if you didnt pay taxes last year (made less than $3000) you're entitled to a $300 "tax rebate". huh? isn't the point of a rebate to get back taxes that you actually paid??
no. if you made more than 3k but less than enough to pay income tax than you get 300. if you paid income tax but less than 75k (individual) than you get 600.
that still doesn't make sense to me though. I don't think you should be enetitle dto a rebate unless you actually paid it out first, otherwise it's just a handout.
So I make slightly more than 75K and I will get a big zero from the handouts? F***, F*** this congress.
I don't know for sure...but I'm guessing if not enough was withheld from your income to cover your tax burden for 2007, you're not getting one of these checks in full measure.
Where did the Dems blast him for it? I thought they were on board with that part of the tax cut. But beyond that, there was a huge difference in the 2001 recession and today. That one was a market-led / business spending recession. Consumer spending really never dropped, so there's wasn't much need for a consumer stimulus. This one is the opposite - it's a consumer/bottom-of-the-economy led recession. While I like the Sec179 temporary stimulus, that made more sense in the 2001 recession while the consumer stimulus tends to make more sense now. Of course, both will help - anytime you inject money, it helps - but in terms of biggest-bang-for-the-buck, the two recessions are complete opposites.
You're not eligible if you made less than $3000. However, if you make $3000, while you owe no income taxes, you did still did pay payroll taxes (SS & Medicare) so that's basically what's being refunded.
That's what I was thinking. He just assumes if you work that you're doing "okay" Nevermind the continual rising cost of gas, the cost of living and other unmeasurable stresses that has a number of people living check to check punching the clock. Just because you work doesn't mean you aren't trying to keep it together. Seems like he feels as though you just about have it made making 35K a year.
They weren't on board with any of it. Daschle was very public stating that a tax cut would eat up the entire surplus. Besdies, I don't see the Deomcrats screaming that the business tax cut helps the wealthiest 1% like they did last time.
I think you can argue that the business tax cuts could increase revenue because they are on the right side of the Laffer Curve. Our corporate tax rate is second only to Japan's among industrialized, reasonably capitalistic nations. You certainly can't make that argument for the personal tax cuts.
I don't remember the specifics at the time, but from these articles, it appears Daschle was actually at the forefront of pushing the $300 rebate: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_8_53/ai_73090169 The White House is gamely trying to put a positive spin on the Senate rejection of President Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut-Hey, at least we got the Democrats to agree to $1.2 trillion!-but in reality, this was a major blow to Bush's program: The tax plan is shrinking at the very time when it could-and should-be growing. Worse, the administration has become vulnerable to a clever Democratic counterattack: Senate minority leader Tom Daschle and House minority leader Dick Gephardt now favor giving every worker a $300 tax-rebate check this year. The catch is they want to all but scuttle the longer-term income-tax rate cuts that are central to the Bush plan. "Our tax plan provides more tax relief, now when it's needed most," Daschle has slyly declared. After Sept 11, Daschle tried to extend the $300 tax rebate to those who weren't eligible the first time: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/WM53.cfm The Daschle plan consists of five elements: ... Supplemental tax rebate checks for taxpayers who did not receive the full amount during the summer of 2001; In 2003, Daschle tried to push yet another $300 tax rebate: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901EED71739F936A15752C0A9659C8B63 Senate Democrats took on the administration's tax cut plan in earnest today with the release of a sharply different economic stimulus proposal, calling for a $300-a-person rebate check and $40 billion in aid to states and cities. The one-year plan, announced in Cleveland by Senator Tom Daschle, the minority leader, would spend $141 billion to stimulate the economy, in contrast to the 10-year $674 billion plan proposed by President Bush. Dems have certainly been against the longer-term tax cuts, but they've been the ones pushing these one-tax tax rebates, I think.
Dr. Paul owns this: <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rbXoxTXIrfo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rbXoxTXIrfo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Can someone tell me the percentage of families with income greater than 150K, maybe somewhere around 5%? Then why is everyone else getting a tax rebate, even the ones didn't pay any tax, except for those families? Is it a crime to earn more money in capitalism? Meanwhile, I am wondering whether stock options etc counted as family income. If not, those CEOs with $1 salary and 10 million options would get a check of $600 as well. If you are giving rebate to everyone else with tax money, except for that 5% people, who paid the most tax, it doesn't sound very fair to me. Or it's more of a stance for "against the rich"? The thing is, separated or combined, me and my wife is not going to get a penny, and we are not rich by any standard. Anyways, what can you do? The funny thing is, if I receive a rebate cheque, I would spend every penny on it, to "boost the economy". What if I promise not to buy anything imported? Can I get that rebate? Frankly, I never think a cheque for everyone (well, except for 5%) is making good use of the huge amount of money to stimulate economy. It's just a small bribe in election year.
The number is somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. The reason that the stimulus is going to only those with income below $150,000 is because this is a STIMULUS package, not a tax policy. The point of the package is to stimulate the economy out of the current economic downturn we are experiencing. So this package has nothing to do with "rewarding" those who earn money, its sole purpose is to stimulate the economy. Considering this, it is better to give rebates only to those with incomes below $150,000 for two reasons: 1) If rebates were given to everyone, the costs of the stimulus would be far too high 2) The less wealthy spend a far higher percentage of new income than do the wealthy. This is called the MPC - the marginal propensity to consume. Thus, in order to best stimulate the economy, considering point 1, it is best to give the money to those who are more likely to spend it - the poor. This is why many, including the CBO, called for increases in food stamp allowances and an extension of unemployment benefits. It's unfortunate that the Bush adminstration is too dogmatic and politically concerned to support that.
He doesn't own anything unless he gets his point across. Predictably no one reacts to his message. Oh well what do you expect from Foxnews audience. He would make one hell of a university lecturer.
I am all for increases in food stamp allowances and extension of unemployment benefits, or supporting business (not the financial sector) to survive the downturn. It's not called tax rebate program, but still mentioned as tax-rebate. Then I think it's not fair to exclude the 15% people who were taxed at heaviest. For argument's sake, how is 149,999 family going to spend every penny of that cheque and the 150,001 family are not? Why the 150,001 family has to be treated $1200 short for 2 more hard-earned money? What about location difference? 120K in NYC is probably poorer than 80k in Houston. As for reasoning for cost, I don't think 15% more would all of a sudden becomes too big. What about cut in half, instead of the full $600?
