Hahah the first thing I thought about doing with my $1200 is using my airline miles to fly to Mexico and staying in a nice resort for 3 days. I need to thaw out.

Suppose I'll be pumping the Mexican economy...

If I don't do that, then I'm saving it to pay off the difference between the price my home sells and what I owe to realtor & mortgage company. Fun!

First of all I don't think the rebate is a good idea and is fiscally irresponsible.
But since it's a done deal, I agree that it should be adjusted for the cost of living. Depending on where you live making 150K differs substantially. A lot of employers adjust salaries to the areas cost of living.

ladybugbaby, I was basing my statement on what qdognj posted in the second post up above. His info says that if you have no kids and make more than 100k, than you don't get the money. The 150k cap is if you have 3 kids.

"I have absolutely no sympathy for couples earning over $150k who may not get a rebate."

Well, I don't see why kids should count in the equation. If you want to have them that is fine, but I don't see why those without children should have to subsidize your choices. People without children already spend a huge portion of their taxes towards others people's kids (property taxes, we pay higher taxes because we have fewer deductions so we are effectively subsidizing those with children). The rebate should be for TAXPAYERS. If you don't pay taxes (you are a child, you don't work for some other reason) then you shouldn't be getting a tax rebate because you don't pay taxes.

You should also consider that those in the approx. 100-150k bracket frequently get hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Where is this money coming from, BTW? Is there is money tree is Washington? I thought we had a deficit?

For those who don't feel sorry for the 150K people, I will tell you it ain't all its cracked up to be. Don't feel sorry for them, but don't get on your high horse.

If I made 100K in NY area (long island) and I bought my house 6-10 years ago, I'd be fine. I'd have bought my current house for around $180K and I'd be sitting pretty now.

I bought my 2 BR house 3 years ago for $350K had to put 20K into it and its still the cheapest house in the area. I make around $100K I am not stuggling terribly, but I'm not doing "well". I am not driving a lexas and taking lavish vacations.

No one who makes the mean income in my area, can afford the median house. the avg household income in my area is somewhere between 60-80 per the stats I looked at when I purchased. The only reason people can afford it is because they bought back in the day when the houses were 150-300 instead of 400-800.

I work myself into the ground to make my salary and own a home with my wife at the young age of 28. Most people in my area my age can't afford to buy unless both have high paying jobs.
I make it under the cut for this, but those making a little more are not doing that much better if they're starting out.

I understand how this tax cut is supposed to work, and I still think its very irresponsable that we run a government that has a 250B deficit for the current year and we're giving money away.

We won't be getting a rebate nor did we anticipate one. Since the plan is designed to stimulate consumer spending the rebates are targeted towards those who are most likely to recirculate the rebate dollars into the economy. Those with children fall into that category.

This Tax Rebate plan is not about providing an equal disbursement to every taxpayer in the country. It's purpose is to stave off economic recession. It does no good to give DH & I a $1,200 rebate just to have us stash the cash. Those who have children do more consumer spending...just the folks Washington is targeting.

As for the cost of living adjustments (or lack thereof)...that also makes sense to me. For example, Detroit is a lower cost of living area than my home in Mystic, CT. Well, Detroit is also experiencing much tougher economic times than Mystic. So, it makes sense to get more purchasing power into Detroit; hence more economic stimulation. In balance, the rebates will target both people & areas that are in the more dire need of a boost to the economy.

Don't forget, there's a business component to this Rebate Plan also. Hopefully, those business dollars/incentives that end up in distressed areas will help to boost employment.

I'm uncertain if the stimulus plan is going to make much of a difference. Personally, I think it's too little, too late. We'll know soon enough. I believe this is the first time such a plan has been used PRIOR to an official recession (2Qs of negative GDP). Still, seems to me it would have worked better had the checks been in the mail prior to the holiday shopping season because, again, the targeted group also does the most holiday shopping. Heck, DH & I don't even exchange gifts anymore & haven't in years...not uncommon amongst our peer group.

/tricia

Has anyone found an official article stating that in fact AGI will be used to determine who receives a rebate and how much?

