Having 3 children, i don't think i deserve any more $$$ then a couple without any children..This alleged rebate should be for tax filers, regardless of income or children.

I don't think the rebates were set up by the House on the basis of who "deserves" what, it was a compromise between who needs it and what will stimulate the economy.

Unfortunately, everyone has to have their thumb in the pie, so we'll likely end up with a bigger mess once the Senate wades in too.

At our income level, a $500 rebate isn't all that meaningful. I think an income cap above 100-150K would have been appropriate.

I also don't think any of it's going to make all that much difference to the economy, but maybe it'll help certain people get elected.

Hey FF, i don't disagree with you,lol!!!! BUT, i'd take the rebate and donate it to a charity..What's good for the goose is good for the gander!!!

They are all too cowardly to do what they should do, make it need based. Actual need, not using income as an indicator of need, or just assuming everyone needs. Increase food stamps, increase unemployment, do fuel aid to the working poor and elderly poor.

I don't know this is such a small amount to me and a one time deal only in comparison to the marriage penalty taxing. I'd rather them fix the marriage penalty tax. That would give us more spending money to put into the economy and I think it affects a lot of classes of life excepth maybe those considered really low income.

I don't get why DH and I would have close to several thousand dollars extra a year if we got a divorce and filed our taxes as singles. Talk about family values for the country. I wish we could have children, but that doesn't seem to be happening so maybe we would be better to be divorced at this time. I've asked myself this every year since we got married a few years ago.

I'm sure we could find a way to spend that

Lyfia: "I don't get why DH and I would have close to several thousand dollars extra a year if we got a divorce and filed our taxes as singles..."

Lyfia..we are in the same boat. I can only assume the reason is the same for the AMT on the middle class..as it allows more $$$$ in terms of tax breaks for the wealthy.

After all, someone has to pay to run the country..why not the DINKS?

Whether or not there's a marriage penalty or marriage bonus depends on if you both work or one of you do, doesn't it?

All tax filers should file with their own income.
That would solve everything.

:)

Increase food stamps, increase unemployment, do fuel aid to the working poor and elderly poor.

Stimulate the economy via increased wealth transfer? Take care of everyones needs?

Didn't an entire Union of Some Special Republics try that approach?

At our income level, a $500 rebate isn't all that meaningful

I disagree - DH and I made over 250k last year, and I still want and could use the $500, thank you very much. My hourly salary is $65 and I get paid for each hour I work, and I almost never go out to lunch with my friend, who constantly asks me to, because I want that hour's pay.

need to agree with thetews, i would like my 500 bucks also..It would go right back into the local economy, 2 very nice dinners...

I almost never go out to lunch with my friend, who constantly asks me to, because I want that hour's pay.

That's kind of sad, but then, that's probably why I'll never be rich. I'd rather live life for the people and the experiences than see it in terms of dollars and cents.

I'd rather see NO one get that $500 or whatever it turns out to be. Where the heck is the money going to come from?

Um, shouldn't you be working, thetews, rather than wasting your time hanging out on here? At $65/hr, fifteen minutes on here would pay for a pretty nice lunch.

As for me, I'm mostly retired.

Speaking pragmatically, lower income people are more likely to spend their rebates immediately. But I understand that a lot of people who got the 2002 rebates used them to pay down their debts. Since the average debt load is higher now than it was then, that's even more likely to be the case this time.

While it's no doubt a smart move for individuals to use the rebates to pay down their debts, that isn't going to do much to stimulate the economy. That's one reason I think the effects of the rebates will be muted.

But they certainly will enhance reelection chances.

The marriage penalty has for the most part been legislated out of the tax rates. See the link below.

Sue36 - how would you have the government measure need instead of income?

Here is a link that might be useful: Marriage Penalty

"Stimulate the economy via increased wealth transfer?"

Every tax, rebate, etc., is a form of "wealth transfer".

Extending the number of weeks someone gets unemployment does not have a wealth measure. Just add weeks to the number people receive now. In a down economy it is harder to replace a lost job. I admit that with food stamps and fuel aid income or some similar measure would have to be used to determine eligibility. But you are talking about alleviating ACTUAL suffering, and not giving someone $1200 so they can go by a new big screen TV (made in China).

Food stamps, fuel, aid, additional unemployment would be spent, and most of it locally.

We're pretty average in terms of income EXCEPT for the 2007 tax year, when the proposed income limits would have affected us in terms of the tax rebate.

I sorta feel that since I have to write an approximately $30,000 check to the IRS in April to take care of my federal taxes for '07--not to mention whatever was withheld for the year from paychecks--it's not outrageous to expect that I should be getting my fair share of the rebate.

On the other hand, we also really don't need it, so it will probably just get invested. We already have furniture, nice TV, all that stuff and I can't pay cash for a car based on the rebate, so that's out too. Maybe a mini vacation somewhere? Gamble it away?

I dunno. Honestly, though, it will probably get put away for the children's college expenses...

sue36

I live in the Deep South, where people buy steak with food stamps and drive off in BMWs. I find it very hard to justify welfare when too many people (generations) have lived off it. Welfare should have a 6 (maybe 9) month maximum, mandatory drug testing, and a requirement of 5 resumes sent out a week. After that, people should have to suck it up and take a job they are over qualified for, even if it is bagging groceries. If you can't afford children without being on welfare, then you should buy birth control. (You should NOT have a child just to increase your paycheck.)

All that may sound mean, but you and I are paying for people to be lazy and irresponsible. Well that and the war. . . . and interest on our ballooning national debt.

As far as the rebate goes... It seems kind of irresponsible, but I guess it will be fun to have a little extra cash. I'm going to be using mine for a house down payment. (think the feds would be happy to hear that.)

Any word on whether the House or Senate bills are actual money we get to keep instead of an advance payment on a refund the next spring?

I believe that I explained this in detail on the earlier thread, but I'll repeat the short answer here. The tax rates for 2008 are being reduced under the proposed legislation and instead of having to wait until you file next year to receive the benefit of the lower tax rates, the IRS will send out the rebate checks this year. So, basically it is an advance on next year's refund. I'll include a link to the relative language in the House bill so you can read it yourself.

BTW, on a related note, if anyone is ever interested in reading the text of any House or Senate bill, or for that matter, just checking on the current status of any bill, you can go to thomas.loc.gov.

Here is a link that might be useful: House Bill

Oops, I see that the link above won't take you to the actual language because thomas only keeps it active for a limited time. If you want to read the text of the bill, use the link below to the Library of Congress's thomas home page, click on search by bill number, and then enter H.R. 5140.

Here is a link that might be useful: Thomas Home Page