates must campaign with ZERO dollars donated.... or they should be allowed to raise a pawltry sum (maybe a million) so that they can set up a campaign office, and a website. That's all you need. Let the media do your campaigning for you... talk radio for the conservatives, CNN for the liberals.
Then real people, using real common sense, can run this country. Real people electing real people... kind of sounds like the original intent?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
To quote my accountant on Monday \"No, it's free money\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1713-100x100.png\")
Any chance they could send it back to my 1783 self, then deposit it in a savings account for me?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257922-100x100.png\")
Today:
\"False reports have circulated that the stimulus checks are an advance on your tax rebate and were going to cut into your tax rebate.\"
Headline from 2/9
\"$600 Rebates Are A Tax Credit Advance\"
Maybe time to do some house cleaning, consumerist!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-284669-100x100.png\")
@AD8BC: So they are really just giving my money back to me? I am borrowing money from my future self?
At least the dollar is worth more now than it will be in 2009...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-186777-100x100.png\")
@youbastid: How is the 2/9 headilne inaccurate again?
Granted, if it said 'newly fabricated 2008 tax credit advance' It would be more accurate, but I got it just fine the first time.
Seems to me the problem is people making authoritative comments which are devoid of actual facts.
Hmmm...I'm confused. Due to a severance package/unemployment/string of wacky consulting jobs, we ended up just over the couples threshold, and will probably only get $750 or so instead of $1200. I expect that we'll be well under that threshold this year on our income - does that mean they'll owe me the rest when we do our taxes next year? Probably not...
@missbehave: Exactly. It was a one-time tax reduction for 2008. They just wanted to get your money to you before the elect.... uh, I mean, they wanted to get the money to you quick so you can spend it and save our economy.
Actually, Youbastid, their stock split enough times that you would still have made out like a bandit.
@vllygrrl: Ooh, good question. I know if you have kids this year, you'd get the rest of the credit come next spring. I don't know if that extends to wages. I would think it would have to (they just use your 07 to extrapolate, but the actual credt rules apply to your 08 return).
The neat thing is that if they overpay you in 07, you get to keep the excess in 08. Good fun for those of us in line for promotions in the coming year :)
@m4ximusprim3: It's not inaccurate, per se, but you can tell by reading the comments that the word choice was causing much of the confusion.
@ MAX FISCHER PLAYER
Nice. I am still laughing at your comment. That sums everything all up in one.
@youbastid: Not innacurate. But improperly worded. Maybe not on purpose, at least here.
But the rest of the media, in order to create a big fuss, probably did word it that way intentionally.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116599-100x100.png\")
this is why time travel is bad
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68654-100x100.png\")
@AD8BC: i once simple met a farmer from ohio in a pittsburgh bar that said one of the most profound things i've ever heard:
\"a politician knows all the problems, but only a statesman has solutions. too bad this country hasn't had one since thomas jefferson\".
@mac-phisto: What about Lincoln? Wilson? FDR? I agree with the first part of the statement, but the second....eh, not so much.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-240645-100x100.png\")
@Buran: No, nothing is smaller. Its pretty much free money.
Next year you'll get a $600 credit which will reduce the amount of tax you owe by $600. They're just giving it to you now in check form.
Say you over paid this year by $1000, you get a $1000 refund. Next year you do the same (you should really look at changing your w-4). You over pay $1000 and you get a tax credit of $600. Since you already got that $600 you're only going to get the $1000 which is exactly what you'd of gotten anyway.
\"So the government is making me borrow from myself?\"
Well, do you know who pays taxes and redeems gov't debt. Yep, the taxpayer. So this statement is actually 100% true.
\"false reports\"?
You mean, the Consumerist posted a bunch of confusing crap. And you're still confusing things. A tax REBATE is NOT THE SAME as a tax REFUND.
Please stop reporting on it!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-88225-100x100.png\")
Who needs time machines when you have Congress :)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-101046-100x100.png\")
If you look closely at the checks, they will be dated 2009.
Okay. Now that we ave been on topic for a while, lets talk about immigration some more.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-252038-100x100.png\")
Ok,,, just please someone explain this to me. Since I usually end up paying back about $150 to the government every year (instead of getting a refund like most people).... how does this effect me?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-112762-100x100.png\")
I'm completely confused now. This didn't help me understand it at all. But then I'm pretty slow about this stuff.
great way of putting it. Don't worry people, the government is dumb, but not dumb enough to ask for the money back next year!
I'm still confused about one thing: I only pay about $600 in taxes a year and I end up getting it all back. So does this mean I won't get anything back next year? Because that's what it sounds like.
@Catperson: As long as you make $3000, you will get a rebate check this year. Next year, you will still get your typical refund. The rebate is in addition to your refund.
The explanation focuses on how, if you your tax calculation next year hows you're entitled to a bigger payment, you'll get the additional money with next year's rebate. An example is if you get another child.
What it doesn't say is what if next year's calculations shows you're entitled to a smaller payment. You'll have to pay the difference to the IRS. They have effectively gotten you to spend now the money you're expecting to get next year, which later it turns out you're not entitled to get after all.
Is this possible, for example if you lose one or more child (through death or the child simply getting old enough that they no longer qualify as a dependent)?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-69858-100x100.png\")
Who would have thought that Congress could complicate something as simple as tax policy? /sarcasm