I don't know if it's official, but this article mentions that the rebates will be based on AGI.

"As a taxpayer, and living in a high cost/wage area, i find it unfair."

I am incredulous that you want my taxes to support your decision to live in a high cost area. Why not demand that tax brackets be lower for your area while you're at it?

mfbenson, why should only some TAXPAYERS get the money??? It should be ALL or none...I believe your income should have zero to do with it..
and you comment about "demand tax brackets be lower for your area" is an assinine remark...I pay my taxes just like you, and am not complaining about what i pay..

"I am incredulous that you want my taxes to support your decision to live in a high cost area. Why not demand that tax brackets be lower for your area while you're at it? "

Its not your tax dollars, they're mine. If i live in a high cost area and my salary is higher because of it, I am paying more taxes than you are, both as a percentage of my income and as a total dollar amount. The incentive is coming out of the tax dollars that I paid in.

this is the government returning money (they don't actually have) to the taxpayers in an unequal distribution, don't think its anything different.

People look at it as the government giving us a gift, as if the government is some foreign entity bringing good fortune to us. This is the administration we pay for, borrowing billions of dollars we have to pay back, to give to the american public to spend.

How is this so differenet from everyone borrowing against their inflated values of their houses?

First nothing is set and changes are already happening. If we get the rebate it will go into a savings account.
2nd, You will have to pay income taxes on the rebate, we did before, and we will again.
I would prefer the government to stop all companies to export their jobs out of the country, put a 20% import tax on products coming into the country from these companies, work on the illegal problem, no free medical, no medicaid, no Social security unless they earned it, and do not allow any child from another country to automatic become a citizen if there are born here.
Help more small/medium, family owned,US businesses to prosper and work on the drug and alcohol problem. Do away with the child left behind act and stop teacher tenure unless they pass test to show they can teach and teachers should receive the same no matter where they teach- and find out why many of the inner city kids don't receive the same quality of education as the other kids do.
Sorry, these are just some my concerns, not rebates which mean nothing, except it raises the amount of income tax I have to pay.

I do not understand why some people who decide not to have children complain about having to pay taxes in order to provide children with the same benefits they received. I have a child, but even when I didn't I was happy to pay property taxes and the "extra" income tax in order to have educated citizens take care of society when all of us are too old to do so anymore. Having children you can provide for is not a selfish choice, and those who choose not have children should be happy that not everyone feels the same as they do. Someone's got to pay into Social Security.

What I want to know is if the money is free, or is it an "advance" on the tax refund that we don't get because we do not send the government more than we owe? Last time we got the tax money to spend, we simply added it back into our next estimated tax payment so that we would not be in trouble for owing too much tax the next April.

We don't need the money and will use it to pay down a credit card or to pay into my IRA. I guess investing it in the market will help the economy, but I don't think paying toward a bill will stimulate anything.

hsc4 -- I don't mind paying taxes to support our schools. It just annoys me that by not having kids, I get ripped off when it comes to things like this.

The whole point of this is to help stimulate the economy, no? Those of us that make more money can help do that, too. And again, my husband and I may make more money than someone in BFE, but I live in an extremely expensive area, and are no more than middle class no matter what our paycheck stub says. One of the groups that this is supposed to be going to is the middle class, right?

"why should only some TAXPAYERS get the money???"

Easy answer: This is intended to stimulate the economy. People above the threshold have enough money and don't need that check as much as poorer people. I certainly don't need those $300, $600 or $1200. I wouldn't go out and buy more stuff so giving it to me wouldn't stimulate the economy. At least not in the short term. I'd just save it.

Someone who makes $200k/yr can be assumed to have plenty of disposable income to buy what they want, regardless of this payout. For this person, $600 is chump change disappearing in the income noise. Even in NYC.

That's not the case for someone making only $50k. Even if they live in BFE.

What is BFE?

