ok..i'll bite...why is his tax cut useless??? i certainly didn't see it as useless. and i dont think tax cuts are what the israelis had in mind when they used the word "useless"
MadMax, are you kidding? That was no tax cut....it was an advance. That so-called tax cut actually increases your income, which you have to claim on your return. Well, if you cashed the check.
I cashed it... but are you talking about the cut itself or the early refund checks??? you are aware that tax rates have been cut, right???
I meant the tax checks that we received as part of the tax cut. I wouldn't use the term "refund" but "advance". If it (the tax check) were not an advance, I'd assume that we would not have to file it as income, right?
Let's look at the 1040EZ form & instructions; I picked the EZ because it's the simplest. From the instuctions (page 8, under the "What's New" column): Advance Payment Not Taxable Any amount you received as an advance payment on your 2001 taxes is not taxable and should not be reported on your return. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the $300 or $600 you received increases your taxable income, it clearly does not. The purpose of the Rate Reduction Credit (line 7 on 1040EZ) is to give the people who, for whatever reason, DID NOT RECEIVE/CASH a check. Let's look at the instructions for the Rate Reduction Credit (1040EZ instructions page 14): Before you begin: If you received (before offset) an advance payment of your 2001 taxes equal to the amount ($300-single, $600 married) shown below for your 2001 filing status, stop. You cannot take the credit because you received the maximum amount of the credit. You DO NOT have to pay an extra $300 if you cashed your check; you DO NOT have to claim it as income. I'm not a CPA, it's possible I could be misinterpreting this; someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Okay, I'm a moron. (Applause) You don't have to claim that as income. It was an advance, right? You had the option of cashing it or returning it (I guess) then taking the credit on your return?
Max, There would still be private healthcare and health insurance. Since you used England, they have about 13% of the population using private insurance as well. You could, therefore, get that hip replacement surgery faster. There are always ways for those with money to get good care in any system.. The difference is that in England, a poor person will have to wait a bit, whereas in the US they might not get it at all.
LOL! Well, we've had the one payer system for 35 years and I haven't noticed any Bolsheviks lurking in the shadows yet. Seriously, it makes sense to have certain services delivered by private enterprise and it makes sense for others to be managed publicly through the government. Americans wouldn't think that the army or local policing should be privatised I'm sure, or that tax collection should be privatised. Health care is simply more efficiently and effectively delivered by a public system. All governments want to provide a good basic level of health care to their citizens. This is a fundamental human rights issue. A private system, however, tends to have gaps that people fall through. In a public system, everybody is covered. If you're a citizen, you're covered, period. Private systems have more redundancies and competing groups spend more time and resources simply competing. Health care is very capital intensive, and government can borrow or otherwise access capital at a much lower cost. Public hospitals also don't pay taxes. This is not to say public health care has no issues. If you're curious about ours you can have a look at this link. http://www.healthcarecommission.ca/ MM: The waiting list issues are often exaggerated, but they do exist. Governments short of money have been trying to pinch healthcare spending, and some problems have resulted. Our health care system is near and dear to us though, and any government that plays too many games with it is going to get some major heat. That's why this government established this commission to investigate reforms, and appointed a person from a different party to head it. But I digress. Back to the Bush issue …
I don;t think you had the opportunity to return it. Basically folks received their rebate/advance based on their income that was reported in either 1999 or 2000 (I forget which). When you are filing your 2001 return, your income may have increased or decreased which would affect the size of your rebate/advance. You enter the amount you received and if it wasn't enough, you get what you are "owed". If it was too much, good for you. You do not have to pay the difference. In a nutshell, there is nothing negative on your 2001 tax return due to the rebate/advance. A recent episode of The West Wing (I realize it is a fictional show), further confused this issue.
grizzled and rimbaud -- thanks for the info. I'm certainly not happy with the fact there are many in this country who can't receive treatment. you've read my concerns...i'm open to the possibilities. I would just want to make sure the quality of healtcare was left intact. And that the profit motive for the smartest people in the country lured people to become doctors.
