Hutchinson Leader - Poll - Comments

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/

gopher5 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:52:12 -0500

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/08/pf/taxes/rebates_what_you_need_to_know/

This might explain it a little better than me under "Do I have to pay my rebate back?". The reason it could be different is that the initial check will be based on 2007 income but the credit will actually be based on 2008 income so that is why there could be a difference.

This website is also saying

gopher5 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:44:47 -0500

This website is also saying there is going to be a new credit which should equal what you receive ahead of time for most people. So yes it is an advance but it works the same as a rebate, which is why it is being called a rebate, because the new credit is a one time thing. For example, if you don't receive your rebate check and your a married couple, then you will get an extra $1200 on top of the refund you would normally get on your 2008 return. However, if you receive $1200 and the credit that you should have gotten was only $1000, then you would owe an extra $200. It sounds as though the credit should equal what you get for most people so there won't be extra refunds or extra tax owed. I would think the IRS website Q & A should tell you everything you need to know.

Here is the address of the

ThAtSsOrAvEn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:54:52 -0500

Here is the address of the site that is giving out the information that our rebates are only an advance. I am not claiming that they are accurate... just stated what they were reporting.

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/2008-tax-rebate-stimulus-package-e...

ThAtSsOrAvEn, I found

gopher5 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:18:05 -0500

ThAtSsOrAvEn, I found another website that I will post at the bottome of the post. This one has a calculator and shows we were both right in a way. The results are the same as if it would just be a rebate as I described. However, it is actually an advance of a new credit that will appear on the 2008 tax return. So your 2008 return will be the same as if there were no rebate check because the rebate and the new credit will cancel each other out.
http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/01/28/economic-stimulus-tax-re...

That would be an advance. I

gopher5 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:26:57 -0500

That would be an advance. I think it was a few years ago they mailed out advance child tax credits to families with qualifying children. That then reduced their child tax credit on their tax return for that year.

I will check further into

ThAtSsOrAvEn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:18:27 -0500

I will check further into it. It is my understanding of tax law that your refund amount for 2009... based on 2008 earnings will be effected.

I don't know where you got

gopher5 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:09:50 -0500

I don't know where you got your information but here is a link to the IRS Q & A website that says it will neither reduce your 2008 refund nor increase the amount you owe. It would go against the definition of a rebate if it went the way that you described it. Minnesotans received a rebate when Ventura was in office that had nothing to do with your tax liability for that year. It works the same way. The amount each person receives isn't taxable income for 2008 either.

http://www.irs.gov./newsroom/article/0,,id=179181,00.html

I hope everyone is aware

ThAtSsOrAvEn — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:36:10 -0500

I hope everyone is aware that the rebate is only an advance on your next years refund. It is not free money but rather money you will not receive in the future. For example, if a married couple ($1200) with three children ($900) gets a $2100 rebate, that same family will receive $2100 less in their refund the next year.

I'll use the money on

TW — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:38:22 -0500

I'll use the money on gas...just like most everyone else will!!!

Why do we always have to

banderson — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 12:51:23 -0600

Why do we always have to issue bonds? Why can't they balance a budget?

i'm going to pay off some

northoftown — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:58:33 -0600

i'm going to pay off some bills that i've got piling up. i think its irresponsible to go out and make more debt when i can't pay the debt i have now.

Arlyn, you are correct.

Terry Davis — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:06:14 -0600

Arlyn, you are correct. Investing in needed infrastructure was once a favored method of stimulating the economy, before "no new taxes" became the mantra 10-15 years ago. That is now taboo.

Past thinking (and it was somewhat bipartisan at the time) was that investing money that way created construction jobs (among the best paying jobs available for lower skilled workers), while also pouring money into all the industries that provide the materials (cement, lumber, steel, etc), engineering firms and accessory things such as the construction equipment, trucks, dozers, etc.

Those are the very same industries hurting right now because of the slowdown in residential construction. Minnesota is heavily dependent upon the lumber industry and new home components (such as windows). Only the steel industry appears to be healthy (heard today that U.S. Steel is investing in a taconite plant expansion near Keewatin) due to the overseas (not domestic) demand for steel in China and some Middle Eastern sultanates.

But times seem to have changed. Taxes are not longer seen as something that can be used to benefit society as a whole by providing the things we all use — roads, airports, rail lines, education, etc.

So, any suggestions on how to accomplish your idea in the face of the dysfunctionally divided political climate we now have?

(Terry Davis is a Hutchinson Leader staff writer. E-mail him at davis@hutchinsonleader.com.)

Actually only 17% in the

arlyn — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:19:25 -0600

Actually only 17% in the survey plan to spend it on something new. Spending the rebate on something new is what the government wants but if less than 20% of the population use the rebate to buy new things it will be a pretty inefficient program. If the real goal is to help the economy how about putting it into some lasting investments like roads, airports, rail lines or education.

I find this to be

almcitiesgirl — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:15:04 -0600

I find this to be interesting.

The whole reason they are proposing the rebates, is to give money to the people, that is expected to be put back into the economy, to help prevent/dig us out a recession.

If 43% of the people who voted are putting the money into savings, the whole purpose of the rebate is defeated. Money in your savings account won't increase consumer spending, and it won't do what the plan intends to do.

Just an observation...

I agree. Our kids and

JaneDoe_22 — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:48:31 -0600

I agree. Our kids and grandkids will be paying for this long after we are all gone!! If our government wants to kick-start the economy, they need to get a handle on the high price of fuel/gas. Until then, most folks are holding back on spending because they need to fill their gas tanks in order to drive to work daily and fill their fuel oil tanks to keep warm in the winter. Our esteemed leaders in Washington, DC need a lesson in economics, but they seem to be avoiding the real reasons for the poor economy and look to put the blame elsewhere rather than looking right in their back yards!!