First - children, seniors, town/city services - we all pay for them; it makes our community what it is. If you don't have kids/seniors/use services and don't want to pay for them live in a town that has crappy services - but don't expect top dollar for your house.
Second - [i]This is intended to stimulate the economy. People above the threshold have enough money and don't need that check as much as poorer people. I certainly don't need those $300, $600 or $1200. I wouldn't go out and buy more stuff so giving it to me wouldn't stimulate the economy. At least not in the short term. I'd just save it.[/i]
Speak for yourself just because someone makes more than the threshold does not mean they would not put the money to good use.
Third - if my husband and I work our butts off and make a good living - what do we get - nothing. People that MAY be less than hard workers - what do they get - a full rebate. Middle class - screwed again.

I live in a very high cost of living area, our taxes are very high (20,000.00) we have three children and you are telling me that I don't deserve any kind of tax rebate. I don't want to hear move - we own a business in town so moving is not an option. I am not complaining, it is what it is, but I take offense in people saying I don't deserve any $$ (especially since we pay so much in taxes)

This whole thing is ridiculous in the first place. No one should be getting anything. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

well said, lisacdm..I fully support your opinion..

Well, we've got the two camps that were about predictable:
1) The angry the tax cut & rebate is only being applied to those with low income.
2) Those who think anyone with too much income (as defined by them) don't need anymore of their money.

Well, ok, count me as the third group: Those who can't understand why 30% of the money from a tax cut is going to people who don't pay taxes.

As for those who aren't getting anything: Welcome to being "rich". The next time you hear the mantra of how we'll only raise taxes on the "rich" remember where you are. Remember when you vote who like to sock it to the "rich"

America: Where paying taxes makes you rich.

Lucinda,

I was wondering the same thing because I am also a stay at home mom of 5 children and here is what I came up with off of ABC News website:

"McPherson: According to examples provided by the Treasury Department, the rebates depend on a married couple's joint adjusted gross income, not on whether both parents are working. For instance, a married couple with two children and an adjusted gross income of $80,000 and income tax paid in excess of $1,200 would receive a total rebate of $1,800: $1,200 for the couple and $600 for the two children. "

They have to make the cutoff somewhere - 150K is actually pretty nice. Is a few more bucks a month gonna make you go hungry or miss a water bill when you pull 149K? I doubt it. What is really nice is making around 150K with some kids living in a low cost of living area...

Is a few more bucks a month gonna make you go hungry or miss a water bill when you pull 149K? I doubt it.

And if you're missing water bills and collecting food stamps is catching up going to stimulate anything? Somehow I doubt it.

A cutoff of 150 might be fine. Tax cut refunds to people who don't pay taxes? Welfare. An economy stimulated by welfare? First time for everything.

It would have been stimulating to get my driveway replaced. Oh well.

So SS tax is not tax ???

WE will not get anything and that does not bother me at all. I hope my son will at least get the measly $ 300.00. Yes, he did not pay any income tax but he did pay SS tax on his whole earnings and he is not on food stamps. He is US Marine who served 7 months last year in Iraq. He earned 18K putting his life in danger and thanks to US tax laws he does not have to pay income tax on pay earned in Iraq but he does pay SS tax on it. His income taxable earnings were 5K last year. I think he should get the full $ 600.00. If he has not earned it then who?

This plan just goes to show that this administration is all about the "quick fix" that's actually not a fix at all. It was shown after 9/11 that the "rebate" didn't do anything to boost the economy. What's really needed are hard decisions that are not always going to be popular but will actually make things better in the long run for everyone.

How about a real Energy policy? Or making sure that jobs stay here and are not farmed out to other countries? Or give major incentives to businesses who are working on alternate fuel sources? Also give serious rebates to homeowners who have made their home more energy efficient ($500 is ridiculous) or are using solar. And then there's health care - yikes. And oil prices, and groceries . . . It's a bit overwhelming.

Hey, doesn't this President supposedly have a business degree? Maybe Cracker Jack University didn't offer courses in basic business 101 (or economics 101).

What I don't understand is why someone who hasn't paid any taxes in the first place would get a tax refund?

Bentruler, Actually I'm with Fairygirl43 - this rebate scheme is fairly ridiculous; I doubt it will have the intended effect. I think Huckabee put it best (and I'm as far from Huckabee as poosible -an atheist liberal):

One of the concerns that I have is that we'll probably end up borrowing this $150 billion from the Chinese," he said. "And when we get those rebate checks, most people are going to go out and buy stuff that's been imported from China. I have to wonder whose economy is going to be stimulated the most by the package. "

So talking about who should get how much is not really that interesting.

Fairygirl,

I completely agree with you. This rebate is completely a dumb idea. People are so desperate & broke now that majority will just use it to pay for gasoline for work, instead of putting it on a charge card. The bandaid of a few bucks will just keep them afloat another couple days. THAT is not going to stimulate the economy. We are in a crisis, people.

Why doesn't Bush take that money & use it to REPAIR/BUILD bridges that are falling down all over the US? We can use OUR OWN steel, concrete, PEOPLE etc...Also, the alternative ENEGRY would be a fantastic idea. Let's keep the jobs in the US! Do you know how many good paying jobs would be created throughout the US? This would spill over to all kinds of businesses.

Then again, Bush wouldn't do that because he wanted to outsource our road work to S. America. I'm not joking. I read it a few years back. He wanted Guatemala & other to come & bid on repairing/ building roads in the US. Sick, I tell you. It's the same principle as Walmart is using by importing cheap goods from China. It has COST us way too many jobs, hence bad for the economy. I rather pay a few bucks more & keep the jobs in the US.

My solutuion to China & other imports is to put such high tariffs on those items coming in, that it wouldn't be worth for our companies to do business overseas. That is the only way to even the plainfield with the cost of products MFG in the US. We can never compete with a country that pays their employees $1/hour. Let's not feel sorry for those people making so little money by our standards. They are much better off than we are. A loaf of bread is like a Nickel...

All these politicinas talk about changing this or that but they have these hair brain ideas, which are in actuality the opposite of what this country needs. It never benfits the Middle Class & THE people. It's always large companies, which "BUY the politicians" for their benefits.

This rebate money will probably be borrowed from China. As I said, there is no little man in the back room making dollar bills. Guess whose Economy will be stimulated? CHINAs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of you arguing about regional cost of living differences, stop it. It's true that in some tiny town in the bunnies $1200 will go a long way as compared to NY City. However, instead of arguing, we should write to our Congresspeople about this stupid rebate idea & suggest that our bridges are repaired & we have alternative energy instead of having our people die for oil in Iraq.

fairygirl43: "Hey, doesn't this President supposedly have a business degree? Maybe Cracker Jack University didn't offer courses in basic business 101 (or economics 101)"

LOL! The President actually has a "degree" from Yale...in historyand by his own admission, FWIW, he was an average student.

As far as I know, he has no MBA..but then againmost of the traders and analysts and CEOs on Wall St. that facilitated the sub prime mess have MBAs...and most are from the top Ivy League schools.

That said, a degree of any sort, does not preclude one from acting due to out right greedand the desire for the power that comes with bucket loads of $$$$.

Andof course, in terms of the Office of the Presidentwell, lets just say that the President in general is hardly the "decider" that George W. Bush like everyone to believe is the case..there are huge numbers of factors at work, mostly involving and revolving around the entities with the deepest pockets and the control that gives them over the economyand the country.

The President (any President) is merely expected to keep in the game. However, with GWB, I must say that he appears to far more easily manipulated into saying the most absurd things.....and then, actually being proud of doing so.

Andhe was elected twice. That pretty much says it all.

Are other first world nations so dependent upon consumer spending? It's 70% of the US economy. To quote from the song, "How Long Has This Been Going On?"

The 'giveaway' is ridiculous on the face of it. The underlying idea that this is will improve our nation is stupid and pandering.

"Bread and Circuses": The Circus is the Nation -- voters too fat and happy to bother to vote for or monitor their legislators. What percentage of eligible voters VOTE? (I don't want to hear the lame excuses that there's nobody you like, people!) Hard Times are overdue if that's to be corrected. Of course, that's the last thing the elected pigs already at the trough want to see; their donors won't be happy either.

Now, here comes some Bread, meant to distract citizens with trips to WalMart to buy Chinese-produced goods with their Chinese-backed govenrnment bucks. Bread is supposed to make the Circus run on a little bit longer. We'll see. If one thousand dollars (taxable) makes that much difference to ANYONE, we are in much worse shape than we imagine.

I nominate mariend for President! A lot of Americans will have to wake up and take an interest for those reforms to become reality. (Have to take exception to the 'tariffs' part, mariend.)

We're going to use our "rebate" to pay off some of the credit card debt we have (the original plan was to pay off everything when the house sold, but that plan didn't work due to the housing crash and the fact that we got a whole lot less than we ever anticipated - oh well, it's just money). Fortunately, we don't have a lot and will have it all gone within the next 6-7 months.

History can be a wonderful teacher - let's look at what FDR did during the great depression. Why not bring back some of the public works projects to repair our infrastructure (using our own citizens instead of farming it out)? But no more entitlement programs - I think we have enough of "entitlement fever" as it is.

Or as Lewis Black suggests - we build a giant wall between the US and Canada 'cause that's where all the cold air comes from :)

Enjoy :)

"Well, we've got the two camps that were about predictable:
1) The angry the tax cut & rebate is only being applied to those with low income.
2) Those who think anyone with too much income (as defined by them) don't need anymore of their money."

As much as I might have come off as being in the first group, I am actually in another group. If they wanted to actually HELP people they should have formed this as additional food stamps and unemployment, not as a tax rebate. Or how about fuel credits for the elderly poor or working poor? But then Bush wouldn't be able to call it a "tax cut" which he and his cronies are so fixated on. I DO have an issue with them splitting hairs over where the line for need/not need is. Have children? You need. Income over a magical number? Don't need. I would prefer if it were based on ACTUAL need rather than assuming a need based on children/income.

Paul Krugman wrote and article for the NYT that is interesting that touches on this a little.

And yes, Bush has an MBA. From Harvard no less. Gets into Harvard, rejected for UT Law School. Wonder how that happened?

chisue: "What percentage of eligible voters VOTE?"

IMO...the better and far more meaningful question is what percentage of the voters who vote actually take the time to research the candidates for whom they vote...as opposed to just buying into what the candidates tell them while campaigning? Few if any...judging by the extremely bizarre statements made by people in general regarding those they like and don't like.

Or.those who are a party memberand vote for that partys candidate regardless.simply because he or she is a R or a D or whatever

Orthose who vote by a candidates (supposed) religious affiliation?

I could go on ad infinitumbut, one more pointsince everyone knows that politicians lie as a rule, exactly upon what basis does anyone vote that even remotely resembles reality?

Contrary to popular belief, an irresponsible vote is NOT better than no vote at all.an irresponsible vote merely perpetuates the current system that has everyone screaming and unhappy.and bleeding money.

sue36: "And yes, Bush has an MBA. From Harvard no less. Gets into Harvard, rejected for UT Law School. Wonder how that happened?"

ROFLOL!! So much for the prestige of an MBA from Harvard.

Hmmmm...maybe all those Harvard MBA Wall Street folk really didn't know that they were trading garbage...as apparently gaining an MBA via connections without anything beyond basic average abilities and intelligence (at best) is indeed possible....;-)

logic -- You know what? I'd settle for just voting, period. Yes, I'd prefer 'educated' voters, but considering how few of us bother to vote at all...could be a "Wisdom of Crowds" tidal wave would hit if the majority of eligible voters did vote. It isn't so much we are STUPID, but we are LAZY.

mariend -- Sorry, I have to take back my nomination. It's the part of your post that assumes poor kids have poor teachers. Our DIL teaches 8th grade in the inner city in Chicago. If she has three kids in a given year who are interested and able to learn, that's a good year. The problem isn't the schools, it's the poor who come from generations of poor. They are hope-less. They don't value education. They have no real mothers or fathers or family in general. They have nothing and noone and no hope of that changing. Gangs rule.

I do agree that we are losing one of the foundations of a great nation: a high standard of free basic education for every citizen. Now 'everyone' has to have a college degree to be assumed to have the basic facts and skills our grandparents had learned by 12th grade. I'm not opposed to higher education, only to the idea that every kid MUST have it, and largely because their earlier education has been so lacking. I don't expect engineers and physicists and MDs to be produced by Grade 12. I do expect HS graduates to be able to handle the simple white collar tasks that keep the country moving. (Does an insurance underwriter need a college degree? Bank teller? Whatever?)

Re an MBA from Harvard: I have never, ever, heard of anyone getting into ANY graduate school (much less Harvard) with a C- GPA. Doesn't happen. Well, I guess it did, once. But it makes one wonder how it happened.

GW Bush got into Yale as an undergrad as a "legacy" admittance,
His grandfather prescott bush (the nazi financier) was on the BOD of Havard MBA school.

It's not what you know, it's how you're related.

Please excuse my typing errors. I'm not a typist ;) I noticed that I left many typos in my others posts.

College is what YOU make of it. There are many Ivy League colleges that feed lectures on videos, while the professors are busy "publishing" so that the college can get the top 100 rating. Sad but true.

As far as voting is concerned. I'm an Independent because I hate the Parties & the fact that many people vote according to Party lines, right or wrong. How DUMB is that?
It's like they put blinders on & push the lever.
We are in serious trouble & we need someone CAPABLE & EXPERIENCED to get us out of this mess.
From what I'm seeing in the primaries, I am very dissapointed. Americans are superficial. Remember how Bush got elected because the average American would have preferred to have Bush , instead of Gore over for dinner?
In retrospect, Gore couldn't have possibly done as much damage to the country as Dabya did.

Example:

Nobody takes the time to read & really understand what each politician (providing they are telling the truth) means when they say "fix healthcare". They all have HORRIBLE ideas.
Obama is on TV in my state talking about how he has this awesome solution. Yet, when you read his healthcare plan, he basically says IF you don't qualify for MEDICAID, then you can buy into a healthplan. Geez, we can buy into a healthplan TODAY, but it's unaffordable. They just don't get it. We are fooled by misleading TV commercials. Whomever the Media likes, WE start liking...We are so easily manipulated, it's pathetic.

How could the politicians feel our pain? They're all from wealthy backgrounds & don't worry about anything that the rest of us worry about. If they just serve their 4 years, they are all set. They get the SAME salary for the rest of their lives with the BEST HEALTHCARE plan!
I hate when they lie & pretend that they come from a poor background & look you in the eye & make promises.

It's all about whose the most charming, eloquent speaker, good looking... How shallow is that?

KUCINICH is the most honest & wanting to do good for America candidate. Unfortunately, he isn't good looking or charming enough for shallow Americans to take him seriously, so he had to bow out. Oh, let's not forget the RACIAL voting going on in S. Carolina today. Shame on Americans for their stupidity (there are more stupid people than smart ones)& bias! THAT is what gives me a bad taste & apathy.

chisue: "It isn't so much we are STUPID, but we are LAZY."

Or..fed up at being force fed candidates (note how Kucinich was not even permiited to particiapate in the debate).

The bottom line is the only choice one really has when all is said and done is only between those candidates who have been "pre-approved".....which in effect is not really a choice at all..it just makes it seem as if it is...throw the whole electoral college debacle in..as well as the huge issues with credibility on the counts, and the appalling lack of checks and balances, many people may choose not to vote simply to avoid being pawns in the game.

I am going to use my rebate check to buy Dunkin Donuts every day until the money runs out at which time I may need bypass surgery. I will then consult with Binder and Binder and sue the pants off of Dunkin Donuts for $20 millon for causing me pain and suffering plus loss of consortium.

Can you see how easily one can use a simple rebate to invest in corporate America and become wealthy?

Wow, I give a standing ovation for this topic. Looks like we all have better ideas than the so called experts and politicians.

Mariend, you have my vote for president. It looks like you can find some good cabinet appointees on this thread. I sure like more of your points than I do ANY of the candidates for president!

I feel this rebate like the last is bad policy. But, then I think most of what is done, is bad policy. We will not be spending ours, saving it for a rainy day. Think we are going to have a lot of those coming.

Chisue - Maybe, you should reread mariend's post. It seems you might be inferring more into it than what was meant. At least that's not how I read it. Unfortunately, your DIL's school experience is too true in many parts of our country. There is a whole host of problems that contribute to a poor educational system. When someone mentions a valid problem that exist, it does not mean that it negates any other problem.

Our children have had some wonderful educators, most have been average, and quite a few below average. That being said, it's a job I could not do, and I respect what it takes to do it. Frankly, I think we should pay more, and demand better. I don't see it happening, since schools, and school systems are like mini fiefdoms.

Not trying to be argumentative, just mentioning some points.

There honestly is not one candidate at the moment that I feel is good for our country. For the first time in my life, I don't know if I can vote.

Dabunch, I agree with some what you said. But, I don't think Kucinich can cut it either, for one his immigration stance is totally unacceptable. No US citizen should be subsidizing any other US citizen or non citizen.

At this point, I sometimes think we are living through the start of the down fall of the United States. One day it will be the North American Union. All this thanks to a corporate globalist agenda.

I have a question for some of you. Do you think it's possible that the falling dollar could be intentional?
Also, what is the best way of getting rid of programs and elements of government you don't want; but by first breaking it.
Just some thoughts to ponder.

Have a good day

I've often wondered about the falling dollar as well Frances. Just how intentional is it? Given that most of the Bush plans seem to lessen the value of America (dollars, jobs, experience, education) compared to other industrialized countries, I have to wonder if it isn't deliberate. I'd love to go back to the U.K. but we simply can't afford to pay double (especially in England and Scotland who still use the GBP not the Euro although that's gotten more expensive as well).

As a former educator, I can tell you that the system is broken from the top down. Having served on a high school site governance council, I can also tell you that there is a lot of financial waste. IMHO, I still don't really know what superintendents and all their assistants actually do. Personally, I think each school district should have a financial/business manager(s) to handle the fiscal side of things, a school board that comes from the community it serves and each school should have their own site governance council made of school administrators, teachers, parents and students. If the district has a mission and governing rules based on the decisions of the school board, then why do they need a superintendent (plus all of the assistant superintendents)? Instead of cutting arts programs, physical education programs, how about eliminating the fat from several six figure salaries? That could add up to quite a bit of money! And I haven't even gotten into the part about America's schools falling apart (yet another infrastructure problem). We expect our kids to go to school in buildings that we ourselves wouldn't consider working in (some with no A/C, mold problems, inadequate plumbing, electrical problems . . . ) - this goes for teachers and administrators as well.

But as I said earlier, we're always looking for a quick fix. Let's throw money at the problem and it will get better. It didn't work for education during the Johnson administration. It didn't work for the economy after 9/11. It's not going to work now.

Here's a radical idea. Given that we have so much credit problems in this country, how about everyone takes their rebate money and pays down a credit card? And what do you want to bet that some people have already gone out and "spent" that money (on credit no doubt) not knowing that it may as late as August before a check arrives.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox :)

Frances00,

This probably should go under another thread but...I din't even think of illegal immigration. It would be nice to start a thread to see if we can get posters from EVERY state & tell us specific problems their state faces.

Illegal immigration is of no or very little concern in the NE (my state is not affected much). We actually welcome immigrants. ok, I understand that too much of anything is not good for anybody-lol. I understand that the illegals is where it becomes too much.

Immigrants provide good, cheap labor. No, they do not take jobs away from Americans. Not in this part of the country, anyway. Americans do NOT want to do manual labor, trust me. MY BIL has a businees & he would gladly employ an immigrant. He claims they work hard, they pay taxes & they deserve to send their kids to schools & have healthcare. The reason they don't have healthcare is because they don't make enough to afford it, or they work in the landscaping, or business that don't give them benefits...

However, we have a unique problem in our state. We are bogged down by legal emigration. We have many people taking advantage of the state's wealthy give-away programs, therefore we have more people emigrating here & going on welfare & getting free healthcare. Regular, poor working stiffs don't qualify for the state's help, but fresh families arriving do. Go figure.

We used to be a terrific MFG state. Now all the MFG moved out abroad or went out of business.
While the factories were operating, we were recruiting mostly non-English speaking labor (Czeks, Poles, Puerto-ricans...etc). NOW we are stuck with people who don't speak English & don't work. The Europeans assimilated & moved on to other jobs & most became quite succesful. Many of them are small business owners.

However, most of our Latino population(puerto-recans are US citizens) lagged behind, not learning the language, unskilled, hence not employable & more of their families keep coming to join them. They are eligible for all the benefits US has to offer. They tend to have large families, which burden the system. The schools are overcrowded, The kids are not disciplined etc. I guess when you have a lot of kids, it's hard to keep track of them. We keep plunking more money into certain schools without any progrees. After all, parents should start at home... We have a mess.

Not speaking English their employability is limitied & in low wage jobs. Why should they work if our state is very generous? They are getting more free money than they would make working. Unfortunately, all our decent paying jobs have been outsourced. It's the Economy (lack of good paying jobs)that breeds laziness. If i had to work for $7/hr, I would prefer getting a larger FREE check from the state myself. The politicians really need to do soemthing about our good jobs going overseas!!!

It's one thing to have a hard working population utilizing public schools, healthcare etc, and another thing to be paying for services to legal emigration that will never be productive...
We'll switch our in-emigration with your immigration ;)

Question: Is the rebate figured solely on EARNED income -- salary, etc.? Or are we talking all cources of income?

"mfbenson, why should only some TAXPAYERS get the money??? It should be ALL or none...I believe your income should have zero to do with it.."

But does the economy need to have the high-cost-of-living areas stimulated as bad as the low-cost ones? All its going to do is push your cost of living even higher.
"and you comment about "demand tax brackets be lower for your area" is an assinine remark...I pay my taxes just like you, and am not complaining about what i pay.."

Can't say I agree. A tax rebate is just like a lowering of a tax bracket, only in this case it looks like they're only lowering brackets if you're under $175K. I'm not trying to engage in class warfare - I just barely qualify for this rebate myself, its just that your reasoning regarding living in a high cost area doesn't hold water. Look at it as a matter of national policy, not "what's in it for me?" - If you're going to stimulate the economy, stimulate the middle and lower classes.

Alternatively, look at it the cynical way - there are a lot more votes to be bought in the middle and lower classes then there are above $175K.

the problem with that reasoning is that the middle and upper middle class are the drivers of the economy..If the wealthy were to stop spending, it would devast the economy more,imho, then those less fortunate..

The wealthy don't drive the economy. The middle class drives it.

Although this has been an interesting discussion; unfortunately, many of you completely misunderstand the concept of what this rebate actually is. The Government is not spending any money on this and it is not paying you a dime. It is simply doing what it should do in the face of an impending recession: cutting taxes. Tax rates will be reduced for those whose AGI does not exceed a certain threshold. That is all. Period.

Under normal circumstances, this would mean that when you filed your tax returns next year, you would end up paying a smaller amount than you would if the rates hadn't been lowered. However, in order to get the money in taxpayers hands sooner rather than later, the IRS will issue "rebates" this year. All this is, is an advance on next year's tax refund.

And as much as all you armchair economists want to disparage the program, most professional economists on both sides of the aisle agree that putting the equivalent of 1% of the country's GDP in people's hands at one time to spend this summer is an appropriate way to try and stimulate the economy. They only disagree on whether it can be done quick enough to have the desired effect and whether it should be concentrated on those citizens at the lowest ends of the spectrum.

And to rebut an earlier statement on this thread, the rebate is not income and you won't pay taxes on it.

This technical explanation from the U.S. House answers many questions that were raised on this thread about details of the House measure that passed yesterday.